[…]
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.”
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.
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.