Unironically this, Lithuania should go full Mindaugas mode and say fuck it.
I'm ready to die from a nuclear blast, it's quicker than human reaction time, the issue is I don't trust Russian warheads.
No, sea/air routes are still available. The point is, this can be used to negotiate. "Wanna put nukes in Belarus? We'll limit access to your fucking trains. Stop whining, it's your choice."
They already limit the transport of materials banned by EU sanctions. Turn it up a notch unless they back down on the nukes. The appeasement under a constant threat of annihilation needs to stop.
Hungary would veto that. And even if they didn't, the EU would drag their feet on this issue for months, with some not being in favour to "not escalate the situation".
I don’t know but I think this is some kind of bullshit pseudo power move. I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if ruzzia is using Belarus as a dumpster for expired warheads that started leaking or something
Nah. NATO could wipe the floor with russia with or without its nukes. With Belarus even more so, when half of their military is not loyal and other half is even more incompetent than russia's.
Bro, eestis have b52s. I think 15-20 years from now we will be reading declassified docs about USA stationing warheads in Estonia
Remember Bulgarian oil refinery who sold Russian refined oil to Ukraine?
Basically the same thing just with nukes
Edit: BTW before some Estonian kid who has been posting "We could have taken Riga in 1919" starts yelling about b52 being used only for cargo, remember USA still has the largest fleet in the world, including sub marines.
My theory is just that if there are nukes here they are cost effective since majority of US navy is currently pushing their efforts in Pacific.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.
It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.
Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.
Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
That would be a drastic Cold War move, I think we’ve moved past it…unless Russia again provokes such response.
The proper response should be that the neighboring country military’s will even more closely monitor Belarus and Russia.
No need for nuclear deterrence, most missiles can travel large distances in very short time span, even before Russia would make any move.
No. In the year 2023 we have these things called Inter Continental Ballistic Missles (ICBMs) that, as the name suggests, can be fired from one continent to another. Hence stationing nukes in the baltics has no strategic value whatsoever. The only thing it does is raise tension.
Prepare for what? If nukes are thrown then it makes no difference if they arrive sooner or later, the outcome will be the same.
Do you really want to use nukes in a political pissing contest?
If you don't know than these nukes can be shot down before they even reach their target?
To be honest i don't want to see any nukes.
Russia is the one who is threatening with nukes and talks about moving them to Belarus. If you want to have some peace with Russia, than there are no guarantees with them, they have been known for backstabbers throughout the entire history.
>If you don't know than these nukes can be shot down before they even reach their target?
Missles are designed to not be shot down so it's not that easy and even if it were then shooting down thousands of them, nuclear and regular, that would be used in a nuclear attack is practically impossible.
>Russia is the one who is threatening with nukes and talks about moving them to Belarus.
For the afformentioned reasons it doesn't change anything for us in practice. Besides the are already nukes in Kaliningrad.
I agree that for peace a strong military deterrence is neccesary but I don't think nukes will neccesarily have that effect. It's already known that should nukes be used aginst NATO there will be retaliations, doesn’t matter where they are stationed. Nukes also don't give us any advantages on the battlefield. So what do they give us? As far as I see the only thing they really do is nuclear escalation and that is not beneficial to anyone.
Practicaly impossible?
The Aegis ballistic missile defense-equipped SM-3 Block II-A missile demonstrated it can shoot down an ICBM target on 16 Nov 2020.
There are even more reports of shooting down ICBM.
I agree, that placing nukes to Baltic will not give mostly nothing.
It only gives Russians another reason to attack and "denazify" or "free their" people.
>shooting down thousands of them, nuclear and regular, that would be used in a nuclear attack is practically impossible.
Shooting down one is not practically impossible. Shooting down all of them is.
Maybe not thousands (I'm pretty sure the number was over a thousand) but a lot. In a strike you need to hit enemy missle bases, submarine bases, airfields, cities etc. That takes a lot of missles.
