5 ms·

The US and France are both nuclear armed, including nuclear armed submarines, which are the ultimate defence deterrent. It's hard to see any country wanting to

The US and France are both nuclear armed, including nuclear armed submarines, which are the ultimate defence deterrent. It's hard to see any country wanting to get into conventional war with China, regardless of size of army and airforce - even the US is not going to do it unless actually attacked. At the end of the day if China seizes Taiwan (something Trump has made more likely by his seizing of Venezuala, now talking about Greenland, Cuba ..), then the US will just complain, create trade sanctions and/or tarrifs etc.

boricj 10mo ago
> The US and France are both nuclear armed, including nuclear armed submarines, which are the ultimate defence deterrent. Except for France's ASMP-A nuclear warning shot (which is not a tactical option by the way), all other independent European nuclear options (French or British SSBNs) are not only strategic, but they imply wiping entire countries off the map. All options also depend on whether the French President or the British Prime Minister decides that this course of action is warranted. If Trump indeed invades Greenland, shoving a French-made nuclear fireball in front of an American carrier battle group off the coast of Greenland would probably not be our first option. Besides the massive political cost of breaking the nuclear taboo, if kinetic actions are deemed necessary, deterrent also comes in conventional varieties. Also, while the British nuclear deterrent might be operationally independent, it relies on American-supplied Trident missiles.
- HarHarVeryFunny 10mo ago
  I was really thinking of a standalone Europe's deterrence against attack by Russia or China, not using them against the US!
  - boricj 10mo ago
    If you asked De Gaulle, it'd be deterrence against anyone.
- orwin 10mo ago
  I'm pretty sure ASMPA-R is precise enough to be considered tactical, and the fallout small enough to easily consider its firing over blue water. Yes, the number of French tactical (sorry, "pre-strategic") nuke is limited (around 50), but i think that's enough of a detterent.
  - boricj 10mo ago
    It's not about the precision, it's the yield. We've divested our tactical options back in the 1990s because our nuclear policy is one of strict sufficiency and all our nukes are above a hundred kilotons of TNT. That doesn't leave a lot of room to thread any needle. Also, our nuclear doctrine says that it's a nuclear warning shot, meaning that the next step on the ladder is French-delivered Armageddon by SSBNs. We're not supposed to keep lobbing them in case of a persistent problem.

boricj 10mo ago

> The US and France are both nuclear armed, including nuclear armed submarines, which are the ultimate defence deterrent. Except for France's ASMP-A nuclear warning shot (which is not a tactical option by the way), all other independent European nuclear options (French or British SSBNs) are not only strategic, but they imply wiping entire countries off the map. All options also depend on whether the French President or the British Prime Minister decides that this course of action is warranted. If Trump indeed invades Greenland, shoving a French-made nuclear fireball in front of an American carrier battle group off the coast of Greenland would probably not be our first option. Besides the massive political cost of breaking the nuclear taboo, if kinetic actions are deemed necessary, deterrent also comes in conventional varieties. Also, while the British nuclear deterrent might be operationally independent, it relies on American-supplied Trident missiles.

HarHarVeryFunny 10mo ago
I was really thinking of a standalone Europe's deterrence against attack by Russia or China, not using them against the US!
- boricj 10mo ago
  If you asked De Gaulle, it'd be deterrence against anyone.
orwin 10mo ago
I'm pretty sure ASMPA-R is precise enough to be considered tactical, and the fallout small enough to easily consider its firing over blue water. Yes, the number of French tactical (sorry, "pre-strategic") nuke is limited (around 50), but i think that's enough of a detterent.
- boricj 10mo ago
  It's not about the precision, it's the yield. We've divested our tactical options back in the 1990s because our nuclear policy is one of strict sufficiency and all our nukes are above a hundred kilotons of TNT. That doesn't leave a lot of room to thread any needle. Also, our nuclear doctrine says that it's a nuclear warning shot, meaning that the next step on the ladder is French-delivered Armageddon by SSBNs. We're not supposed to keep lobbing them in case of a persistent problem.