Why Europe cannot rely on French nuclear umbrella alone
www.ft.com
France’s president opens debate over using country’s atomic arsenal as a deterrent against Russia if US scales back its presence

Archive: https://archive.is/2025.03.18-050128/https://www.ft.com/content/7fed8f2b-98c7-43c6-88b3-d66be449bfac

Macron has repeatedly stressed that a French president would always have ultimate power to decide whether to use the bomb — the same applies to Britain and the US within Nato.

Together, British and French nuclear capabilities would at least make Moscow think twice about attacking, said a senior western official.

However, “what really influences Russian decision-making is the scale of US deterrence”, he said. Europe would need at least a decade of spending at around 6-7 per cent of GDP if it wanted to emulate that and acquire another 1,000 warheads, he added.

  • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    13·
    7 months ago

    Brits have for a long time had enough nukes to destroy Moscow (and Sankt-Petersburg?) sometimes this is called “Moscow criterion”. French nuclear arsenal is larger

    • bob_lemon@feddit.orgEnglish
      6·
      7 months ago

      That sounds like a reasonable amount of nukes. If the threat of losing one or two major cities isn’t deterrent enough, were in absolute lunatic territory anyways, and no amount of more nukes will deter any further.

      • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        7·
        7 months ago

        The French have been always pretty explicit about it:

        Within ten years, we shall have the means to kill 80 million Russians. I truly believe that one does not light-heartedly attack people who are able to kill 80 million Russians, even if one can kill 800 million French, that is if there were 800 million French.

        (De Gaulle in 70s)