4 ms·

If you're a current nuclear planner in the UK/France, you're planning for the distinct possibility of the US being a no-show in terms of nuclear umbrella. (Or a

If you're a current nuclear planner in the UK/France, you're planning for the distinct possibility of the US being a no-show in terms of nuclear umbrella. (Or any assistance) The US has lost and continues to lose huge amounts of credibility over the last two years. The damage is bad enough that even if we fix the current problem, any reasonable person will assume that we'll just repeat a similar wave of stupidity at some later election. Combine that with the fact that Russia is actively trying to cleave Eastern Europe from Central Europe, and you really can't propose unilateral disarmament without also suggesting Europe pledge fealty to Putin. Disarmament requires stability. We (the US) shat a giant orange turd onto that idea. And not only is disarmament not happening, as non-proliferation policy continues to crumble, nuclear armament will more and more move to smaller states who need a credible threat of "Well, then we'll take you with us" to larger regional forces. After Iran gets there, the next Domino in that region is likely Turkey.

AndrewKemendo 8y ago
If you're a current nuclear planner in the UK/France, you're planning for the distinct possibility of the US being a no-show in terms of nuclear umbrella. (Or any assistance) This is a much bolder claim than I think people outside of the NBC world would realize and seems to have insider knowledge. Especially given the UK and France are nuclear powers. Can you provide any Open Source documentation of this attitude being the trend? I'm not disagreeing I'm just curious.
- michaelt 8y ago
  There were fears at the height of the cold war that the US wouldn't launch their nuclear weapons if soviet tanks literally entered Paris because of the resulting mutually assured destruction. This lead to the formation of ideas like the tripwire force [1]. If you're interested in such topics, I can recommend "The Strategy of Conflict" by Thomas C. Schelling. If there were credibility problems then, when America was on a much more martial and pro-free-europe footing, the situation is hardly any better now. Although there is a lot less fear of Russian tanks entering Paris, certainly! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripwire_force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripwire_force
- groby_b 8y ago
  For France, this is a good starting point: https://www.csis.org/analysis/understanding-implications-frances-strategic-review-defense-and-national-security https://www.csis.org/analysis/understanding-implications-fra... Quoth: The Strategic Review focuses on preserving France’s strategic autonomy, which is centered on maintaining and updating a credible maritime and air-based nuclear deterrent Will France say publicly that they don't trust the US? Not in so many words, no. But given that Trump refused to reaffirm article 5, read the following sentence: At the Warsaw and Brussels NATO summits, France decisively and unambiguously reaffirmed its commitment to NATO’s Article 5 and mutual assistance. Unless you subscribe to the reality TV school of diplomacy, this is quite clear.
mieseratte 8y ago
> The US has lost and continues to lose huge amounts of credibility over the last two years. > Disarmament requires stability. We (the US) shat a giant orange turd onto that idea. One could reasonably argue this goes back to the Ukranian conflict. The previous administration hardly bolstered the notion that the US would hold up to promises and supposed red lines.
- mikeash 8y ago
  Is this based on the misconception that the US violated the Budapest Memorandum by not defending Ukraine? For some reason this idea has a lot of traction, but the agreement doesn’t actually require the signatories to defend Ukraine from a non-nuclear attack, it merely prohibits them from attacking. Russia has violated the agreement but the US has no obligations to act on that.
  - mieseratte 8y ago
    Yes and no, and I suppose it is a bit misleading on my part to not explicitly clarify in the original post. (One cannot simply post on HN...) The US need not, contractually, support the Ukraine but it makes one realize that the US isn't the World's Police and a defender like some have believed. Nations need fend for themselves. That, of course, is not the only foreign policy / military issue which highlighted US pullback from global policing actions. At least overt, in-the-news, type actions, as various special forces type operations are going on all the time. The point is, the US populous is seemingly tired of the forever wars and politicians and their supporting media have grown wise to keep things under the rug as much as possible.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      I don’t understand. The US has never played world police in any sort of blanket fashion. It’s always been subject to whims and almost always limited to situations where it serves our interests in some way (or at least the interests of those in power). I don’t see how there would have been any expectation of US intervention in Ukraine given our past behavior. You immediately followed the Ukraine reference with “The previous administration hardly bolstered the notion that the US would hold up to promises and supposed red lines.” But there were no promises or red lines. Was that intended as a separate point?

AndrewKemendo 8y ago

If you're a current nuclear planner in the UK/France, you're planning for the distinct possibility of the US being a no-show in terms of nuclear umbrella. (Or any assistance) This is a much bolder claim than I think people outside of the NBC world would realize and seems to have insider knowledge. Especially given the UK and France are nuclear powers. Can you provide any Open Source documentation of this attitude being the trend? I'm not disagreeing I'm just curious.

michaelt 8y ago
There were fears at the height of the cold war that the US wouldn't launch their nuclear weapons if soviet tanks literally entered Paris because of the resulting mutually assured destruction. This lead to the formation of ideas like the tripwire force [1]. If you're interested in such topics, I can recommend "The Strategy of Conflict" by Thomas C. Schelling. If there were credibility problems then, when America was on a much more martial and pro-free-europe footing, the situation is hardly any better now. Although there is a lot less fear of Russian tanks entering Paris, certainly! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripwire_force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripwire_force
groby_b 8y ago
For France, this is a good starting point: https://www.csis.org/analysis/understanding-implications-frances-strategic-review-defense-and-national-security https://www.csis.org/analysis/understanding-implications-fra... Quoth: The Strategic Review focuses on preserving France’s strategic autonomy, which is centered on maintaining and updating a credible maritime and air-based nuclear deterrent Will France say publicly that they don't trust the US? Not in so many words, no. But given that Trump refused to reaffirm article 5, read the following sentence: At the Warsaw and Brussels NATO summits, France decisively and unambiguously reaffirmed its commitment to NATO’s Article 5 and mutual assistance. Unless you subscribe to the reality TV school of diplomacy, this is quite clear.

mieseratte 8y ago

> The US has lost and continues to lose huge amounts of credibility over the last two years. > Disarmament requires stability. We (the US) shat a giant orange turd onto that idea. One could reasonably argue this goes back to the Ukranian conflict. The previous administration hardly bolstered the notion that the US would hold up to promises and supposed red lines.

mikeash 8y ago
Is this based on the misconception that the US violated the Budapest Memorandum by not defending Ukraine? For some reason this idea has a lot of traction, but the agreement doesn’t actually require the signatories to defend Ukraine from a non-nuclear attack, it merely prohibits them from attacking. Russia has violated the agreement but the US has no obligations to act on that.
- mieseratte 8y ago
  Yes and no, and I suppose it is a bit misleading on my part to not explicitly clarify in the original post. (One cannot simply post on HN...) The US need not, contractually, support the Ukraine but it makes one realize that the US isn't the World's Police and a defender like some have believed. Nations need fend for themselves. That, of course, is not the only foreign policy / military issue which highlighted US pullback from global policing actions. At least overt, in-the-news, type actions, as various special forces type operations are going on all the time. The point is, the US populous is seemingly tired of the forever wars and politicians and their supporting media have grown wise to keep things under the rug as much as possible.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    I don’t understand. The US has never played world police in any sort of blanket fashion. It’s always been subject to whims and almost always limited to situations where it serves our interests in some way (or at least the interests of those in power). I don’t see how there would have been any expectation of US intervention in Ukraine given our past behavior. You immediately followed the Ukraine reference with “The previous administration hardly bolstered the notion that the US would hold up to promises and supposed red lines.” But there were no promises or red lines. Was that intended as a separate point?