US Nuclear Weapons in Europe?

[Donald H]

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.

no, it's not radioactive, and Russia doesn't use D.U. Get back to me on that.

Your head's too small. Is it photoshopped?

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

DU mainly emits alpha particle radiation. Alpha particles don't have enough energy to go through skin. As a result, exposure to the outside of the body is not considered a serious hazard. However, if DU is ingested or inhaled, it is a serious health hazard.

Depleted Uranium | US EPA

Uranium-235 provides the fuel used to produce both nuclear power and the powerful explosions used in nuclear weapons. Depleted uranium (DU) is the material left after most of the U-235 is removed from the natural uranium ore.

www.epa.gov

In other words, depleted uranium is safe as long as you don't eat it or smoke it.

 

[White 6]

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.

Of course we have nuclear weapons in Europe. I was responding to what the OP himself wrote. "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?"
Again my answer is, no.

 

[xyz]

no, it's not radioactive, and Russia doesn't use D.U. Get back to me on that.

Your head's too small. Is it photoshopped?

Like America, Russian Tanks are Now Shooting Depleted Uranium Bullets

https://www.nationalworld.com/europ...uk-weapons-ukraine-russia-radioactive-4074739

Russia has them. There are reports of them being used in both Chechen Wars, the conflicts with Georgia, as well as Syria.

My avatar is actually a weird painting of your idol, Donald Trump. The hands were actually photoshopped to look a lot smaller, but you can't really see that on the avatar.

 

[The Duke]

The question is not only about the missile ranges. There is a question about flight time of those missiles. It's not about what NATO will consider. It's all about what NATO will be able to do (after the Russian limited counterforce attack).
And then there will be choice for the USA:
a) accept new reality, make peace with Russia and lost NATO;
b) commit murder-suicide and lost both the USA and NATO.

What exactly will choose Biden's clique?
View attachment 771316

US could level the Kremlin within 20 minutes if so inclined. No submarines involved.

 

[Silver Cat]

US could level the Kremlin within 20 minutes if so inclined. No submarines involved.

The problem is not in the leveling Kremlin. The real problem is in leveling Kremlin without retaliation, or in the leveling Yamantau for this matter, or in leveling Kremlin after the Russian first strike, when th US nuclear capabilities are significantly degraded.

 

[Silver Cat]

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

The problem is that the USA don't have any tactical weapon except those gravity bombs. And what is even worse, according current regulations even those nukes the POTUS can't use without approval of NATO's NPG and British Prime Minister.

 

[The Duke]

The problem is that the USA don't have any tactical weapon except those gravity bombs. And what is even worse, according current regulations even those nukes the POTUS can't use without approval of NATO's NPG and British Prime Minister.

You keep thinking that.

 

[para bellum]

The problem is that the USA don't have any tactical weapon except those gravity bombs. And what is even worse, according current regulations even those nukes the POTUS can't use without approval of NATO's NPG and British Prime Minister.

It's not a problem. One flies, they all fly.

 

[Silver Cat]

It's not a problem. One flies, they all fly.

It's not Biden's strategy. NDP declare another way to act:

And committing murder-suicide is definitely not "the lowest level of damage possible".
And, as we know when there is the choice - "to abandon friendly government to their enemies" (and lose some influence), or "to start and lose a nuclear war" (and lose both influence, friendly government and a significant part of US population) - the US government don't choose "commit murder-suicide".

 

[para bellum]

And committing murder-suicide is definitely not "the lowest level of damage possible".

"If deterrence fails". Meaning in your scenario, NATO believes Russia will nuke European cities.

"Lowest possible damage". Referring to the US and Europe, not Russia.

Solution: Preemptive strike on all Russian nuclear forces. Sink the boomers, take out what's left of the Russian early warning networks, command and control, etc. We know where Russia's nuclear stockpile is stored, and we know where their strategic nuclear forces are based.

