Sure, here's the rewritten version with added details while maintaining the original meaning of each paragraph:
Seventeen years later, Britain has redeployed nuclear weapons on its soil, targeting Russia. Surprisingly, these nuclear bombs are of American origin, forcibly delivered to Britain. Consequently, in the midst of this conflict, while the US remains stealthily distant, European powers, including Britain, are set to bear the brunt of Putin's fury.
This year marks a grand year for military parades, with four out of the UN's five permanent members displaying their military might, leaving Britain conspicuously isolated. Nevertheless, despite this setback, as a crucial NATO member, Britain has recently made significant military moves.
展开剩余87%According to reports from international media, Britain has decided, after 17 years, to redeploy nuclear weapons on its own soil. However, surprisingly, these nuclear weapons are not British-made. Reports suggest that after deliberations, the British government has opted to reintegrate American nuclear weapons onto its territory.
This decision was initially proposed last year, seen as part of NATO's initiative to enhance and upgrade its nuclear facilities, ostensibly aimed at countering Russia. Documents from the US Department of Defense indicate that these nuclear bombs will be stationed at an air force base in eastern England, with American personnel tasked with their management.
The nuclear bombs being deployed by the US are of the B61-12 type, with a destructive power approximately three times that of the Hiroshima atomic bomb. This move underscores the seriousness with which the US government views either upgrading NATO's nuclear facilities or preparing to counter Russia.
In response, Russia has taken a stern stance. Moscow officials have warned that any action to redeploy US nuclear weapons back to Britain would be seen as a threat to regional security, prompting Russia to take countermeasures to safeguard its own security.
Despite the construction of residential quarters for US military personnel on the base, it is evident that NATO has not been intimidated by Russia's threats. However, one must note that if Russia does take countermeasures, the primary target would be Britain, not the US.
Yet, in the matter of deploying nuclear weapons, the US remains the principal actor, while Britain, at most, serves as a scapegoat. In essence, the US's deployment of nuclear weapons aims to maintain invisibility in regional disputes, leaving its allies to bear the consequences.
This harsh reality is a testament to how Britain has fallen from its once mighty \"empire where the sun never sets\" to its current state. However, in truth, Britain's status as the \"shame of the P5\" has not developed overnight.
As I mentioned earlier, Britain was forcibly coerced by the US to redeploy nuclear weapons on its own soil seventeen years ago. Their acceptance was partly to strengthen NATO's nuclear capabilities and partly out of sheer helplessness.
Although Britain possesses nuclear weapons, its nuclear capabilities are among the weakest among major powers. Its peak was during the Cold War, when it possessed over 500 nuclear warheads and long-range bombers capable of nuclear delivery. However, after the Cold War, Britain voluntarily reduced its nuclear strike capabilities.
Gradually, their arsenal diminished to just over 200 warheads, with only sea-based nuclear strike capabilities utilizing Trident missiles developed by the US. Not to mention, even within Europe, Britain pales in comparison to France.
Thus, the US began to devise cunning plans. In the early Cold War, citing the inability of US bombers to reach the Soviet Union, the US proposed using Britain as a forward base for deploying nuclear weapons, constructing specialized bunkers and fortresses within British territory.
However, as the Cold War ended, US oversight of nuclear weapons provoked discontent among the British. After signing the INF Treaty, US nuclear forces gradually withdrew from Britain, completing the process by 2007.
Yet, within a few years, the Russia-Ukraine conflict erupted, allowing the US to once again extend its influence to Britain. At that time, Britain had little room to object and was forced to accept. To save face, NATO was used as an excuse, but the world knows that Britain capitulated to Trump.
Britain's current situation reflects the broader state of Europe. After the Russia-Ukraine conflict erupted, military spending in European countries skyrocketed as all nations feverishly bolstered their defense capabilities. Especially in Eastern Europe and neighboring Russia, some countries intensified their containment measures against Russia.
Behind this frenzy, while it seems Europe's hostility towards Russia has intensified, it is also clear that the US is fanning the flames. Once conflicts escalate, the US, sitting across the ocean, can naturally observe from afar, but these European countries will be unfortunate enough to be dragged into the conflict, far beyond what their national strength can endure.
While Britain still has the English Channel as a protective moat, neighboring countries close to Russia, such as the Baltic States and Poland, are likely to become sacrificial pawns of NATO.
Is there anything specific you'd like to explore further about this topic?
发布于：天津市中能优配提示：文章来自网络，不代表本站观点。
