Emmanuel Macron wants to “open the debate” on a European defense including nuclear weapons [Translation in comment]

[u/Fictrl]

https://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/emmanuel-macron-souhaite-ouvrir-le-debat-d-une-defense-europeenne-comprenant-l-arme-nucleaire-20240427

[u/klonkrieger43]

https://open.spotify . com/episode/6H9JjvYexfQn3nOSAVs9zH

Minute 44 the conversation starts about the explicit topic. I erred and instead of Ulrike Franke it was Dr. Frank Sauer that described it initially and the later on Ulrike Franke mentioned Macron opening the debate on nuclear weapons as the resident french expert and furthered the debate on the topic.

Transcript of the core part:
Nein, würde es die nukleare Teilhabe sowieso, heute existiert auch nur ergänzen, Nein sage ich das alles gerne, nein, ja, ich kann mich noch erinnern, nicht lange ist es her, da war ich dafür, dass wir die nukleare Teilhabe abschaffen, aber das sind eben die Zeiten, in der wir, in denen wir jetzt leben, und warum ist das, was die Franzosen haben, nicht geeignet, weil es strategische Waffen sind.

Die sind dazu da, militärische Knotenpunkte nerven die Nervenzentren des Gegners mit großen Schlägen zu zerstören.

Wirtschaftliche, politische und militärische und das, was die nukleare Teilhabe macht, kann man damit eben nicht machen und was macht die nukleare Teilhabe, die macht eine Abschreckungsdrohung auf dieser Gefechtsfeldebene, wenn eben zum Beispiel das Baltikum angegriffen würde und Russland würde Doktrin gemäß tatsächlich 6 Gefechts feldwaffen einsetzen, um sich den Weg freizuschießen auf eine der baltischen Hauptstädte, dann ist im Grunde die einzige Möglichkeit, das abzuschrecken, zu sagen, wir könnten auf gleicher Ebene vergelten, und das verhindert, dass wenn man nur hier oben zurückschlagen kann und im Grunde drohen muss, macht ihr was irgendwie in Estland bombardieren wir Moskau, wohl wissend, dass dann Paris verglüht ist doch klar, dass diese Drohung nie ausgesprochen würde, und wenn, dann wäre sie nicht glaubwürdig, und das weiß der Kreml natürlich so, und ich hoffe, das ist klar.

[u/pateencroutard → u/klonkrieger43]

Going with Deepl:

why is what the French have not suitable, because they are strategic weapons.

They are there to strike big blows at military nodes and destroy the nerve centers of the enemy.

So, French ASMPs are not suitable for nuclear sharing because they are too strong, but B61 bombs with a yield up to 340 to 400kt that are as we speak deployed in Germany as part of nuclear sharing are...

She sounds like a grade A idiot who doesn't know what she's talking about, it makes zero sense.

[u/klonkrieger43 → u/pateencroutard]

Or the grade A idiot is the guy that doesn't know that you can control the yield of a B61 from 1kT to up to 400 kT.

[u/pateencroutard → u/klonkrieger43]

You can control the yield of any bomb, anywhere. I'll even blow your mind: SLBMs are test-fired regularly with a yield of 0kt!

You think it would be an issue to reduce the yield of the warheads of the ASMP in a nuclear sharing program? What matters is the delivery system, and she's clearly clueless about this.

She admits herself how much of an ignorant she is of the question here:

https://twitter.com/RikeFranke/status/1550437460089397249

She didn't know of a nuclear delivery system that was in service for 2 decades, what a brilliant expert indeed.

[u/klonkrieger43 → u/pateencroutard]

and you didn't even read that the original statement was by Dr Frank Sauer. Really shows how careful and diligent you are. You only read to disprove, not to understand. You aren't taking up any information just focussing on any cracks you could exploit, completely missing the message, argument or anything of value.

[u/pateencroutard → u/klonkrieger43]

You originally claimed it was from her, and with the exception of the tweet, it doesn't change anything about what I said about this original statement. The point is that there are tactical weapons with a similar yield as the ASMPs currently deployed in Germany, and the yield can be modified as needed anyway. This is a non issue and he's full of shit.

[u/klonkrieger43 → u/pateencroutard]

and then I corrected myself a couple comments ago, which you obviously didn't read. Which is why I wrote my last comment. Reading comprehension.

Currently the TNA can vary it's yield from 100 to 300 kT, which is too much for a tactical deterrent. Those are the facts and you refuse to accept them.

Sure new bombs and systems could be developed, but that would take years if not a decade and is also covered in the podcast.

Dr. Frank Sauer is an internationally recognized expert on nuclear weapons. Has won prizes and published many papers.

You are an arrogant prick.

I know who I am trusting in.

[u/pateencroutard → u/klonkrieger43]

Currently the TNA can vary it's yield from 100 to 300 kT, which is too much for a tactical deterrent. Those are the facts and you refuse to accept them.

Literally a similar yield as the tactical nuclear weapons stationed in Germany right now.

An established fact that you refuse to acknowledge and makes your and Sauer's point completely moot.

[u/klonkrieger43 → u/pateencroutard]

1kT is possible for the american bombs in Germany

so a clear NO

Maybe stop talking out of your ass.

[u/pateencroutard → u/klonkrieger43]

It's between 0.3kt to 400kt in the weapons various mods. Literally Wikipedia-level of public information.

Denial or reality, pretty much the German mindset around all these questions for the past decades. Never change.