3 ms·
It limits both sides involved in a conflict from using nuclear weapons first. As history has clearly shown, it doesn't do much to prevent conventional wars, es
by Aloisius 9mo ago
It limits both sides involved in a conflict from using nuclear weapons first.
As history has clearly shown, it doesn't do much to prevent conventional wars, especially involving third parties.
I don't think anyone in power truly believes that France would actually use nuclear weapons to protect Italy during a conventional war against a nuclear power when France itself isn't in danger - let alone in a war Italy started. That's a no-win scenario for France.
- saubeidl 9mo agoItaly isn't a third party. They're both EU states. French nuclear doctrine is specifically the only one with nuclear first strikes as response to conventional threats.
- solenoid0937 9mo agoIf push comes to shove, I believe France is incredibly unlikely to actually attack the US with nuclear weapons regardless of what happens to Italy. Doctrines and policies are meaningless under pressure. Would France risk global nuclear armageddon and the near-extinction of humanity for Italy? Almost certainly not, regardless of what their "doctrine" says.
- saubeidl 9mo agoIf the US attacks Italy, humanity is already lost.
- solenoid0937 9mo agoFully agreed. We are just discussing hypotheticals.
- Aloisius 9mo agoThey are a third party. The EU isn't a country, it's an association and it's clear that solitary between member countries only goes so far. We saw what happened when France triggered the mutual defense clause in the EU charter after the terrorist attacked. Even when they all but begged other EU states to help them, they were rebuffed. There's little reason to believe France would behave any differently if the roles had been reversed in the especially if there was any real risk to themselves if they got involved.
- saubeidl 9mo agoThe EU isn't an association, it's a Union.