Comments by "Nigel Johnson" (@nigeljohnson9820) on "Macron calls for coordinated EU nuclear defence strategy — with France at centre" video.

  1. Does anyone really think french are to be trusted any more than NATO. This just confirms the content of many of my posts over the past few years. France lacks the financial muscle of Germany, so is making a bid for the leadership of the EU based on the strength of its military. It is taking advantage of the UK leaving the EU, as the UK was the only other nuclear power in Europe. France wants to be seen as the replacement for the NATO nuclear umbrella. In practice, it is decades behind the US nuclear capabilities. What is really a problem is that France does not represent the same deterrent as the US, for while potential aggressors, such as Russia might doubt french resolve to turn Europe into a nuclear waste land, there was never any doubt that the selfish vested interests of the US, would be happy to do so. France won't be offering to give other member states its nuclear technology, it will expect them to buy french conventional weapon systems, and agree to fight in EU wars, instigated by the French government. We can expect German opersition to this proposal, as the Germans will see it for what it is: an EU power grab. It has been sign posted as such for months.
    3
  2.  Denise Bond  I think you maybe right, but maybe not for the reason you suggest. The longer the EU exists, the more likely there is of a civil war. A war between the states of a federal Europe. Before that the French may precipitate a war. It is not their intention, Macron sees military power and sabre rattling as a way to gain control over the EU. I think he would also like the Prestige that might result in being seen as an equal partner in some limited police action of the US. Had plans for the EU military been more advanced, the EU might have been more involved in Syria and certainly in facing the Russians over the invasion of Crimea. The latter could easily resulted in a nuclear war, though some might claim the Russia would have backed down if faced with a euro army. I suspect not. The EU military project is potentially very profitable for the French/German military complex, with lot of weapons sales to other EU states, justified by the need for necessary standardisation. The Galileo Project is an example of advanced planning for such a force. Initially the french just want EU validation for small police actions in Africa, in defence of French interests. The risk is that the Europeans manage to convince themselves of their military superiority and competencies. In practice they are no match for the old players, such as Russia and the US, both of which have a seventy year technical lead over a unified EU military. The Chinese could easily out class an EU military. Then there is the risk of the rogue players such as North Korea, Pakistan, India and potentially, Iran and the hidden players such as Israel. The temptation for the EU is to try and play international policeman, as the US has done, and to some extent the UK. The EU might be so over confident that it backs up its mostly ineffective diplomacy and sanctions with the threat of using its new found military forces. At best this will involve the European continent in a bloody conventional war, at worse it triggers a limited nuclear exchange. Certainly confronting Russia or China could do this, but so could the mad man in North Korea. It is not difficult to think of scenarios where the EU unintentionally involves itself in a war. They might confront Chinese expansionism in the south China sea or russian expansionism as it tries to regain control over the USSRs former acolytes. The EU itself is expanding, which is why Russia invaded the Ukraine. The point is that the EU (Europe) has largely avoided war because it was considered to be mostly harmless. The French plan will change the status of the EU to slightly dangerous. Before accepting the French as the EUs new protector, the other member states must consider if France would really fire its nuclear missiles in their defence, thus making France a prime target in any exchange. I suspect the answer is no, as french weapons are for the last resort defence of France. This is in marked contrast to NATO and the US. Where the Americans always planned to fight any limited nuclear war with the Russians in europe.( Well documented in declassified cold war records). Perversely the US willingness to sacrifice Europe, particularly Germany, to nuclear fire is what made Europe safe for 70 years, that and the fact that Europe was not a real threat to anyone. Change that status and war is inevitable.
    2
  3.  @bobbya8628  don't be silly, the EU is no more than an aggressive flock of sheep. The EU army will always be the poor relation. It is no match for Russia,China or the US. It can pretend and posture, but if threatened it will cave in. Do you really believe that French nuclear weapons will be used for anything other than defending France. Macron is painting a big nuclear target on France. The idea that the EU will be some forth super military power is just nonsense. In any conflict the member states will just be picked off one by one. For a start most are unwilling to spend the amount required to catch up with Russia and the US, both of which can deploy a complete range of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Secondly, the EU model of warfare is out of date, they are still thinking in 20th century terms. If NATO is obsolete it is for the same reason. The real problem is that Macron is empire building, and he is not looking for defence, he wants to attack. He wants the EU to be able to project force. To intervene in conflicts around the world for the sake of prestige. The argument goes something like this: if you want to use conventional military weapons, it is necessary to have nuclear weapons so that you are not forced to back down when threatened with them. No one in their right mind is going to use them for anything other than the ultimate defence, since they rely on mutually assured destruction. The exception was the cold war confrontation of the US and Russia, where they contemplated a limited nuclear war waged in western Europe. This may have been why NATO was so successful in keeping the peace in Europe. An EU army will not make the EU safer, it will lead it into war.
    1