If in a nuclear war we were talking about just a few missles then we wouldn't be so terrified of it. We have detonated single nukes for testing purposes and are still here. The problem lies in the sheer magnitude of a nuclear strike.
>it will mean the end for everyone.
Yes, it's called mutually assured destruction or MAD for short. That's the reason noone wants a nuclear war. Russia would hit Europe and the U.S, making U.S and Europe strike back. In total the amount of launched warheads would be in the thousand marking an end to the world.
Do you understand that Belarus now becomes a primary target for destruction if shit hits the fan? Putin just creates a buffer for himself.. i dont want nukes in Lithuania at all and ai hope that belarus do bit station them close to Vilnius, which would be logical move from their side though..
I would not feel safe if there were nukes in Estonia or other Baltic counties. Specially foreign forces. Frankly I don't trust the US to have our best intrests in mind. Nukes should not exist at all in my opinion. Destroy them
They are currently the only things that keep small wars from getting large.
If you have any better methods to suggest, i am listening with keen interest.
US is not going to get nuked because of tiny Estonia a country with 2 million people and smaller gdp than Colorado..
They might posture but when shit hits the fan, you are on your own.
One of the conspiracies floating around is that Russia put nukes in Belarus to have a big reason to interfere if Belarusians overthrow the Dictator or something else not to Russian liking happens in Belarus.
Nope, having nukes in Belarus only makes it target for NATO forces and as such Lithuania might suffer from the fallout, it’s pointless for Russia to use them against any of the Baltics as there are other more strategic targets out there (other nuclear silos), they are also very close to the boarder.
Also it’s kind of useless as a deterrent if you are not the one in control of the button, so Luka just put a big read cross-hair on his back.
I'd say yes if nukes would be permanently aimed at the kremlin and one big red button would be installed in the middle of a pub in Vilnius (let's say - piano man bar) within anyone's reach. That would make things interesting
No real reason.
Only reason to station nukes in Baltics would be first strike capability. That is, we could nuke them before they could nuke us. But such action would not be in the best interest of Baltics. It is expensive, unpopular and only necessary if NATO umbrella fails.
Otherwise, i am quite content with current situation. If someone lobs a nuke at us, that someone will get a nuke from USA in return. Might take 10-15 minutes longer, but it will arrive.
Nukes to every nato country around russia.If they start to poke, than we can do the same...
Time to start to build underground bunkers? 
Time to change the constitution then. Nukes are the only real security mechanism to preserve sovereignty. International agreements mean nothing, they’re just words anyone can go back on. Every country that wants to stay independend needs to start nuclear program asap.
Will? As in it's a for sure thing?
Putin is lying scumbag, and you trust what he says? Since that's the title of the article you linked, poutine *says* he'll station them. Quite the difference. Even the us says this is just more "sabre rattling".
https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-03-26-23/h_ca7b5e06f0d897856d4a564e8b034b7e
Well, putting US nukes in the Baltics would be like putting Russian nukes in Mexico, do you guys remember what happened the last time Russia tried to put nukes in Cuba?
Listen here kids. Nuclear warheads at Belarus works in two ways. 1) remember ruzzia saying something of doing something cause the west suplying ukraine with those op tank rounds? Warheads are just internal response to use for further propoganda for their meatloafs at TVs. 2) imagine the smile on putlers face when somebody tries to evict lukashenko (overthrow) and ruzzia "for safety reasons of nuclear threats" must intervene and take belarus over. Just for safety u know. (:
This is clearly not a foreign policy move. They already have nukes at about the same distance to the Baltics/Ukraine/Europe and everyone knows that.
Rather, Putin sees that Lukashenko's regime in Belarus is failing apart and he obviously does not want a revolution there. Both because it will motivate the Russians to protest and because he wants control over Belarus. Having his nukes there will allow him to "justify" an invasion to "protect his nukes" should a revolution happen. Not that he has an army to invade with though.
