Britain, however, does not have nuclear weapons that go on these planes. All of our nukes are submarine-based.
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2025
66 points (98.5% liked)
Europe
7371 readers
1723 users here now
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media. Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
In reply to other comments:
The utility is the short reaction time. A fighter from Germany can be intercepted more easily.
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.
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.
It would be the best preparation for a nuclear war
I really don't see how.
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
I guess they're there for deterrence, not for actual use. That's what those nukes in germany are for.
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.