Economist: Europe is considering the impossible for the nuclear bomb

On the fifth of this month, an article in the British Economist magazine dealt with the decision of French President Emmanuel Macron, on the fifth of this month.

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

But Economist says that the discussion announced by the French President is facing two problems related to credibility and capabilities, noting that Europe has been adopting for nearly 80 years on the American nuclear umbrella.

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

Diplomatic fire

Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk picked up the idea two days after Macron’s speech, saying in a speech to 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 Economist describes as “the diplomatic fire” that US President Donald Trump sparked.

The article stated that 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 hold talks with Britain and France on “adding a complementary force to the American Nuclear Shield.”

However, the British magazine describes the expanded nuclear deterrent as strange and unnatural, because it requires a state to pledge to use its nuclear forces and the extermination that may result from it, on behalf of another country.

According to the magazine, the difficulty of fulfilling such a promise is what prompted America to build a huge nuclear weapon and deploy them all over the world, and the British nuclear forces, despite their modesty, are also charged with defending NATO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t-ffirngwm

Nuclear deterrence

France – the only nuclear power within the European Union after Britain’s withdrawal from it – has a more complicated relationship with expanded deterrence, as it adopted its own nuclear deterrent in the 1950s, assuming that the American umbrella is unreliable.

France has not joined and still does not participate in the Nuclear Planning Group (NPG), a NATO forum in which member states discuss nuclear policy.

In 1995, Britain and France agreed that “the vital interests of one of them could not be threatened without the vital interests of the other party being at risk to the same extent,” which Economist considered an expansion of the French deterrent horizon.

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

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

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

Nuclear cooperation

European allies are now wondering about the extent that Macron may be ready to go to, as the Polish Prime Minister told reporters 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 from Donald Tusk’s statements that it may allow a formula that gives his country some powers in launching these weapons.

But Macron apparently excluded any possibility to grant other countries such as these powers, confirming that the French nuclear deterrent is “a sovereign and French weapon from its beginning to the end.”

There are legal obstacles in this regard. If Britain or France wants to transfer guardianship and control their nuclear weapons, or if non -nuclear states want to build new nuclear weapons, they will have to withdraw from the Treaty of the non -spread or violation of nuclear weapons.

Another path – as mentioned in the article – is to quote the American approach to expanded deterrence. The United States has long published 180 B61 tactical nuclear bombs or so in Europe, and these bombs are still under US control.

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

Not easy

But the Air Force in Belgium, Germany, Greece, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey are training to carry and connect them using double capacity aircraft.

Perhaps the worst possibilities – which is likely to be a few officials – is to cut off America, in which case Britain can keep the missiles in its possession, perhaps for a few years.

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

Macron’s strategic debate is still in its early stages, says Hiloise Fayy of the French Institute for International Relations in Paris, adding that “there is no talk about spreading French nuclear weapons outside French territory.”

The magazine concluded that these words may thwart the likes of the Polish Prime Minister, who believes that there is a crisis about to happen.

She concluded by saying that US President Donald Trump raised the most deep discussions about the use of nuclear capabilities since the 1950s.