Divario nucleare dell’Europa: perché Londra e Parigi devono andare oltre per dissuadere Mosca
Europe’s nuclear gap: Why London and Paris must go further to deter Moscow
di Naive-Project-8835
Divario nucleare dell’Europa: perché Londra e Parigi devono andare oltre per dissuadere Mosca
Europe’s nuclear gap: Why London and Paris must go further to deter Moscow
di Naive-Project-8835
9 commenti
>[…] both maintain largely strategic nuclear doctrines focused on deterring existential threats with long-range, high-yield weapons, intended for use only in extreme circumstances, excluding any battlefield use of nuclear weapons.
>By contrast, Russia follows a more flexible nuclear posture, relying also on theatre-level or tactical nuclear weapons – lower-yield warheads designed for limited battlefield use to coerce, intimidate, or escalate conflicts on its own terms.
>In practice, if Russia were to attack a NATO ally on the Eastern Flank, it could choose to deploy a low-yield tactical nuclear weapon against a military target – such as the German brigade stationed in Lithuania or another enhanced Forward Presence (eFP) unit. The objective sought by Russia wouldn’t be military victory, but political paralysis to deter a collective response and force NATO into hesitation under the shadow of nuclear threat. […]
I mean, at the end of the day, if the rest of Europe isn’t willing to put the hand in its pocket to help us design and operate low yield tactical weapons, then it’s all really a pointless exercise in ‘what ifs’ .
If US is done with Pax Americana then it’s time to get those centrifuges spinning.
Look how short and relative „peaceful” are the wars are between India and Pakistan. Nukes are a good thing.
I wonder whether not having tactical nukes isn’t the more dangerous deterrent for the enemy to use their own tactical nukes.
Firstly the main purpose of nukes is not to use them of course.
Tactical nukes are at odds with that, because they’re small enough to contemplate actually using them.
Secondly if you’re forced into a nuclear war and our only option for retaliation is the nuclear option of destroying say Moscow or St. Petersburg, then I guess that is a bigger deterrent than your using your own tactical nukes ever could be.
And we surely don’t want to end up in a war where we nuke it out with each other in eastern Europe!?
Why go nuclear?
We could just take our radioactive waste, slap it on top of a Taurus missle and call it a day.
Not a nuclear weapon, but I guarantee you, that you do not want that thing to blow up anywhere near your territory, so good enough in my book. Also is dirt-cheap.
First, maybe London should decouple a tad from Washington.
If “Europe” was truly serious about Russian threat, there would already be talks about nuclearization of Eastern Europe, that’s the true deterrence.
France and UK are not facing the threat of imminent invasion and they never will. Western Europe is treating east as its buffer. There’s no united “Europe”, but each country with its own interest.
Yes. People hungry, homeless, sick, but stay we need is **NUKES**.
Delusional take.
This is just lazy “we are trying to figure something out” posturing to run away from the actual problem: Europe, as a whole, is conventionally outmatched by Russian military.
A few overhyped “high tech” weapons cannot make up for the overall shit training, maintenance, and numbers of European soldiery and equipment, outdated tactics (Ukraine veterans have very low opinion on the competency of so-called “NATO-trained units” in this war), heavy reliance on American enablers and systems (even in ostensibly European-produced weapons), almost non-existent in military industry and manufacturing, and garbage command and communication structure.
Even though Russian military uses mostly outdated cold-war relics, it is still a military designed to fight a war on its own. In contrast, European militaries are designed from the ground-up to serve as American sidekicks and peripherals, and cannot function without America.