Airbus CEO René Obermann called on European countries to acquire tactical nuclear weapons in response to the threat posed by Russian Iskander missiles, which are deployed in Kaliningrad and capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
“It appears that our Achilles’ heel is what Russia is openly threatening us with: more than 500 tactical nuclear warheads on 26 Iskander missiles deployed right on our doorstep in Kaliningrad, in addition to those recently deployed in Belarus. Germany, France, the UK, and other European countries willing to cooperate should agree on a joint, phased nuclear deterrence program, including at the tactical level. I believe this would be a powerful deterrent.”
This statement appears to be yet another attempt to blame Russia for the escalation, despite the deployment of Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad region back in 2018. It also appears that Obermann is acting as a talking head to shape public opinion among European citizens to justify yet another tax hike for the sake of general “security.”
FYI: The reason this is relevant is that Airbus makes large cargo aircraft and the future of tactical nuclear warfare and large precision guided munitions in general is unquestionably palletized air launch systems like the Rapid Dragon “Palletized Effects” system. The US demonstrated this capability with a cruise missile in Europe in 2022, and it is highly likely this capability is being developed or at least seriously considered by a large amount of militaries all over the world. The degradation of the media in talking intelligently about defense is frustrating as it is clear to me what the Airbus CEO is saying and why their opinion is strategically relevant in this context but this is not spelled out for the average person at all. To make my point clear, the Airbus CEO represents one of the largest tactical nuclear launch platform producers in the world given the massive capability of Airbus to create large cargo and airlift aircraft, that is why the CEO of an airline airplane company is actually strategically right in the center of future tactical, nuclear and long range precision strike capability.
This is what the future of nuclear launch platforms in large part looks like, cargo aircraft such as the Airbus A400M Atlas…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M_Atlas
What frustrates me about this so much is that this is a serious conversation people should be having outside of military defense circles and the basic failure of the media to report on this kind of use of cargo airplanes makes the entire conversation around this opaque to citizens of nations all over the world that otherwise might have opinions on the specifics of nuclear arms capability and procurement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Dragon_(missile_system)
https://www.dvidshub.net/video/863901/afsoc-conducts-live-fire-exercise-with-rapid-dragon
A Rapid Dragon-like nuclear delivery system also has potential impact on nuclear relations with NATO and other potential regional allies. Since most—perhaps even all—of the principal alliance members and potential allies have cargo aircraft, the United States could consider a NATO-like sharing agreement under which, in times of crisis, palletized nuclear systems could be loaded (perhaps with a US-controlled security and launch team) on non-US aircraft. In contrast to the current system, which requires potential non-US nuclear users to have nuclear trained pilots and qualified delivery aircraft, a palletized system would require little to no additional training or cost for the host/user nation. In the long run, such palletized systems might be seen as superior to the current NATO system of pre-positioned nuclear gravity bombs.
The potential for nuclear launch from cargo aircraft creates new tactical problems that could affect survivability and deterrence concepts. Wide dispersal of potential palletized nuclear weapons in time of crisis is somewhat akin to the problems that mobile launchers for missile systems create for an adversary. How can an aggressor locate enough of the potential weapons and launch vehicles to ensure the success of a first strike, and how survivable are the possible cargo aircraft to ensure the viability of a retaliatory strike?
…
Rapid Dragon will be a game-changing concept for conventional and, possibly, nuclear weapons use, now for the United States and its allies, but in the future for potential US adversaries. The Rapid Dragon development is somewhat reminiscent of England’s introduction of the Dreadnaught, a type of battleship that made the rest of its large fleet obsolescent and allowed other nations to compete with England in building modern battleships. Rapid Dragon appears to be a similarly game-changing development for the United States and its allies but will need to be carefully monitored to ensure that the advantage it creates is maintained. Similarly, the nuclear potential for Rapid Dragon-like systems will need to be tracked, arms limitation strategies for such systems developed, and the potential increase in threat potentials and/or new threat vectors defined as counterstrategies are conceived.[7]
He’s not the CEO. He’s the chairman. It would be nice to have something correct in the first few words
Arms dealers says world needs more weapons in it.
I think he can bog off.
deleted by creator
Who the hell cares what this guy thinks?
Who cares what the CEO of a major Defense contractor thinks about the defense of the continent that company is located in? I’d say a lot of people.
Won’t somebody think of the shareholders!
Can we afford not to raise this weapon manufacturers stock price!?
Can we also buy weapons from this guy? We don’t want those drones flying over New Jersey again, do we? Can we really wait for evidence in the form of a mushroom cloud!? Those drones were probably fentanyl-powered drones from Venezuela. You gonna tell me the drones in the sky were just fishing drones!? I don’t think so. We have to nuke Tristan & Tobacco!
