Russia’s nuclear threat raises doubts

Is nuclear escalation plausible? A priori, nuclear weapons are deterrent weapons. So non-employed. To France, the theory looks simple. In the event of a serious attack, the nuclear reaction can cause irreparable damage to the invader, which should be sufficient to stop him. We need to make sure that nuclear weapons holders have an efficient and available system.

Therefore, France is always navigating at least one ballistic missile submarine and can send M51 missiles at any time of the day or night. It is not yet known whether this deterrence theory, originally shared among the “given” forces to the United Nations (US, France, Britain, Russia, China), is still well understood in Moscow.

Last Sunday, the Russian president sweated frosty when he announced that he had ordered the country’s military leaders to put Russian deterrence on special combat alerts. He also mentioned level 1 warnings. NATO immediately blamed “this dangerous rhetoric”.

Level 1 alert

Deterrence is necessarily based on the form of permanent warnings. At least in part: it is the French purpose of its nuclear deterrence in the sea, but some of Rafale can be swiftly mobilized to carry its aerial missile ASMP. Therefore, “alert level 1” doesn’t make much sense.

The United States did not respond, but NATO Secretary-General Jason Stoltenberg said NATO did not change its position in the nuclear army in response to Vladimir’s decision. And remember again that NATO is a defense alliance, and therefore its nuclear force exists to prevent any aggression.

In fact, Europe’s nuclear defense is carried out by France and Great Britain. France and the United Kingdom have intercontinental ballistic missiles and cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads, but Germany, Belgium and Italy must be able to deliver the stored American B-61 nuclear bombs. Hmm. In Europe. Obsolete nuclear weapons that require these countries to equip American fighters in particular, but have little interest from a tactical point of view.

Multi-head missile

When it comes to nuclear weapons, we are no longer in Hiroshima. The missile is now “precision” and intercontinental, with several nuclear heads to allow it to cross anti-aircraft lines of defense and destroy multiple nerve centers at the same time. Therefore, the damage will be intolerable, but it will be targeted … one of the world’s leading nuclear power plants with about 6,000 warheads on land, air and sea warheads after a major modernization investment. Is at the forefront of ballistic and ultra-supersonic technology.

A priori, Russia’s doctrine is to use nuclear weapons only to respond to attacks by weapons of mass destruction on its territory, or to counter threats that could even endanger Russia’s existence. But what if Vladimir Putin thinks NATO is threatening it? To reassure the Western nations, the Russian President renewed the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in Washington a year ago, with up to 1,550 “deployed” warheads and launchers, respectively, from the two nuclear-weapon states. Recall that we limited the number of heavy bombers. Bombers up to 800.

Although enough to destroy the planet, the treaty includes a mutual inspection of military facilities so that the two countries can closely monitor each other. Russia and the United States together own more than 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons.