Europe
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 When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title.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
view the rest of the comments
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.
It seems this is just The Telegraph asking a silly hypothetical question that no one was actually considering in the first place.
This really seems like British for "what a silly question". And they are right.
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.
Exactly.
But my point was that this wouldn't even be that bad. It's an unlikely scenario, but I could see the US just abandoning some nuclear bombs at the front in case of a sudden invasion. Russia having a few more American nukes doesn't really shift the power balance. You could brush that under the rug.
On the other hand, imagine 5000 US troops stationed there, with heavy equipment with which they can't just run away from a sudden invasion. So you either defend them or you have to deal with the political fallout of 5000 dead soldiers. Much harder to brush under the rug.
You know what? Why not both? While I see your point and agree with it, I can also understand the symbolic value of the nukes. I think it's only fair if we provide what gives the countries most exposed and at risk the largest sense of security.