The way to a European atomic bomb

Three days, three events. On Friday, February 28th, Donald Trump put Wolodymyr Selenskyj in front of the door.

Until then, the President of the United States had been the strongest ally of the Ukrainian president. America has repeatedly promised Ukraine since Russia’s attack, but the scandal in the White House made the promises. Trump not only devalued America’s commitments to Kiev. He also weakened trust in NATO, because America’s commitments were part of an auxiliary plan for which the whole alliance had stood. Before that, he had shown that he didn’t care allies. He had encouraged Putin to make with unbogidous allies, “whatever hell” he wanted, and he demands Greenland from the NATO partner Denmark. Since then, it has been doubtful that you can still rely on the NATO contract with your promise of assistance. The nuclear screen, with which America and other allies protect, suddenly looks holy. On Saturday, two interviews appeared. In the first, the Union’s candidate for Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, said, the FAS, now “the defense of Europe should be taken into account”. Because Germany does not have nuclear weapons, the nuclear powers of France and Britain will be discussed about “nuclear participation”. In the second, France’s President Emmanuel Macron said that now he wanted to start a strategic dialogue about nuclear defense with those partners who had no nuclear weapons. “We have a protective shield, it doesn’t,” he said. “You can’t depend on the United States’ nuclear deterrent.” This text comes from the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung. On Sunday, the head of government of the second European nuclear power, the British Prime Minister Keir Strander, invited to a European summit in London. It was about Ukraine after the Washington’s out of Washington. Strander repeated an already known proposal: In the event of an armistice, European countries would have to put troops to protect peace. Macron had brought this into conversation a year ago. The British have 200 nuclear weapons, the French 300 and Europe can survive Europe without America? The United States and Russia are super powers with many thousands of nuclear weapons. In Europe, on the other hand, the British only have a little more than 200 pieces, the French are almost 300. To defend partners, these forces are not intended. The British Prime Minister Keir Strander on the HMS Iron Duke in Tallinn, Estoniapicture Alliancemit The American Arsenal is different. Brigadier general Ad Heinrich Fischer, former commander of the German Army Schools, explained the FAS how the “extended deterrent” works, through which America has not only protected itself, but also its allies. Washington, explains the General, explicitly set up its nuclear weapons, unlike Paris and London, so that they can also deter attacks on other NATO countries. This is what is credible, it provides core weapons with variable strength. For example, the bombs of the Americans in Germany have starching heads of 0.3 to 45 kilotons. For comparison: Hiroshima’s bomb had 15 kilotons. With this flexibility, Washington can react to Russian attacks with tailor -made countermas – strong enough to deter it, but at the same time limited so that they do not necessarily provoke a counterattack to American cities. America would not have to sacrifice “Boston for Berlin” if Germany wanted to protect it. The nuclear guarantee only becomes credible. For the case of cases, American bombs lie on the Büchel air force base. Your release for use follows a “two-key principle”: in an emergency, a code comes from Washington and unlocks the bombs. Then they are hung under German tornado bombers, the Federal Chancellor gives the command and German pilots control them. So no side can use without the consent of the other American bombs from German soil, but now America’s protective promise has become shaky. So what happens when Moscow decides to put it to the test? General Fischer designs the following scenario: “Putin could march in the Baltic States with” Green Male “like in 2014 in the Crimea. If NATO then wanted to come to the aid of conventional forces, he could say: I have Iskander atom missiles in the Kaliningrad area. I can destroy Berlin in a few minutes. NATO could only counteract little this without the possibility of nuclear deterrence. ” She would have to add small. Even in the event of a peace in Ukraine, every participating state could be exposed to such extortion. “The balance of terror slipped into the imbalance”, also Germany. Roderich Kiesewetter, foreign politician of the CDU, states that “Trump’s hollowing out of NATO” “the balance of horror slipped into the imbalance”. That is why Europe now needs a “common umbrella”. If that doesn’t come, European countries that felt threatened by Russia could try to “become nuclear powers themselves”. Only together can one prevent “other nuclear powers in Europe” .Mmanuel Macron in front of the French submarine “Suffren” DDPauch at the SPD and the Greens is discussed about European deterrence. Some of the leadership figures in the Bundestag reject the idea. Nils Schmid, chairman of the Social Democrats in the Federal Foreign Committee, says that there is “no reason to doubt” that America continues to protect its partners. Ducking off is that you are not questioned, and therefore debates are “improper about other variants”. The Greens’ chairwoman in the Defense Committee, Sara Nanni, is also skeptical. For them, the “principles of the anti-atom movement” are still “valid” that Europe should not have weapons, “which massively meet the population and destroy our environment”. Against Moscow, you protect yourself much more effectively with conventional weapons and through “international ostracism”. No state would still maintain normal relationships with Russia if nuclear weapons were used. The rich for deterrent. There are also other voices. At the SPD, the outgoing MP Wolfgang Hellmich says a veteran of defense policy that one now has to talk about “European atomic deterrence”, and