As we can clearly see now, NATO does not need nuclear deterrence again Russia's conventional weapons.

What protects, for example, the Baltic countries is not the threat that the US might take initiative to drop a nuclear bomb on Russia, no it is the vast conventional capabilities of the US.

Just supplying a relatively small amount of weapons to Ukraine is enough to destroy most of the Russian army.

Based on Russian performance at the start of the invasion, a similar force would have overrun the Baltic states. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are small and geographically isolated. They are surrounded by Russia, Belarus, and the Baltic Sea. Any attempt to support and supply them would have to go through the small gap between Kaliningrad and Belarus, or over the Baltic Sea, which would be heavily contested.

The geographic situation largely explains why the Baltic States support the NATO membership of Sweden and Finland so strongly, and why Russia is opposed to it. With Sweden and Finland in NATO, the Baltic Sea will become NATO's internal sea. NATO would likely have naval and air superiority over it, which would keep supply lines open and give them a chance to defend the Baltic States with conventional weapons.

Wouldn't any Russian force driving around in the Baltic states be easy targets for NATO cruise missiles and air power?

None of which NATO countries has offered to use in Ukraine.

I think logistics by railway would be problematic if NATO allies launched a few thousand cruise missiles.

That's the benefit of Sweden and Finland joining NATO.

Air power is of little use if your forces don't have access to the relevant area. The Baltic states are surrounded by Russian bases and air defenses, while NATO bases are far away. Right now, Kaliningrad is effectively a fortress that separates the Baltic states from the rest of NATO. Sweden and Finland give NATO air forces the option to bypass Kaliningrad and operate from bases that are closer to the Baltic states.

There was already Norway, Denmark and Poland fairly close by (close in terms of air travel).

But yes, Sweden and Finland in NATO is nice. Also for the fact that NATO not intervening in aggression against Sweden or Finland is hard to imagine, so getting papers on the marriage is nice for all parties involved.

The idea is that if Sweden and Finland are not members of NATO, their airspace would be closed to NATO air forces in a NATO–Russia conflict. Then the only way to reach Baltic airspace would be flying past Kaliningrad.

Also, as far as I understand, the combat radius fighter jets is quite short. It's something like 500 to 1200 km, depending on aircraft type and weapons load. Having bases 100 or 200 km closer is already a significant advantage.

The fighter jets can refuel during flight, which is a routine operation.

Tankers won't help here. The problem is that NATO fighters would effectively have to fly over Russia before they can reach the Baltic states. The area where tankers can operate safely already has plenty of NATO airbases.

If NATO doesn't need nuclear weapons, one more reason to get rid of them. The truth is number of states that endorse nuclear weapons expands as NATO expands, and I see that as a security risk.

The poster you've replied to said

>NATO does not need nuclear deterrence again Russia's conventional weapons

NATO has more than enough capabilities to destroy Russia's conventional weaponry, but as Russia has nuclear weapons, NATO must also have them to keep parity.

Getting rid of nuclear weapons is impossible. Genie's out of the bottle.

> Getting rid of nuclear weapons is impossible.

I disagree. Progress is being made (see ICANW), despite setbacks, some unfortunately coming from "the West", which is supposed to be morally more advanced.

And NATO doesn't need to keep parity with Russia, what for?

I also consider nuclear retaliation strike to be morally dubious. What's the point?

> I also consider nuclear retaliation strike to be morally dubious. What's the point?

The point isn't that you win something with a second strike. The point is that second strike capability ensures no actor can make a first strike without risking consequence. It's about deterrent, not about winning.

NATO does have to at least keep parity with Russia. Russia is the number one threat in the region, and NATO was made specifically for this purpose. Without adequate weapons to ensure peace, there would be no point of the alliance.

Nuclear weapons are necessary as a deterrent. In this case from an adversary that has nuclear weapons - without those in stock NATO would be outmatched and vulnerable to being subject to the threat of using them.

At the end of the day, states with nuclear weapons get to push non-nuclear states around. Good luck getting Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan or North Korea to disarm.

Getting the West to abandon their nuclear weapons would be morally reprehensible as those states would become subjects to the states that did not.

It's a nice dream, but:

1. It won't happen.

2. Nuclear weapons I believe are the most important reason why we did not have a conventional war in Europe for 80 years. Russia would not attack an adversary that was nuclear armed or in a nuclear sharing program.

I do not agree with your cynicism. You just made an opposite argument - that NATO doesn't really need nuclear weapons to defend against Russia.

I think, if NATO countries (and the U.S.) wanted to, they could make lot more effort to denuclearize. I don't think NATO can institutionally do it, though (it wasn't designed for it). For example, they could propose more aggressive mutual disarmament treaties, that would decrease arsenal in certain proportions on a timeline, with inspections. They don't do that, so I conclude that they don't really want to.

As for the peace - plenty of countries in Europe that are not involved in nuclear weapons and yet enjoy peace. As you said - nuclear countries bully the non-nuclear ones around, therefore, effort should be made to get rid of them completely.