Since we already know Russia can't even interdict slow-moving drones around Moscow, this shouldn't be too difficult. An warhead entering the atmosphere at Mach 20 and hitting the ground 8 seconds later isn't something Russian defenses can deal with...

Plus there is no reason not to think their nukes are in any better shape than that rest of their garbage military...

There is no such thing as a "limited nuclear war", and your "reading" of this document is completely irrelevant.

If NATO believed what you seem to think is Russian doctrine, the logical course of action is to just destroy Russia before it happens.

 

[Silver Cat]

"If deterrence fails". Meaning in your scenario, NATO believes Russia will nuke European cities.

"Lowest possible damage". Referring to the US and Europe, not Russia.

Solution: Preemptive strike on all Russian nuclear forces. Sink the boomers, take out what's left of the Russian early warning networks, command and control, etc. We know where Russia's nuclear stockpile is stored, and we know where their strategic nuclear forces are based.

Since we already know Russia can't even interdict slow-moving drones around Moscow, this shouldn't be too difficult. An warhead entering the atmosphere at Mach 20 and hitting the ground 8 seconds later isn't something Russian defenses can deal with...

Plus there is no reason not to think their nukes are in any better shape than that rest of their garbage military...

There is no such thing as a "limited nuclear war", and your "reading" of this document is completely irrelevant.

If NATO believed what you seem to think is Russian doctrine, the logical course of action is to just destroy Russia before it happens.

Yes. Preemptive strike could be a solution. Another question is about the Credible First Strike Capability. If the Russians don't play fools and don't ignore such a threat, really effective first strike (which will degrade both Russian and Chinese nuclear capabilities to more or less acceptable level) is now impossible. Deterrence Type II - "We'll attack your nuclear forces if you do something extremely provocative which is not, however, attack against our Nuclear Forces or our cities, and we'll survive after your retaliation strike". To be credible such a threat must not be suicidal. And now, without any civil defense (FEMA is not even an imitation of it), without effective ABD, with anemic nuclear forces - it is suicidal. Another question is what price (in millions of American lifes) is acceptable for defense of Poland or even Kievan regime?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

China's position seems to be the most sensible and straight outright honest. They say that they have taken a position of only targetting 250 US cities, and they aren't apologetic for taking that position.

You and JoeB131 are tied for first in Xi's Little Black Book of Social Credit suck ups

 

[para bellum]

Yes. Preemptive strike could be a solution. Another question is about the Credible First Strike Capability. If the Russians don't play fools and don't ignore such a threat, really effective first strike (which will degrade both Russian and Chinese nuclear capabilities to more or less acceptable level) is now impossible. Deterrence Type II - "We'll attack your nuclear forces if you do something extremely provocative which is not, however, attack against our Nuclear Forces or our cities, and we'll survive after your retaliation strike". To be credible such a threat must not be suicidal. And now, without any civil defense (FEMA is not even an imitation of it), without effective ABD, with anemic nuclear forces - it is suicidal. Another question is what price (in millions of American lifes) is acceptable for defense of Poland or even Kievan regime?

You're probably giving Donald H a stiffie.

There is no "Type I or Type II" this, that, or the other. You've shown the world you will use nuclear weapons to impose your will.

Your nukes aren't a deterrent anymore- they are a threat to be eliminated.

 

[Silver Cat]

You're probably giving Donald H a stiffie.

There is no "Type I or Type II" this, that, or the other. You've shown the world you will use nuclear weapons to impose your will.

Your nukes aren't a deterrent anymore- they are a threat to be eliminated.

You see, there are a plenty of threats to be eliminated. And most of them the USA can't eradicate without really bad consequences. Sometimes, it is a question of damage control and searching the ways to live in our non-perfect world. Sometimes (usually) we must think how to deter Russia or China or Iran or North Korea or whoever else, not how eliminate them. And there are different ways to deter the threats. How to prevent their direct and indirect attacks, how to start and win a Limited Nuclear War and so on...