you can hear such tones for the Greens too. MPs who think this way do not want to burden their battered party through open questioning offices, but internally there is a repositioning. A member of the parliamentary group states that this debate must “now also be managed in our party”, another requires “cooperative European approaches of own nuclear capacities”. A few more thinks like that, but do not want to be quoted, when German politicians always talk to the French about deterrence, they encounter a problem: French nuclear locomotives are like the British strict national, and unlike the Americans, there are no weapons that would also be suitable to protect allies. There are three difficulties: First, French and British have only so many bombs that it is enough for a “minimal” deterrent. Both have four nuclear submarines, but only one thing is always in use. The others are serviced or serve to train. France also has 50 nuclear-capable rafale bombers. A French or British retaliatory threat would not be credible the second difficulty initially seems paradoxical: the bombs of the French and British are too great. General Fischer explains this: Every French or British explosive head is seven times as strong as the bomb from Hiroshima. These hellish weapons are intended to “deter existential dangerous attacks on your own country in extreme emergencies by threatening a devastating counter -strike”. Anyone who uses such strong weapons to protect allies must expect a counter -strike to their own capital. “This is not credible,” says Fischer. Conclusion: The deterrent that France and Great Britain could do for their partners is “not sufficient”. Vladimir Putin in the cockpit of a helicopter when visiting a flight academy in Torschok, region of Twerdpakiesewetter says that Europe needs “tactical”, i.e. smaller nuclear weapons if it wants to deter together. And with France or Britain, which strictly lead their nuclear forces today, they have to create methods for common deployment decisions. This should be difficult, especially in France, that deterrence is only credible if the president decides in national interest. Kiesewetter hopes that in the end one will orientate yourself on the “two-key system”, which has proven itself with America. The Social Democrat Hellmich also thinks as. The second trick: In the event of a two-key solution, German aircraft could one day wear French atomic bombs, but the German tornados are not designed for this, and the American stomach bombers of the type F-35, which are newly ordered for many billions of euros. They would have to be replaced by French rafale for French aviation bombs. There are another solution: French or British nuclear warheads could start according to the two-key principle of German submarines. Kiesewetter points out that the right ships already exist: submarines of the “Dolphin” class of Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems and the North Sea works in Emden. They have been exported to Israel for years, and it is an open secret that they wear nuclear cruise missiles there.Europa would need five to ten years of the third problem. Macron estimated that five to ten years are necessary for a European defense. But Russia could already increase its nuclear pressure further, and America wobbles. Europe has to go through a dangerous corridor in which its deterrent is not yet. Karl-Heinz Kamp from the German Society for Foreign Policy, for example. “Without America, Europe is not immediately lost,” he says. With Paris and London you already have a “residual dipper”. France’s nuclear weapons are only intended for his own protection, but Paris has often signaled: “If Europe’s vital interests are affected, our vital interests are also affected.” But because deterrence passes “in the opponent’s head”, you have to show Putin that you are serious. “Nuclear Signalling” is a core element of deterrent, and a lot can happen here. Jedes word is important. Moscow will have noted that Macron’s proposal for a strategic nuclear dialogue was welcomed at the EU summit on Thursday. Next, says Kamp, must be talked about nuclear planning. NATO has been doing this long ago, not Europe. This is possible with Paris and London. Another step can be prepared quickly: Kamp points out that there are two countries that have trusted America’s protection for years, even though they have not had nuclear participation and no American weapons in the country: Japan and South Korea. These countries had another deposit of loyalty: US troops in their field. Therefore, says Kamp, they never had a problem with the “credibility” of American protection. Conclusion: Europe’s deterrence becomes the stronger “the more troops France and Great Britain set up on the eastern flank of NATO”.

Credit-Read More

// Function to fetch the latest posts
function fetchLatestPosts() {
const feedUrl = ‘https://newskiosk.pro/feed/’; // Replace with your blog’s RSS feed URL
fetch(feedUrl)
.then(response => response.text())
.then(str => new window.DOMParser().parseFromString(str, “text/xml”))
.then(data => {
const items = Array.from(data.querySelectorAll(“item”));
const latestPostsContainer = document.getElementById(“latest-posts”);
latestPostsContainer.innerHTML = ”; // Clear previous posts

// Shuffle the items array
const shuffledItems = items.sort(() => Math.random() – 0.5);

// Select the first 5 items from the shuffled array
const selectedItems = shuffledItems.slice(0, 5);

// Loop through the selected items and display them
selectedItems.forEach(post => {
const link = post.querySelector(“link”).textContent;
const description = post.querySelector(“description”).textContent;

// Create a new post element
const postElement = document.createElement(“div”);
postElement.classList.add(“latest-post”);
postElement.innerHTML = `

${description} Read more

`;

// Append the new post element to the container
latestPostsContainer.appendChild(postElement);
});
})
.catch(error => console.error(‘Error fetching the latest posts:’, error));
}

// Call the function to fetch and display the latest posts
fetchLatestPosts();