Senza più nucleari, l’Europa non può dissuadere Putin
https://www.thetimes.com/article/4062c492-73ea-4b04-bdb9-5fdf50fd93f5?shareToken=ba1d07e1e0aeb4d9b8b5d46d952d4a99
di tree_boom
Senza più nucleari, l’Europa non può dissuadere Putin
https://www.thetimes.com/article/4062c492-73ea-4b04-bdb9-5fdf50fd93f5?shareToken=ba1d07e1e0aeb4d9b8b5d46d952d4a99
di tree_boom
34 commenti
I remember reading that drug companies weren’t banning the sale of drugs to Russia on humanitarian grounds. Maybe European drugmakers could reconsider that stance.
Ok so here is the plan: France start building more nukes, Britain make your fleet great again and fix your tridents, eastern flank dig in, we fire up the factories, Denmark stay angry….
“And since Britain is one of just two European powers that has nukes, and no one with even a cursory knowledge of history will allow that Germany should get its own”
Some of the most stupidly British shit I’ve read in a while.
I don’t think the number of nukes matters at this point. The over 500 the UK and France have isn’t going to have too much of a difference as 5,000 would have. Unless we’re going back to the Cold War dick-measuring contest, this doesn’t really matter.
This is a dumb take. Europe had the chance to deter Putin back in 2014. It chose to incentivized and enabled Putin instead by doing nothing to help Ukraine, by buying Russian gas, and by continuing with the NS2. We don’t need nukes to deter Russia. We need more competent leaders and better policies.
More nukes isn’t really needed, that is not how it works, the only things needed is parking nukes in other european countries.
France or UK nukes alone are enough by themself.
And anyway France developped their own hypersonic glider which could carry nukes anywhere without being intercepted when the USA still struggle to it.
What about decoy nukes?
I can put one on my balcony ready to launch!
France has more than 300, 300 active and probably 300 in stock
RIP proliferation, at least we know how the world ends now
It’s amazing having to spend billions on defense because the world is filled with human trash who gets turned on by war. Imagine what those money could have been used for instead.
Amazing job US. Now you got countries racing in building their nuclear missiles/arsenals.
so much talk, so little action. Infuriating. We should have already epxanded our arsenal bac kin 2016 when it became apparent that one day we would be in the situation we are in now.
This is a dumb take. More wouldn’t hurt, but what deters the enemy is your willingness to use them. France only has enough to send Russia reeling.
The US has thousands but is not deterring Russia at all.
A EU with a common front and a willingness to intervene and push the boundaries is enough to deter anyone. Let’s give ourselves the means to intervene conventionally first.
Maaaan, nuclear proliferation. I thought MAD was well established? Is anyone even gonna attempt to throw nukes around?
Like isn’t nuclear holocaust kind of an certain thing due to chain reaction of just one nuke flying out? We don’t need more opportunities for fuck up do we?
Like it’s sad we feel the need to have them, and they’re great deterrent, but is having them actually gonna help?
Check out the population density of Russia. All it takes are a couple of nukes to wipe out almost the entire population. Of course, if we’re talking nukes we’re all dead.
*”I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”*
(Supposedly said by Albert Einstein.)
You just to promise nukes on Moscow. Nukes on Moscow = Russia ceases to exist.
In all honesty, I don’t think Khuilo cares if half of his country gets nuked. Doesn’t work like that for Europe of course.
Remember how a few years ago they suggested on the state TV blowing a nuke over Siberia to trigger a world-wide EMP? The russian government is a bunch of crazy ass old yes-men who do not care about nuclear deterrence in its classic sense. If anything, they probably low-key want to be nuked as it’d make such a great propaganda piece. After all, they’d be sitting it out in some cozy Metro-2 bunker, unlike their plebs.
Europe has a lot more to lose. And the Russian state wouldn’t really care if Voronezh (population: 1.5M) gets erased off the map. I do hope that EU leaders understand that and act smart.
Fake news. The UK and France together have enough nukes to end the world. Presuming they don’t just surrender
The EU is like 35% of Russias percentage of trade volume. Why can’t stronger or total boycotting be the proper action to put them in their place?
