UK is not even in the EU any longer and France having nukes is not an "EU nuclear force".

If France consider the EU being one of it's 'vital strategic interest', you can consider EU to have 289 nukes available. Not 290, because the first one will be used as a 'warning shot'.

This is classic dilemma in nuclear strategy: would France risk Paris to defend Warsow, or Berlin (by using nuclear weapons)?

A similar dilemma: will the US risk New York to save Paris?

France did not believe that the US would risk New York to save Paris.

So France developed it's own nuclear deterrent.

I leave the rest as an exercise to the reader.

You're correct. They wouldn't. The US and France would not nuke Russia if it invaded Poland or Germany. But that isn't necessarily true if Russia invaded the US or France (and had a chance of winning).

>Warsow

Wtf

It seems pretty clear that yes. Probably won't do the warning shot until a EU city where a french embassy/school is present is bombed, but clearly yes.

Post-95 french doctrine refuse the use of nuke as a tactical weapon, so i guess supply lines or military airports would be the targets of subsequent nukes, but we have generals who grew with the idea of using tactical nukes, and i'm pretty sure the possibility is still studied at St-Cyr.

French will say "we won't bomb Russia, but do you think we can bomb your territory, close to the border, on this train station/close to this airport?" It will probably be refused, until its _really_ needed.

Russia (and US) doctrine of only using nuke if their territory is nuked does not work in an offensive war.

The UK is still in Europe, it has a lot of interest in keeping Europe as a whole safe and defended. France is tightly integrated and dependent on the EU, being a nuclear force makes the EU as a whole a nuclear force.

Unless you believe France and the UK would leave the rest of Europe hanging to dry in case of a nuclear exchange, if you think so I'd first question why.

It is generally believed by people who study nuclear strategy that this in fact does not work.

Imagine Russia invades Poland. Will the UK Nuke Moscow? Probably not - because Russia would surely retaliate, on the UK!

Imagine Russia nukes Paris. Does the UK Nuke Moscow? Probably not! For the same reason.

As always, yes minister got it all right: https://youtu.be/3OpsP-gz_00?si=_uKmwkZUbE_fTNCM

I have read some experts views a while back and as far as I understood it’s more complicated. Suppose that Russia launches nukes for The Netherlands or South-West Germany, it’s likely that the UK/France will retaliate ‘just in case’ because it’s not immediately clear if the nukes are not destined for the UK/France.

But yeah, Poland/East Germany is probably too far away and there will be debates about nuclear sharing.

The European nuclear arsenal isn't for countering Russian invasion, it's for MAD. If Russia tried to invade poland, they get kicked out by Nato conventional forces instantly (and probably take Kalliningrad while they're at it). If, OTOH, France's nukes are to prevent Russia from using nukes.

There is no European nuclear arsenal. There is a French nuclear arsenal. It functions to deter other countries from using nuclear weapons against France.

Are you going to create a new account for every comment?