Originally Posted by
West Coast
Norway signing up to be under the French nuclear umbrella has me curious. Why, if the reason is known does one NATO nation need sign up for nuclear protection from another NATO nation when Article V should already do that. An attack on one is an attack on all, cept for no nukes unless you've signed an additional agreement?
France has traditionally been kept its nuclear forces aside of NATO.
So this is unusual for the French.
It would be interesting to know if Norway has had discussions with the UK on the subject. Without tactical nuclear weapons or anything other than Trident the UK would not provide Norway with any means of staged posture whereas the France can offer that.
The really curious aspect is that within NATO that Norway has found it necessary to solicit an alternative to the US nuclear umbrella. They have presumably made some very serious assessments about threat from enemies and reliability of allies before entering into this agreement and making it public.