Thinking about the linkage btwn possible future French deployment of nuclear weapons to other European states & threat of nuclear use. The original intent of US forward-deployed forces was to makenuclear first use more credible, but what does French fwd deployment sumbolize? Probably not that.

Thinking back to my proposal of an Anglo-French nuclear deterrent for Europe that I wrote last March. Macron's scheme is naturally less expansive, but Rome wasn't built in a day and his speech was a big step in the right direction.

PM Tusk: Poland is in talks with France and a group of closest European allies on the programme of advanced nuclear deterrence. We are arming up together with our friends so that our enemies will never dare to attack us.

The contrast between the US SecDef belittling European allies and the French president outlining a forward-deterrent scheme for Europe today is quite something.

Interesting from an institutional standpoint: France-UK Nuclear Steering Group was first & could be seen as unique arrangement between Europe's two nuclear powers. France-Germany NSG could create a new dynamic: France as central node of Euro nuclear-consultative mechanisms with UK, Germany, others.

Joint declaration of President Macron and Chancellor Merz on closer Franco-German cooperation in the field of deterrence in response to the evolving threat landscape of 2 March 2026 www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/such...

Very comprehensive -- and quick! -- analysis of Macron's nuclear speech. Speech is a big step forward, but I have my doubts that continuing to foreswear any limited nuclear options beneath the final warning is really credible/sustainable if France really wants to extend deterrence.

Coordinated with Macron - sometimes that Franco-German cooperation does work - Merz announces that France and Germany have set up a 'nuclear steering group' and that DE will participaty with conventional forces in French nuclear exercises.

Any French forward nuclear deployments would be temporary. France will set up consultative mechanisms with European allies similar to the existing UK-France Nuclear Steering Group. Effort complemented by enhanced early warning, conventional strike and air-defense capabilities.

To sum up the gist of Macron's nuclear speech: he is offering to forward-deploy the air leg of French nuclear forces to the territory of European allies. Decision-making will remain with the French president, and the arrangement will exist outside of NATO. He call this "forward deterrence."

To sum up the gist of Macron's nuclear speech: he is offering to forward-deploy the air leg of French nuclear forces to the territory of European allies. Decision-making will remain with the French president, and the arrangement will exist outside of NATO. He call this "forward deterrence."

Macron: France must "strengthen its nuclear deterrent in the face of the combination of threats.... With the progressive implementation of what I would call advanced deterrence." www.lemonde.fr/internationa...

Cool that the Secretary of Defense doesn't understand the most basic characteristics of war as a phenomenon.

Does anyone know at what time Macron will deliver his nuclear doctrine speech?

Good that the US isn't trying to maintain extended deterrence against two revisionist challengers at different ends of Eurasia.

The fact that the President of Russia is probably suffering from leader-assassination envy due to the actions of the President of the United States does not say much for the current robustness of international norms.

Looks like Iran has decided on three types of targets: US military bases in the region (Bahrain & others), oil infrastructure (eastern Saudi Arabia) and, perhaps most escalatory of all, densely populated urban areas to maximise economic and political impact (Dubai).

Vibe check from Doha: folks are rattled but not freaking out. It seems anecdotally like UAE is getting hit worse. Always worried about shrapnel. Selfishly and irrelevantly glad to be teaching a course on nuclear politics this term—relevance, baby! Feeling more confident in the need for scholarship.

Presumably for the US, since Trump has already declared regime change an objective. If not, then there is a serious mismatch between this alleged military plan and the broader strategy.

Can't think of another example where the serving Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff essentially made it known that he considered a military operation a mistake *beforehand*, but the admin went ahead anyway.

Note to Europeans: The US is (once again) firing all these precious missiles that are also earmarked for use in a contingency in Europe.🙃 If you need further proof that US extended deterrence in Europe is becoming more and more porous by the day.

Quick reactions after learning that no, nobody could stop him. 1/ goodauthority.org/news/trump-m... 1/

Given constraints on munitions & logistics, I expected US to launch limited Iran campaign. Trump has instead announced most expansive goals imaginable: regime change, destruction of conventional military + end of nuclear ambitions. Unclear how US will square this circle.

Iran's use of its threshold status (just short of a nuclear weapon) as a virtual deterrent has comprehensively failed. States without a reliable nuclear ally will be more apt to see the development of a nuclear capability as a binary delusion: go for nukes or don't.

I can't believe Tony Blair would get mixed up wi-- oh, actually that makes sense.

"Epic Fury" = "Large-scale disordered, destructive rage." Fits.

The "debate" in the run-up to this makes Iraq 2003 look like the Athenian polis.

Iran's use of its threshold status (just short of a nuclear weapon) as a virtual deterrent has comprehensively failed. States without a reliable nuclear ally will be more apt to see the development of a nuclear capability as a binary delusion: go for nukes or don't.

This is looking extremely bad, let's be frank.

They seem unable to comprehend that states except the three they think of as great powers have any agency - in their terminology, apart from the US, China, and Russia, it's all NPCs. Since they've sacked most of the people with knowledge and experience, there's no-one around to tell them different.

War, that famously predictable thing that always turns out exactly the way leaders planned it.

No. NO. NO NO NO.

Hello Bluesky! My new book, THE FIREARM REVOLUTION, is out on 14 April. It’s about how a new technology changed society, and how hard it was to control. Here’s a little thread of what’s inside:

Macron's nuclear speech coming this Monday.

1956 called and wants its pretext for war back.

Good to see that everyone is on top of things.

University dropout inadvertently illustrating the downsides of dropping out

Summers is retiring and he is 71. If he were working at a lot of European universities, he would be retiring anyway!

My latest Substack post, with some thoughts on Chinese testing, and some half-baked thoughts on its effects on the arms control framework. horsdoeuvresofbattle.substack.com/p/causes-and...

NC3 in US already relies in LLMs for early warning and signal processing. So humans are already subject to AI “affected” data. The core question for me at the moment is how informed are national leaders going to be about the extent of AI in the information they get when making nuclear decisions.

Handing over the nuclear codes to AI is (hopefully) beyond the pale for nuclear-weapons states. The trickier part is the gray zone, where humans are reliant on AI to process the intelligence feeding into a launch decision. At what point does a human "decision-maker" become a puppet of the AI?

Here it is! "Beyond Manoeuvre Theory for European Defence" by Sam Vincent (@samvin.bsky.social) and me. Give it a read. I promise you there's something in there for everyone to hate! And it is open access! Summary in thread: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...

Good point. It's underappreciated today how much 1990-91 Gulf War opponents, even Dem HASC/SASC members, emphasized risks of high US casualities, protraction, even losing. "Another Vietnam". Then lost credibility when the war went vastly better than they warned. 1/

Brezhnev-style.

A big problem with Trump's unclear rationale for striking Iran: if he's really set on regime change, then Tehran has zero incentive to make concessions on its nuclear program. That's on top of his proven unreliability re commitment to all manner of agreements, even ones he has negotiated.

If Instructure can't guarantee Canvas's integrity, then why should universities continue to pay thousands annually to use it?

You know studying at degree level is not compulsory right? If you don’t want to study you can just not do higher education. You don’t need a little robot called Einstein to destroy the planet for you not to learn anything.

Professor John Nightingale, iconic medievalist and Fellow of Magdalen, who taught me Einhard's Life of Charlemagne, retires this summer. So Oxford and Magdalen are recruiting. There is no better place to teach and research medieval history than this: in the footsteps of Karl Leyser.

The next slide: "This, but nuclear signaling."

The mark of a well-conceived operation is when your top military advisor is letting every journalist who will listen know that he is against it.