[…]
Asked […] if Estonia would be willing to host Britain’s future fleet of F-35A fighters, defence minister Hanno Pevkur replied, “I’m always open. The door is always open for allies.”
The comments follow the incursion of three Russian MiG-31s into Estonian skies last week. The aircraft, flying without transponders or flight plans, remained over the Gulf of Finland for twelve minutes before being escorted out by Italian F-35s from Ämari airbase.
[…]
Western leaders urged caution over escalating the stand-off. Mr Pevkur said NATO’s response should be “proportionate” and decided “case-by-case.” Donald Tusk, the Polish prime minister, struck a harder line, declaring: “We will shoot down any flying objects when they violate our territory and fly over Poland. There is absolutely no discussion over that.”
[…]
For Estonia, NATO’s smallest frontline state, the latest incursion [of Russian drones] was a stark reminder of its reliance on allied air power. “The question is not whether Russia will try again,” one official said, “but how we will respond.”
Britain, however, does not have nuclear weapons that go on these planes. All of our nukes are submarine-based.
So if they’d make a submarine form factor that can be mounted to the F35As hardpoints…
Don’t be ridiculous. The missiles weigh twice what an F-35 does. We have to mount the plane to the missile
Yes, they would carry US nukes under the nuclear sharing program.
It seems a bit odd to not mention that there are already nuclear-capable NATO aicraft in Estonia, though. There are French Rafales (France actually has its own air-launched nukes) and Italian F-35As (another NATO nuclear sharing state) there right now
The entire article is odd. I think this is really just a random question from a reporter. No one is actually considering deploying nukes to Estonia.
No one is actually considering
Why not? It would be the best preparation for a nuclear war for the EU so some strategists must be considering it.
The utility is the short reaction time. A fighter from Germany can be intercepted more easily.
Yes, that’s pretty much the only thing I can think of as well, but I don’t think it matters.
Furthermore, if it comes down to nuclear war, the side who bombs first has a huge advantage. So we must be preparing for first strike.
Ok. If you’re assuming NATO wants to do a nuclear first strike, the might be some value in that. But I don’t think that should or will happen, even with Trump. So I’m not considering that for now.
So let’s look what happens if Russia would start a nuclear war. Worst case scenario first: Russia launches ICBMs gains the US and Europe. In that case nukes dropped from airplanes only play a minor role. Within minutes after Russia’s launches are detected US and British ICBM and SLBM will be launched as well. That means hundreds of nuclear warheads will be striking targets in less then an hour. Dropping some additional nukes from planes a few minutes faster is just pissing in the ocean at this point. MAD has been triggered, it won’t make a difference of some nukes are 30 minutes late.
Now let’s consider the “best case” scenario (highly speculative). Russia uses a single tactical nuke in Ukraine. Let’s assume this won’t trigger MAD. Now NATO has to response in some way. But don’t think that dropping a nuke ASAP would be the response, so there is also no point in having some of them sitting right at the border. It will probably take days before NATO decides how to respond to that I think it might not involve nuclear weapons at all.
Then why have nuclear bombers at all?
And why should Estonia be enthusiastic about them? Russia then has not only a reason but a need to flatten the airport, which is easiest, I would assume, with nuclear weapons.
Then why have nuclear bombers at all?
That is a very valid question and in my opinion it’s mostly a hold-over from the time before ballistic missiles became the more reliable delivery mechanism. And today everyone is researching and testing “hypersonic glide vehicle” as the new delivery mechanism. So yeah, I think nuclear bombers will become obsolete very soon. They are just too slow and easy to intercept in comparison.
And why should Estonia be enthusiastic about them? Russia then has not only a reason but a need to flatten the airport, which is easiest, I would assume, with nuclear weapons.
I think the only “benefit” from deploying nuclear weapons to Estonia would be as a psychological assurance for Estonians, while not having any actual military value. But it could also be seen as a provocation by Russia, so I don’t think it’s worth it.
There are really very few scenarios of a limited nuclear war that I can think of. Using any nuclear weapon has a very high chance to result in MAD, so really I think we shouldn’t play around with them, even if it’s just using them as a PR stunt.
Positioning our jets in a country on the border of Russia seems careless. They’d be extremely vulnerable during an invasion, drone or missile attack.
Northern Germany would make more sense
Not quite sure what would be the point.
Armageddon can wait the few extra minutes to fly in the jets from Germany.
The point would be: sending the message that there are no “2nd class NATO countries” which we eventually wouldn’t bother defending if push comes to shove. Its the determination that full defence begins from the first centimetre of allied territory and no country will be sacrified.
You can make that point by stationing troops and other equipment there. Deploying nuclear weapons for that purpose makes no sense.
Why not? It is probably the most valuable asset an army has and positioning it there shows the clear determination to defend the area at all costs.
It is probably the most valuable asset an army has
Not really. It has no tactical value being there, since we’re not going to drop nukes on invading conventional forces. And while they are expensive for a single bomb, the plane that carries them still costs 4x as much. So what value are you talking about?
Their value is as strategic deterrent. And they can do that from almost anywhere.
Anyway … I’m not even sure why this is a story.
Asked by The Telegraph if Estonia would be willing to host Britain’s future fleet of F-35A fighters
It seems this is just The Telegraph asking a silly hypothetical question that no one was actually considering in the first place.
A British military source cautioned there was “no need to have a strategic capability forward in a tactical position in Estonia
This really seems like British for “what a silly question”. And they are right.
So what value are you talking about?
Valuable as in: no military will let it fall into enemy hands.
Right, because they would immediately evacuate the bombs if that was even a remote possibility. A highly portable asset like a bomb just doesn’t work very well as symbolic “line in the sand”.
If you actually want to show determination for defending a position you bring in hard-to-move assets. A battalion of tanks, air defense system, troops, infrastructure. Those you would actually have to defend.
Also, if Russia would somehow get a hold of a B61, the damage would mostly be in prestige to the US and maybe some minor technology they could reverse engineer. But it wouldn’t fundamentally change the balance of power, so not even that argument makes much sense.
Also, if Russia would somehow get a hold of a B61, the damage would mostly be in prestige to the US
Exactly.