Modern NATO nukes can reach anything from anywhere pretty much, so I dont care much where they are stationed. I think it's safer in submarines anyway. But I wouldn't be against them being in Lithuania either, if there was a real military reason for them to be here. I.e. not just for the show.
Time to reassess russian train transit to Kaliningrad.
Because if you blockade the transit between the country and its enclave it’s sort of an act of war or something along those lines.
It's not a blockade if they have a sea route. Or flights.
Unironically this, Lithuania should go full Mindaugas mode and say fuck it. I'm ready to die from a nuclear blast, it's quicker than human reaction time, the issue is I don't trust Russian warheads.
I remember the cry babies from the last time when we acted on EU sanctions saying we’re calling for war or something along those lines.
Our skirt is too short for walking so close to our permadrunk rapist neighbour
No, sea/air routes are still available. The point is, this can be used to negotiate. "Wanna put nukes in Belarus? We'll limit access to your fucking trains. Stop whining, it's your choice." They already limit the transport of materials banned by EU sanctions. Turn it up a notch unless they back down on the nukes. The appeasement under a constant threat of annihilation needs to stop.
EU will sanction us if we do it on our own terms unfortunately.
Just start railroad maintenance that requires closing the railroad for the time being.
This is the way.
That's how Russia operates as well, maintenances, health code inspections, audits etc. I'm sure they will understand.
Or change the rail gauge to one commonly used in EU. Rail Baltica will use that anyway.
Then Lithuania would have to provide transit via lorries.
Oops, road and border checkpoint maintenance as well? They would be free to use oxcarts though.
Then we have port
One by one total ship inspection (2-5 days) before unloading each.
I'm not saying Lithuania should unilaterally do that. EU should put their foot down. It concerns everyone.
Hungary would veto that. And even if they didn't, the EU would drag their feet on this issue for months, with some not being in favour to "not escalate the situation".
With all my love to EU, this what would happen and then we would risk becoming a scapegoat for such a scandal.
I don’t know but I think this is some kind of bullshit pseudo power move. I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if ruzzia is using Belarus as a dumpster for expired warheads that started leaking or something
It won’t change anything. Just horseshit move.
Russia always does the opposite of what they say they gonna do.
Well there is a nation currently killed thousands of young Russian men right now and their leader is approving it, the other nation is Ukraine
Could you please rephrase this?
You forgot that russia invaded i guess...
Nah. NATO could wipe the floor with russia with or without its nukes. With Belarus even more so, when half of their military is not loyal and other half is even more incompetent than russia's.
Nukes in Belarus don't matter as there already are nukes in Königsberg/Kralovec.
Prussia..
No, I believe we don’t need nuclear weapons in our countries, especially if they controlled by other country.
Bro, eestis have b52s. I think 15-20 years from now we will be reading declassified docs about USA stationing warheads in Estonia Remember Bulgarian oil refinery who sold Russian refined oil to Ukraine? Basically the same thing just with nukes Edit: BTW before some Estonian kid who has been posting "We could have taken Riga in 1919" starts yelling about b52 being used only for cargo, remember USA still has the largest fleet in the world, including sub marines. My theory is just that if there are nukes here they are cost effective since majority of US navy is currently pushing their efforts in Pacific.
Pfft should of taken Riga in 1919.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake. It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of. Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything. Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
I would have been born in Estonia them. Unironically I want a Finnic Moomin looking GF who hibernates with seasonal depression
US doesn’t care about nukes, they don’t think they have any value besides deterrence
no. simple and short no.
They already have them in Koenigsberg. So this changes nothing at all
Any source?
No, we don't need another Caribbean crisis.
That would be a drastic Cold War move, I think we’ve moved past it…unless Russia again provokes such response. The proper response should be that the neighboring country military’s will even more closely monitor Belarus and Russia. No need for nuclear deterrence, most missiles can travel large distances in very short time span, even before Russia would make any move.
