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.

  • bob_lemon@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours 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.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 hours 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)

    • remon@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 hours ago

      If one side only loses 1 or 2 cities, you do not have mutual assured destruction. And the loss of 2 cities is really not much compared to the general losses in conventional war. So no, that’s absolutly not enough deterrent.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 hours ago

        There is no Russia without Moscow and St. Petersburg as that’s the imperial core. Without central authority to enforce unity by force the rest would instantly splinter.

      • bob_lemon@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Moscow has 11 million inhabitants. That’s half the Soviet losses in WWII, which were insanely high.

        It’s about the total losses of the Axis powers over the spam of the entire war.

        What the fuck are you talking about?

        • remon@ani.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Russia has 140 million people and is demonstrably not to concerned about their well-being. I would it past Putin to sacrifice 11 million people if it meant Russia was the only nuclear armed superpower left standing.

          Destorying a city or two, even if it’s the capital, will not destory a countries military or industrial capabilities. You can’t have mutual assured destuction of only one side actually has the capability to destroy the other.

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 hours ago

            That’s correct, although the stuff he personally cares about is in the two big cities. You’re right that it’s not MAD exactly, but it’s more of a deterrent than it would be if this was DC and New York, or Paris and London.