Ep12 - Will Rearm-EU Save Us From a Russian Attack?

In a previous episode, we discussed the unsettling similarities between the current European rearmament project, pushed by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and the rearmament that occurred before 1914, which inexorably led to the outbreak of the First World War. In this episode, we intend to examine the issue from another perspective: could the proposed 800-million-euro rearmament be useful for a war capable of defeating Russia? Or, to be more cautious: would it be useful for an effective European defense? In other words, could the EU win a war against Russia? Or, would it at least be able to defend itself from a Russian attack?

In this episode, contrary to our habits, we will not immediately reveal our thesis. The data and facts will show the listener how things really stand. Let's start from two fundamental assumptions that cannot be ignored:

• Wars are fought with weapons
• In the World Wars, the technologies that dominate today's battlefields, such as artificial intelligence, drones, or hypersonic missiles, did not exist. Conflicts were mainly based on artillery, armored vehicles, naval and air forces.

It is therefore evident that this type of analysis, beyond any strategic and military alliances between different states that must in any case be taken into consideration, must start from an examination of the armaments available to individual states. Furthermore, it is necessary to examine the weapon production capacity on which each state can rely. Let's start by examining the various types of weapons. We can classify weapons of war into:

• Bladed weapons
• Firearms
• Weapons of mass destruction

For obvious reasons we will ignore bladed weapons like swords or knives, because today's wars do not use such weapons. Let's look at firearms. We can classify them as:

• Portable firearms: pistols, carbines, rifles
• Artillery: cannons, mortars, tanks
• Missiles and rocket launchers

For obvious reasons, while not neglecting the importance of portable firearms in urban and close-quarters combat, our analysis will focus mainly on artillery, missiles, and other long-range weapon systems, which have become the protagonists of modern conflicts. Things like cannons, mortars, tanks, ships, submarines, and planes. These are the weapons we saw in action in the First and Second World Wars. Now let's look at weapons of mass destruction. We can classify them as:

• Nuclear weapons
• Chemical weapons
• Biological weapons

All these types of weapons have been used at least once, despite the various international treaties that have since prohibited their use or, as in the case of nuclear weapons, limited their proliferation. Nuclear weapons were used by the USA on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 (the only two cases), biological weapons were used by the Japanese Empire (Unit 731) in China during the Second World War, and chemical weapons have been used multiple times, in defiance of international treaties. We recall the cases of Italy in Ethiopia in 1935-36, Iraq in Iran in 1980-1988 and against the Kurds in Halabja in 1988, and more recently during the Syrian Civil War.

Regarding the 1925 Geneva Convention, it is interesting to know that the protocol, which 146 countries have joined, while prohibiting the use of chemical and biological weapons in war, did not prohibit the development, production, or possession of such weapons. For this reason, many nations continued to develop biological weapons programs. The subsequent "Biological Weapons Convention" (BWC), which came into force in 1975, went beyond the Geneva Protocol, explicitly prohibiting the development, production, and stockpiling of biological and toxin weapons. As for chemical weapons, the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which prohibits the development, production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and requires their destruction, was adopted in Paris in 1993 and only entered into force in 1997.

In summary, 193 states have joined the Chemical Weapons Convention, except for Egypt, North Korea, South Sudan, and Israel. Instead, 185 states have joined the Biological Weapons Convention, except for Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Micronesia, South Sudan, Tuvalu, Egypt, Haiti, Somalia, and Syria, which have either not signed or not ratified the agreement.

There are also treaties regarding nuclear weapons, although with a very different approach. Unlike chemical and biological weapons, which have been completely banned for those who adhere to the treaties, the focus for nuclear weapons is on non-proliferation and limitation. This means that unlike chemical and biological weapons, there is no international treaty that universally prohibits the development, production, and possession of nuclear weapons for all states. For example, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), from 1970, commits nuclear states to disarmament and non-nuclear ones not to acquire these weapons. However, nations like India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea are not a party to it. More recently, in 2021, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) came into force, but none of the nuclear powers have signed it, making its impact limited.

What does all this mean? It means that even if we assume that all adhering states actually respect the promises made, some still remain outside who have not signed or ratified the treaties on chemical and/or biological weapons. Therefore, the risk of their use is concrete.

We can summarize the picture just outlined in this way: in an hypothetical conflict today, the weapons that could be used are artillery, missiles, and other long-range weapon systems and weapons of mass destruction such as chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. As we have seen, despite the treaties, there are countries that have not joined the various treaties and could therefore use weapons that are often not taken into consideration by analysts. But it's not over, because the picture is still incomplete, as we still have to examine the new weapons and new military technologies that are available today.

New Military Technologies

Until recently, missile defense systems like the American Patriot or the Israeli Iron Dome were seen as the answer to ballistic missiles and drones. But new technologies have created a new arms race for which, at the moment, there is no answer. Today there are weapons that, once launched, are effectively unstoppable. There is no defense against these missiles. Russia, in this regard, has invested heavily in this technology. Let's take the Avangard missile (SS-X-32Zh):

• Speed: It reaches Mach 20-27 (between 20,000 and 33,000 km/h), a speed that makes it uncatchable for current interception systems.
• Trajectory: Unlike traditional ballistic missiles, which follow a predictable trajectory, the Avangard follows a hypersonic glide path, making its trajectory unpredictable and, consequently, able to penetrate any missile defense system, including advanced ones like the American GMD.

And the Avangard is not the only one. Russia has also developed the Kinzhal (air-to-ground missile, Mach 10) and the Zircon (ship-to-ground missile, Mach 9). The most fearsome weapon, however, remains the Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile, which has the ability to carry the Avangard hypersonic warhead.

All these systems drastically reduce reaction time, bringing it from about 30 minutes to just 5-7 minutes. A time insufficient to consult the Security Council or coordinate with allies, forcing decision-makers to an immediate and high-pressure response.

More recently, Iran's attack on Israel showed the limits of current defense systems. Despite almost all the projectiles being shot down, the difficulty of intercepting the most advanced missiles and the need to invest billions for a defense that is not total anyway, raises a crucial question: in a conflict between states, based on a huge number of drones and hypersonic missiles, how effective would European defense systems be?

But the nuclear threat goes beyond land-based missiles. A crucial aspect is the "second-strike survival," which is a country's ability to launch a nuclear counterattack even after suffering a devastating first strike. This capability is based mainly on nuclear submarines. Let's make a numerical comparison:

• United States: 14 SSBNs (ballistic missile submarines)
• Russia: 11
• China: 6 (with a rapid increase)
• France/United Kingdom: 4 each

But it is not just the number that counts. It's efficiency. Russian submarines, for example, operate in the Arctic, in deep, icy waters, which are extremely difficult for any adversary to monitor. Their Borei-class submarine is particularly silent and modern, armed with Bulava missiles.

In addition to missiles, modern warfare has two invisible but decisive pillars: drones and satellites....

That’s just a glimpse! The full story — and the full context — are in the podcast episode below. Curious to hear more? Listen the full episode on your favorite platform:

Amazon Music.

Apple Podcasts.

Spotify

Castbox