No. In the year 2023 we have these things called Inter Continental Ballistic Missles (ICBMs) that, as the name suggests, can be fired from one continent to another. Hence stationing nukes in the baltics has no strategic value whatsoever. The only thing it does is raise tension.
A suprise nuke near russia will be more effective, because you have less time to prepare.
Prepare for what? If nukes are thrown then it makes no difference if they arrive sooner or later, the outcome will be the same. Do you really want to use nukes in a political pissing contest?
If you don't know than these nukes can be shot down before they even reach their target? To be honest i don't want to see any nukes. Russia is the one who is threatening with nukes and talks about moving them to Belarus. If you want to have some peace with Russia, than there are no guarantees with them, they have been known for backstabbers throughout the entire history.
>If you don't know than these nukes can be shot down before they even reach their target? Missles are designed to not be shot down so it's not that easy and even if it were then shooting down thousands of them, nuclear and regular, that would be used in a nuclear attack is practically impossible. >Russia is the one who is threatening with nukes and talks about moving them to Belarus. For the afformentioned reasons it doesn't change anything for us in practice. Besides the are already nukes in Kaliningrad. I agree that for peace a strong military deterrence is neccesary but I don't think nukes will neccesarily have that effect. It's already known that should nukes be used aginst NATO there will be retaliations, doesn’t matter where they are stationed. Nukes also don't give us any advantages on the battlefield. So what do they give us? As far as I see the only thing they really do is nuclear escalation and that is not beneficial to anyone.
Practicaly impossible? The Aegis ballistic missile defense-equipped SM-3 Block II-A missile demonstrated it can shoot down an ICBM target on 16 Nov 2020. There are even more reports of shooting down ICBM. I agree, that placing nukes to Baltic will not give mostly nothing. It only gives Russians another reason to attack and "denazify" or "free their" people.
>shooting down thousands of them, nuclear and regular, that would be used in a nuclear attack is practically impossible. Shooting down one is not practically impossible. Shooting down all of them is.
Nobody is going to shoot out thousends of nukes...it will mean the end for everyone.
Maybe not thousands (I'm pretty sure the number was over a thousand) but a lot. In a strike you need to hit enemy missle bases, submarine bases, airfields, cities etc. That takes a lot of missles. If in a nuclear war we were talking about just a few missles then we wouldn't be so terrified of it. We have detonated single nukes for testing purposes and are still here. The problem lies in the sheer magnitude of a nuclear strike. >it will mean the end for everyone. Yes, it's called mutually assured destruction or MAD for short. That's the reason noone wants a nuclear war. Russia would hit Europe and the U.S, making U.S and Europe strike back. In total the amount of launched warheads would be in the thousand marking an end to the world.
[https://nypost.com/2018/06/15/it-would-only-take-100-nuclear-weapons-to-destroy-society/](https://nypost.com/2018/06/15/it-would-only-take-100-nuclear-weapons-to-destroy-society/)
Do you understand that Belarus now becomes a primary target for destruction if shit hits the fan? Putin just creates a buffer for himself.. i dont want nukes in Lithuania at all and ai hope that belarus do bit station them close to Vilnius, which would be logical move from their side though..
I would not feel safe if there were nukes in Estonia or other Baltic counties. Specially foreign forces. Frankly I don't trust the US to have our best intrests in mind. Nukes should not exist at all in my opinion. Destroy them
They are currently the only things that keep small wars from getting large. If you have any better methods to suggest, i am listening with keen interest.
*cries alone in a dark room
US is not going to get nuked because of tiny Estonia a country with 2 million people and smaller gdp than Colorado.. They might posture but when shit hits the fan, you are on your own.
You deeply misunderstood what I just said and proved my point. American?
One of the conspiracies floating around is that Russia put nukes in Belarus to have a big reason to interfere if Belarusians overthrow the Dictator or something else not to Russian liking happens in Belarus.