I think the actual amount of nukes Russia has is extremely exaggerated, I would be surprised if they even have a 100 working. The US spends $50b to maintain their 5k nukes, before the war Russia’s whole defence budget was $50b. Considering how corrupt the whole Russian defence is very little money prob went to maintaining their nukes. Just like their army/airforce and navy they happily stole money cause they thought they would never need it. The corruption around their nukes was prob even worse. If Putin pressed the red bottom he has no idea how many would even work.
Get more nukes, talk to Canada, they have some auto plants that are looking for projects to build, highly educated workforce, excellent security plants that could mass product many weapons of war ✅✅✅✅
Yes! Nuclear proliferation! Let’s go!
Well done Trump…
If Russia takes care of its nukes like they care for their other military items, we may not have to worry.
As a Dutchman Boys we are sooo back
Time to rule the waves again 🇳🇱🇳🇱🇳🇱🇳🇱💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻⚓️⚓️⚓️⚓️⚓️
Ypu dont need lots of nukes
Tbh without incredible cohesion, all plans will fail. Europe needs to do something about Hungary.
Yeah…could we not?
This is starting to feel like fallout.
500 nukes between the UK and France would wipe Russia off the map, not sure 500 or 1000 makes any difference.
You only need a few for it to work, especially if they are also under the sea and moving. What we do need is have nukes with reliance of the US. Not neccesarily “more”.
People are making a few interesting assumptions on this post it seems.
1- You overestimate the power of the nukes we possess. Most nukes are small yield to be used tactically. They are not city destroyers. Europe could use all of its nukes and the planet wouldnt even notice.
For example, some estimates point to anywhere between 5 and 20 nukes, of around 150 kton, to destroy moscow war capabilities, focusing kremlin, industrial complexes etc. Most French nukes are around 100-150 kton.
France could drop all 290+ of their nukes in Russia, and it would still not be a permanent death blow most likely. Also, only around 100-120 nukes are actually ready to be deployed. Another 100–150 are operational but require hours to days to mobilize (subs in port, extra aircraft). The rest (30–60) are in storage or maintenance, not instantly usable.
2- Even the majority of Russian nukes are low yield. There’s will have some more effect due to how densely packed europe is.
3- Producing nukes isn’t easy. Only one that could realistically do it within any decent time frame would be France. A country like Germany or Poland would probably take 10+ years. Also, keep in mind, testing nuclear weapons is banned from the Non Proliferation agreement. Tests would be necessary most likely, meaning a country would have to leave the NPT agreement, which would trigger sanctions from the rest of the world basically.
* Fissile Material: Using existing stocks, France could assemble 100–200 new warheads without new production. Restarting plutonium production or HEU enrichment wouldn’t yield significant output within 5 years—maybe 20–50 warheads if rushed.
* Delivery Systems: Producing 10–20 additional M51 missiles (60–120 warheads) is feasible with current industrial capacity, costing €1–3 billion. Adding 10–20 Rafales and ASMP-As could deploy 20–40 warheads for ~€1–2 billion.
* Realistic Output: Assuming budget increases to €8–10 billion/year and no major delays, France could add 100–150 warheads (total 390–440). This leans on existing fissile material and modest delivery system growth, avoiding new submarines.
* Challenges: Limited fissile material production and political pushback could cap this lower, say 50–100 if hurdles mount.
People sometimes forget the old continent of Europe has very little natural resources. Like Useful uranium is nearly non existant in any decent quantities.
Juliet Samuel is an insidious Zionist who thinks dead Pali kids and women and innocent men are a figment of everyones imagination, a throwaway notion from an unreliable narrator. Perhaps everything she says is through that lens of Israeli bias? Notice how she doesn’t want Germany (or anyone else really) to have nukes. Looks like a paid for opinion piece. Why is it here? What the fuck do I care if Britain gets more nukes, I aint payin for it, and if you think that Europe collectively should pay for it, Im totally against it. This is ultimately the point of this snake piece. Pay for your own nukes.
What’s even worth Nuking except for Moskow btw.. we gonna be like take this to every Tree in Siberia most of the country is shit and falling apart already 😂
I call BS. Russia claims 5600 nukes. Ar least 80% are likely inoperable due to lack of maintenance or corruption. So let’s be generous and say the have 1500 that would actually work.
The USA cannot afford to see if those are directed at their territory or not. A launch of 1599 nukes would force a strike by the USA regardless of their targets
Secondly, it will only take a few dozen to take out Moscow and St. Petersburg. That ends Russia.
There is no nuclear card for Russia.