- Joined
- 27 September 2006
- Messages
- 5,744
- Reaction score
- 5,613
To what extent do Russian deployments of new generation of nuclear weapons make a NATO response necessary.
During the Cold War it was assumed that NATO would be the first to use nuclear weapons in Europe (their use at sea was regarded as a separate issue). For this purpose an escalatory ladder starting with artillery shells and ending with Redstone later Pershing missiles was available to NATO subject to US Presidential release.
Documents released since suggest that some Soviet plans envisaged a large nuclear strike on the first day.
Today after thirty years of uneasy peace NATO has few nuclear options apart from the remaining stocks of Mk61 US tactical bombs and the UK and US (and French) ballistic missile submarines.
In the absence of large numbers of UK and US forces on the ground would they use Trident to respond to a Russian nuclear strike against targets in say Poland or Germany.
Putin is probably too shrewd and experienced (he started life as a KGB field officer) to do more than rattle the nuclear sabre. But his successor might be more unpredictable.
Should Europe or the US field a suitable system to fill the gap? Recalling the widespread opposition to Cruise and Pershing as well as the Iraq War it is not an easy call.
During the Cold War it was assumed that NATO would be the first to use nuclear weapons in Europe (their use at sea was regarded as a separate issue). For this purpose an escalatory ladder starting with artillery shells and ending with Redstone later Pershing missiles was available to NATO subject to US Presidential release.
Documents released since suggest that some Soviet plans envisaged a large nuclear strike on the first day.
Today after thirty years of uneasy peace NATO has few nuclear options apart from the remaining stocks of Mk61 US tactical bombs and the UK and US (and French) ballistic missile submarines.
In the absence of large numbers of UK and US forces on the ground would they use Trident to respond to a Russian nuclear strike against targets in say Poland or Germany.
Putin is probably too shrewd and experienced (he started life as a KGB field officer) to do more than rattle the nuclear sabre. But his successor might be more unpredictable.
Should Europe or the US field a suitable system to fill the gap? Recalling the widespread opposition to Cruise and Pershing as well as the Iraq War it is not an easy call.
