Economist: Europe thinks of the impossible for the political nuclear bomb

The fifth of this month, an article by the British Economist magazine dealt with the decision of the French president Emmanuel Macron, the fifth of this month.

In a television speech that day, Macron affirmed his country’s commitment to NATO (NATO) and a partnership with the United States, but at the same time highlighted the need for Europe to make greater efforts to improve its defensive and security independence, and France 24 reported that “the future of Europe in Washington or Moscow should not be determined”.

But the economist says that the discussion announced by the French president faces two problems related to credibility and capacities, noting that Europe has adopted for almost 80 years on the American nuclear umbrella.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Pyjsteve3g

Diplomatic fire

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk took the idea two days after Macron’s speech, saying in a speech in Parliament: “We will be safer if we have our nuclear arsenal,” justifying this with “the deep change that occurs in American political geography”, a reduced expression of what the economist describes as “diplomatic fire” that President Donald triggered.

The article said that the task was not suggested that his country had a nuclear bomb, but rather responded to the invitation of the German Christian Democratic Party, Ferdrich Mertz, to speak with Great Britain and France on “adding a complementary force to the American nuclear shield”.

However, the British magazine describes the extended nuclear deterrence as strange and unnatural, because it requires a state to undertake to use its nuclear forces and the extermination which can result, in the name of another country.

According to the magazine, the difficulty of making such a promise is what prompted America to build a huge nuclear weapon and deploy them worldwide, and British nuclear forces, despite their modesty, are also responsible for defending NATO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?

Nuclear deterrence

France – the only nuclear power in the European Union after the withdrawal of Great Britain – has a more complicated relationship with enlarged deterrence, because it adopted its own nuclear deterrence in the 1950s, assuming that the American umbrella is not reliable.

France has not joined and still does not participate in the nuclear planning group (NPG), a NATO forum in which the Member States discuss nuclear policy.

In 1995, Great Britain and France agreed that “the vital interests of one of them could not be threatened without the vital interests of the other party in danger to the same extent”, that the economist considered an expansion of the French deterrent.

However, President Macron said in 2022 that he would probably not respond if Russia used nuclear weapons in Ukraine, claiming that the interests of his country “will not be at stake if there is a nuclear ballistic attack in Ukraine or the region”.

With this sentence, it seemed excluded from the protection of the countries of Eastern Europe, which are allies of the European Union and NATO, according to the British magazine, which indicated that Macron has taken – since then – a hard trend and has succeeded in rebuilding relations with these countries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygxhnlimudq

Nuclear cooperation

European allies are now wondering about the measure that Macron could be ready to go, as the Polish Prime Minister told journalists that he wanted to know the details of what the French president means in his speech the possibility of using nuclear weapons.

The magazine understood Donald Tusk’s statements that he could allow a formula that gives his country powers in the launch of these weapons.

But Macron apparently excluded any possibility of granting other countries such as these powers, confirming that French nuclear deterrence is “a sovereign and French weapon from start to finish”.

There are legal obstacles in this regard.

Another way – as mentioned in the article – consists in quoting the American approach to extended deterrence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57p482me6yk

Not easy

But the Air Force in Belgium, Germany, Greece, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey trains to transport and connect them using double capacity planes.

Perhaps the worst possibilities-which are probably some officials-is to cut America, in which case Great Britain can keep the missiles in its possession, perhaps for a few years.

However, the economist believes that the future plans of Great Britain for warheads and submarines will not be applicable, so one of the options available for London is to revive the idea of ​​cooperation with France.

Macron’s strategic debate is still at its beginnings, explains Hiloie Fayy of the French Institute of International Relations in Paris, adding that “there is no propagation of French nuclear weapons outside French territory”.

The magazine has concluded that these words can thwart people like the Polish Prime Minister, who believes that there is a crisis about to occur.

She concluded by saying that American president Donald Trump had raised the deepest discussions on the use of nuclear capacities since the 1950s.