US Nuclear Weapons in Europe?

[Ringo]

And unlike the Russian weapons, ours would work properly.

Do you really wanna try it?

 

[para bellum]

It is not about "excuses". It's about the reasons.
View attachment 770927


And the reason is quite simple. They want to have an ability to fight and win a limited nuclear war in Europe or, at least, eliminate most important military targets in the Eastern Europe by the first strike.

So basically you're arguing for a NATO preemptive strike on Russian nuclear forces.

If Russia's nuclear doctrine is to conduct a nuclear first strike and fight some kind of "limited nuclear war" in Europe, it would be stupid to leave the first strike to Russia.

 

[Ringo]

If Russia's nuclear doctrine is to conduct a nuclear first strike

It is not.

 

[para bellum]

It is not.

Well that's not what the poster is saying.

Or Russian State-run media, who call for nuking various NATO countries practically every day.

If NATO starts believing that's a likely scenario, they would pretty much be obligated to act. And if that's where Russia is heading, it's better to act sooner rather than later.

 

[Ringo]

Or Russian State-run media, who call for nuking various NATO countries practically every day.

Really? Who run these stations, Soros?

 

[para bellum]

Really? Who run these stations, Soros?

Why, does Soros want to nuke the west too?

 

[Kruska]

Don't be surprised if there is consent among NATO nations to destroy all nuclear weapons in Belarus using conventions weapons.

Stationing nuclear weapons in Belarus is a severe violation of the Nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

"Under Article I of the NPT, nuclear-weapon states pledge not to transfer nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices to any recipient or in any way assist, encourage or induce any non-nuclear-weapon state in the manufacture or acquisition of a nuclear weapon."

There's nothing that Russia or Belarus can do about it.

Those nukes are OWNED by Russia not Belarus. Therefore Belarus is not a receipient. And the NPT does not regulate the territorial stationing of someones nukes.

 

[Silver Cat]

So basically you're arguing for a NATO preemptive strike on Russian nuclear forces.

If Russia's nuclear doctrine is to conduct a nuclear first strike and fight some kind of "limited nuclear war" in Europe, it would be stupid to leave the first strike to Russia.

Yes, it is stupid. But, the only tactical nuclear weapon the USA have is B61 3/4/12. But F-35's don't have Block IV yet, and, therefore can't use B61-12. So, the only potential way of this "European preemptive attack" could be attack of 4th gen fighter-bombers with unguided gravity bombs. Something bouth useless and suicidal if we are talking about well-defended Russian targets.
So, first we need to make weapons. And to make the weapons we need to make America great again. The Dims can't do it, and what is even worse - don't want to do it.

 

[Silver Cat]

Really? Who run these stations, Soros?

Did you read journal Voennaya Mysl' and General-Colonel Karakaev's article about preemptive counter-force strike against the USA?

 

[Mindful]

No.

Not so. They’re hidden away in The Eiffel.

And there are some nuclear warheads languishing at an American base a few kilometres away from me.

 

[Silver Cat]

It is not.

Really? How fluent your Russian is?

I believe the words "preventivniy udar" means "preemptive strike". And what do you think?

 

[Kruska]

....China put forward demands to the West to limit their support for Ukraine, otherwise it will begin supplying weapons to Russia.

Hm?? where or when did China state this or ever make such a demand?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Yes, it is stupid. But, the only tactical nuclear weapon the USA have is B61 3/4/12. But F-35's don't have Block IV yet, and, therefore can't use B61-12. So, the only potential way of this "European preemptive attack" could be attack of 4th gen fighter-bombers with unguided gravity bombs. Something bouth useless and suicidal if we are talking about well-defended Russian targets.
So, first we need to make weapons. And to make the weapons we need to make America great again. The Dims can't do it, and what is even worse - don't want to do it.

Nonsense. Since the 1950's the only way to deter a nuclear attack is to have a second-strike capability that will equal in destructive force an attack by an enemy and both NATO and Russia have that capability. It makes little difference whether the first attack was delivered from subsonic platforms or hypersonic platforms; the second-strike capability is still there, and there is no effective defense against a large-scale nuclear attack.

 

[Silver Cat]

Nonsense. Since the 1950's the only way to deter a nuclear attack is to have a second-strike capability that will equal in destructive force an attack by an enemy and both NATO and Russia have that capability. It makes little difference whether the first attack was delivered from subsonic platforms or hypersonic platforms; the second-strike capability is still there, and there is no effective defense against a large-scale nuclear attack.

Actually, since 1950's both sides tried to achieve the Credible First Strike Capability - the possibility to attack adversary in the way, that will decrease his retaliation capability to the acceptable level. The Cuban Missile Crisis was one of such attempts.
How reliable is the American second-strike capability under worst circumstances (Pearl-Harbor scenario)?
It is few Ohio class submarines survived in the Atlantic. Say, 3x20x3=180 warheads without modern anti-ABD capabilities. It means that you can burn down Saint-Petersbourg and some smaller cities, but not Moscow. Few millions dead if their cities are not evacuated, few tens of thousands if they are evacuated. Lesser than their losses in WWII, may be - lesser than their losses in the current Ukrainian conflict. Those losses are pretty acceptable for the Russian society (comparing with their losses in the case of the "conventional defeat").
What is worse - it is their third strike capability, which means almost total annihilation of the USA.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Actually, since 1950's both sides tried to achieve the Credible First Strike Capability - the possibility to attack adversary in the way, that will decrease his retaliation capability to the acceptable level. The Cuban Missile Crisis was one of such attempts.
How reliable is the American second-strike capability under worst circumstances (Pearl-Harbor scenario)?
It is few Ohio class submarines survived in the Atlantic. Say, 3x20x3=180 warheads without modern anti-ABD capabilities. It means that you can burn down Saint-Petersbourg and some smaller cities, but not Moscow. Few millions dead if their cities are not evacuated, few tens of thousands if they are evacuated. Lesser than their losses in WWII, may be - lesser than their losses in the current Ukrainian conflict. Those losses are pretty acceptable for the Russian society (comparing with their losses in the case of the "conventional defeat").
What is worse - it is their third strike capability, which means almost total annihilation of the USA.

You continue to post nothing but nonsense.

 

[Silver Cat]

You continue to post nothing but nonsense.

Or, may be, you just don't understand the basic principles of the nuclear deterrence.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Or, may be, you just don't understand the basic principles of the nuclear deterrence.

No, the problem is you are full of shit.

 

[Silver Cat]

No, the problem is you are full of shit.

Iuppiter iratus ergo nefas

 

[xyz]

Does the US Have Any Nuclear Weapons in Europe?

Does the US Have Any Nuclear Weapons in Europe?

sputniknews.com

Does America have a case against Russia moving nuclear weapons to Belarus? And, will the threat influence the UK's decision to supply the Ukraine with D.U. weapons?

No, there is no case against Russian weapons in Belarus. Do you have a point?

Depleted uranium munitions is another story. It is not a nuclear weapon. It is radioactive. Russia has them as well. Personally I am against them, but Russia didn't push to get a treaty to ban them either.

 

[para bellum]

Yes, it is stupid. But, the only tactical nuclear weapon the USA have is B61 3/4/12. But F-35's don't have Block IV yet, and, therefore can't use B61-12. So, the only potential way of this "European preemptive attack" could be attack of 4th gen fighter-bombers with unguided gravity bombs. Something bouth useless and suicidal if we are talking about well-defended Russian targets.
So, first we need to make weapons. And to make the weapons we need to make America great again. The Dims can't do it, and what is even worse - don't want to do it.

Very imaginative but a preemptive strike wouldn't be limited to a few gravity bombs.