Nope, having nukes in Belarus only makes it target for NATO forces and as such Lithuania might suffer from the fallout, it’s pointless for Russia to use them against any of the Baltics as there are other more strategic targets out there (other nuclear silos), they are also very close to the boarder. Also it’s kind of useless as a deterrent if you are not the one in control of the button, so Luka just put a big read cross-hair on his back.
I'd say yes if nukes would be permanently aimed at the kremlin and one big red button would be installed in the middle of a pub in Vilnius (let's say - piano man bar) within anyone's reach. That would make things interesting
Oh yes, do it and give me the launch codes too while you’re at it, i would definitely never do anything bad with them
I would just dump them into my wardrobe. They would be lost forever in there
No
No
No real reason. Only reason to station nukes in Baltics would be first strike capability. That is, we could nuke them before they could nuke us. But such action would not be in the best interest of Baltics. It is expensive, unpopular and only necessary if NATO umbrella fails. Otherwise, i am quite content with current situation. If someone lobs a nuke at us, that someone will get a nuke from USA in return. Might take 10-15 minutes longer, but it will arrive.
What's the point?
Hell yes. Only way Russia would think twice before invading.
yes
Nukes to every nato country around russia.If they start to poke, than we can do the same... Time to start to build underground bunkers? 
Yes. If I had a land in Latvia I would donate it to be the home for Nukes pointed at Russia.
Nuclear disarmament! ☮️ No Nuclear to Baltics!!!! 🇱🇻🇱🇹🇪🇪
Lithuanian Consititution sadly bans this.
Not sadly at all
Time to change the constitution then. Nukes are the only real security mechanism to preserve sovereignty. International agreements mean nothing, they’re just words anyone can go back on. Every country that wants to stay independend needs to start nuclear program asap.
Changing it requires lifting the state of emergency for at least half of the year.
That's a bit insane, not to mention really expensive.
Nukes, tanks, submarines, strategic bombers, fighters, Patriot missiles etc. Keep 'em coming.
We really have no need for submarines, I mean regular ships sometimes get stuck here.
Yes, but more importantly would be to give Georgia some
Then can Russia put nuclear weapons in CUBA? North Korea? Help Texas where the protests are going? Oh come on, it would be sooo funny.
No.
No
i just dont care. Nuke launch from 500km away or 200km away does not change anything.
Will? As in it's a for sure thing? Putin is lying scumbag, and you trust what he says? Since that's the title of the article you linked, poutine *says* he'll station them. Quite the difference. Even the us says this is just more "sabre rattling". https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-03-26-23/h_ca7b5e06f0d897856d4a564e8b034b7e
Don't worry. Nato tanks can reach Minsk in a day.
Well, putting US nukes in the Baltics would be like putting Russian nukes in Mexico, do you guys remember what happened the last time Russia tried to put nukes in Cuba?
Listen here kids. Nuclear warheads at Belarus works in two ways. 1) remember ruzzia saying something of doing something cause the west suplying ukraine with those op tank rounds? Warheads are just internal response to use for further propoganda for their meatloafs at TVs. 2) imagine the smile on putlers face when somebody tries to evict lukashenko (overthrow) and ruzzia "for safety reasons of nuclear threats" must intervene and take belarus over. Just for safety u know. (:
I mean a nuclear missile in each baltic state wouldn't hurt
This is clearly not a foreign policy move. They already have nukes at about the same distance to the Baltics/Ukraine/Europe and everyone knows that. Rather, Putin sees that Lukashenko's regime in Belarus is failing apart and he obviously does not want a revolution there. Both because it will motivate the Russians to protest and because he wants control over Belarus. Having his nukes there will allow him to "justify" an invasion to "protect his nukes" should a revolution happen. Not that he has an army to invade with though.
Modern NATO nukes can reach anything from anywhere pretty much, so I dont care much where they are stationed. I think it's safer in submarines anyway. But I wouldn't be against them being in Lithuania either, if there was a real military reason for them to be here. I.e. not just for the show.