NATO would never launch a preemptive nuclear weapon on Russia unless it was provoked to some degree. Also this thought that "nukes would be sent to the US before they could join in" is goofy.
The vast majority of Russias nuclear stockpile sits in storage and the 2,000 or so "active" nukes are primarily dependent on antiquated cold-war era ICBMs. Both France and the UK's nuclear arsenals are equipped on highly modernized deployment systems that would be able to glass Russia before the US even gets involved with our own nukes. But also this isn't how the world works and there isn't a time when NATO, the UK, or France "gets involved" before/without the US.
NATO, the UK, France, and US's delivery systems are unparalleled. The US holds 71 of 134 total nuclear powered submarines in the world. Out of these 71, 18 are Ohio-class. These are capable of holding 24 Trident SLBM missiles that each hold up to 8 MIRV (multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle) nuclear warheads. Each of these MIRV warheads hold a firepower of 100 kilotons of TNT (10x larger than Hiroshima). That means each of these subs could hold 24 missiles that can each separate into 8 nuclear warheads, totaling 192 warheads, each with a range of 4,600 miles. That means a sub off of NYC could hit Anchorage. The US essentially have 18 mobile nuclear launch bases that can move underwater.
The location of said nuclear submarines are classified and could be on the coast of Russia for all we know - especially in a time of heightened conflict. The US could deploy 80 warheads into Russia from the sea within 15 minutes while Russia fumbles a floppy disk to get a 50 year old ICBM off to Europe.
Russia has a dying economy with a smaller GDP than Texas and doesn't have the resources to modernize their nuclear weapons - its all posture. They know this. They would be deleted before they could get even 5% of their nukes off.
NATO would never launch a preemptive nuclear weapon on Russia unless it was provoked to some degree. Also this thought that "nukes would be sent to the US before they could join in" is goofy.
The vast majority of Russias nuclear stockpile sits in storage and the 2,000 or so "active" nukes are primarily dependent on antiquated cold-war era ICBMs. Both France and the UK's nuclear arsenals are equipped on highly modernized deployment systems that would be able to glass Russia before the US even gets involved with our own nukes. But also this isn't how the world works and there isn't a time when NATO, the UK, or France "gets involved" before/without the US.
NATO, the UK, France, and US's delivery systems are unparalleled. The US holds 71 of 134 total nuclear powered submarines in the world. Out of these 71, 18 are Ohio-class. These are capable of holding 24 Trident SLBM missiles that each hold up to 8 MIRV (multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle) nuclear warheads. Each of these MIRV warheads hold a firepower of 100 kilotons of TNT (10x larger than Hiroshima). That means each of these subs could hold 24 missiles that can each separate into 8 nuclear warheads, totaling 192 warheads, each with a range of 4,600 miles. That means a sub off of NYC could hit Anchorage. The US essentially have 18 mobile nuclear launch bases that can move underwater.
The location of said nuclear submarines are classified and could be on the coast of Russia for all we know - especially in a time of heightened conflict. The US could deploy 80 warheads into Russia from the sea within 15 minutes while Russia fumbles a floppy disk to get a 50 year old ICBM off to Europe.
Russia has a dying economy with a smaller GDP than Texas and doesn't have the resources to modernize their nuclear weapons - its all posture. They know this. They would be deleted before they could get even 5% of their nukes off.