this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2025
79 points (90.7% liked)

World News

51286 readers
2523 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
lemmyAtom@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
79
Airbus CEO Calls on Europe to Acquire Tactical Nuclear Weapons (www.reuters.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by stln@lemmy.ml to c/world@lemmy.world
30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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."

all 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 33 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

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

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3216532/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]

^ https://thebulletin.org/2023/08/rapid-dragon-the-us-military-game-changer-that-could-affect-conventional-and-nuclear-strategy-and-arms-control-negotiations/

[–] textik@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 weeks ago

Just wanted to say, this is an incredibly well thought out and sourced comment in a sea of "defense contractor bad" idiot posts.

For the record, defense contractors are significantly less evil than the likes of Meta and Google.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What additional training is appropriate for nuclear bomber pilots? Like, it seems you simply need to know approximately where to drop it and then to gtfo. Is it payload maintenance or something else?

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 weeks ago

One of the reasons this is such a status quo disturbing technology is that almost no additional training is required for airlift crews already trained at air dropping equipment and troops.

[–] SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

Rapid Dragon, the king of "bombing dudes in caves" era tactics. There's a reason that real bombers aren't just cargo aircraft.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Arms dealers says world needs more weapons in it.

I think he can bog off.

[–] drolex@sopuli.xyz 13 points 2 weeks ago

He's not the CEO. He's the chairman. It would be nice to have something correct in the first few words

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If I’m sitting next to a a nuke it better have at least paid for two seats.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

And I'm taking the nuke's inflight pretzels

[–] Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Who the hell cares what this guy thinks?

[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

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.

[–] Avicenna@programming.dev 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So we should also trust health insurance companies' CEOs' ideas about how health care should be structured? If they are likely to put their company's interest above anything else, then this is a very valid question. And big corporations are notorious for doing exactly this.

[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Where did I use the word "trust?" Nowhere. I said they have a well-informed opinion on the topic at hand.

[–] Avicenna@programming.dev 1 points 1 week ago

The problem is that most people don't trust them to actually inform goverments with their well-informed opinion but with their interests in mind. And if that is a reasonable point of view, then whether or not they have a well-informed opinion becomes irrelevant.

[–] DaMummy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Can we afford not to raise this weapon manufacturers stock price!?

[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Who said anything about stock price? I sure didn't.

[–] DaMummy@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

We have to care about the line of the poor billionaire. How can you be so selfish?

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

As the other commenter said, they don't appear to be the CEO

[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

You're right. He's the Chairman, who in most corporations leads the hiring of the CEO. He's actually higher up. Congrats on being technically correct.

[–] Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Won’t somebody think of the shareholders!

[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The Chairman or CEO or whatever of a major defense corporation has a vested stake in what things might affect the defense industry and very likely has a team of people informing him of what is going on geopolitically. This person is someone who probably knows more than you on things like this, so maybe listening to him is worthwhile. We don't have to follow what he says, but hearing what he says is probably a good idea.

[–] Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Corporations should not set military policy. This is not the US.

[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Show me where he is setting military policy. I'll wait.

Oh, hang on, he isn't. He is making a public statement about what he thinks politicians should do based on what he observes in his daily work on the job. It's literally the Chairman's job to make public statements about what is best for the industry they work in and what is best for their company.

[–] Avicenna@programming.dev 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I mean it is not unimaginable that someone with low moral standards may be exaggerating the risks involved to fear monger governments etc to work with them. It is a general distrust of big corporations that make people here skeptical. If companies like meta, google, tesla etc have no reservations about doing extremely shitty and dodgy things and also able to come out of those with net positive effects, why wouldn't this guy? When someone says "corporations should not set defense policy", they don't actually mean setting it on a governmental level. What they mean is that they should not even be able to inform policies because they are likely putting their interest above other ethical considerations.

[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So the most informed people should not be able to make public statements because people who make policies might listen to them? That's an insane take.

[–] Avicenna@programming.dev 1 points 1 week ago

The question is more the following: can we trust them to use the information available to them honestly or are they more likely to distort or hide facts if it aligns more with their interests. If the latter is a common situation, then that is not an insane take.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

Who cares what the chairman of one of two major airplane manufacturers thinks?

[–] DaMummy@lemmy.world -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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!

[–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

European talking about European defense

What does this have to do with USA at all?

[–] DaMummy@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Look, Americans don't want to go to war, so we gotta depend on some very unsavory characters in Europe to raise the stock prices of our weapon manufacturers.