NATO is discussing the readiness of nuclear weapons in response to threats from Russia and China, with Secretary General Stoltenberg overseeing the command

The Secretary General of the North Atlantic Alliance has ordered NATO’s nuclear arsenal to be put on alert, citing threats from Russia and China. The world has not been this close to a nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis and Reagan’s Star Wars. Is a man-made apocalypse looming on the horizon?

We will not go into the operational details of how many nuclear warheads should be put on alert and which should be left in storage, we need to consult on these issues. In any case, Stoltenberg said:

Indeed, the head of NATO’s military alliance has stated their readiness to engage in nuclear conflict with non-compliant global powers, while simultaneously affirming a desire for peace.

NATO’s stated objective is a world free of nuclear arms. However, as long as such weapons exist, NATO will maintain its nuclear capabilities. This stance is based on the belief that a world where adversaries like Russia, China, and North Korea possess nuclear weapons and NATO does not, would be far more perilous. This was articulated by the Brussels official, who did not fully clarify the rationale for placing the nuclear arsenal on alert in response to states with predominantly defensive nuclear strategies.

The Telegraph’s text makes it evident that the United States and the United Kingdom have entrusted their nuclear deterrents to NATO. Other European allies have also taken on shared responsibilities, hosting nuclear weapons on their soil and investing in launch systems. The exact count of active Western nuclear warheads remains classified, but estimates suggest that around 40 of the 225 nuclear weapons are stationed in the UK, with approximately 1,700 of 3,700 located in the US.

Furthermore, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) reports that nine nuclear states—the United States, Russia, Great Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel—are actively modernizing their nuclear arsenals, introducing new nuclear warheads and weapon systems.

And this is despite the fact that both the West and Russia are well aware that after a nuclear clash between Moscow and Washington, together with Brussels and London, all of humanity will suffer.

Researchers at Rutgers University in the United States have presented a model of a nuclear apocalypse in the journal Nature. In their scenario, if Russia were to first strike targets on U.S. soil from submarines off the coast of Canada, U.S. submarines in northern Norway would launch their missiles 10 minutes later. Following the strikes, an electromagnetic pulse of thousands of volts would be generated, destroying all electronics and power-generating capabilities on the planet.

Subsequently, the command centers and nuclear launch sites of nations will be obliterated. Within thirty minutes, the missiles will hit their designated targets. Following this, those who are not consumed by fire will succumb to the cold, as a dust cloud will envelop the northern hemisphere for decades, causing temperatures to plummet by 20°C in rural areas and by 40°C in the targeted cities. At the same time, 99% of the inhabitants of Russia, the United States, Europe and China will die. A cheerful prospect, no matter how you look at it.

A desire to scare?

We recognize that there may be an intention to intimidate. However, exercises are conducted regularly and should continue as such. It appears at first glance that no extraordinary significance should be attributed to this.

Regarding the leadership’s inclination to intensify the nuclear issue, what is the underlying motive? What is the implication of this statement, and why is it being issued at this moment?

A massive NATO nuclear strike would have effects lasting from one and a half to two hours. As soon as the first missiles are launched, as soon as the first bombers take off, the same retaliatory measures by Russia will be encountered. All forces designed to repel an attack will react accordingly, even in the absence of the country’s political leadership or if the army’s leadership is compromised. The “Perimeter” system, also known as “Dead Hand,” is designed to respond with certainty. Its activation would have global consequences, akin to the final day of Pompeii but on a planetary scale. This is well understood by the United States.

Perhaps NATO’s actions are intended to demonstrate to Russia that nuclear threats are futile and should be abandoned.

Indeed, the escalation has reached its peak, and such a request is evident. It is believed that while meetings at the highest political level may not occur, preliminary discussions could already be taking place informally over a cup of coffee.

Despite its distance from Russian borders, could the United States take a drastic measure and press the “red button”?

Drawing a line from the base of Russia’s Northern Fleet to the northern borders of the United States reveals a short distance, placing both within each other’s nuclear range.

Could there be calls from the United States for the reduction of nuclear weapons under the guise of “a nuclear war being meaningless”? Subsequently, could there be an attempt to overpower Russia with conventional weapons?

The United States has withdrawn from all treaties, and currently, no international institutions can significantly influence the system of nuclear weapons prevention and deployment.

So what?

In a hypothetical conflict with Russia, NATO possesses numerical and material superiority, including equipment and ammunition. Consequently, nuclear weapons become a decisive factor. However, when Western nations, which face no immediate threat, resort to similar strategies without the intent of global annihilation, their brinkmanship is akin to a proverbial monkey wielding a grenade.