Europe's Nuclear Trilemma:Difficult and Dangerous Options for Post-US Deterrence

Re:Europe's Nuclear Trilemma:Difficult and Dangerous Options... by tomatotomato37 on Monday March 31, 2025 @03:18PM (#43538693)

That only works if you have US/Russia level nuclear infrastructure. Second-tier nuclear states are still vulnerable to the two superpowers just by sheer number advantage, be it warheads, delivery systems, or just the land area to hide things like VLF arrays

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Europe's Nuclear Trilemma:Difficult and Dangerous Options... by kazen44 on Monday March 31, 2025 @03:28PM (#43538828)

this is also the reason why french nuclear doctrine is so offensive. the force de dissuasion specifically allows for a nuclear "warning shot". A small nuclear warhead which is to be used against conventional forces to show the enemy france means bussiness and this is the last and final warning prior to Armageddon.

It also forces all major nuclear powers to act in some way if it is ever used. It allows france to wield a far larger stick compared to its nuclear arsenal.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Europe's Nuclear Trilemma:Difficult and Dangerous Options... by rsynnott on Monday March 31, 2025 @05:34PM (#43540232)

France has, apparently, 290 deployed nukes, mostly on SLBMs. Probably enough to give Moscow _some_ pause.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Europe's Nuclear Trilemma:Difficult and Dangerous Options... by hcfman on Tuesday April 01, 2025 @03:10AM (#43543734)

All of these ideas have the presumption of reason being applied. If reason is thrown out the window the nukes are meaningless and only endangering the planet.

It's like better the entire existence of the planet that the other guy is reasonable. I don't like the odds and consequences of that bet.

[ Parent | on HN ]