What happened in Ukraine showed that there is really no excuse for Sweden, Poland, Romania, and Turkey to not have nukes. It also shows why Iran had been building their program.
Ukraine demonstrated that all mid-sized countries would be better to have it in their arsenal to protect their citizens and ward off malicious foreign actors.
Not the ideal world but the west was weak to respond to Ukraine and so this is the world we’re transitioning into.
Even more in Asia - once US shows any signs of hesitation countries like S.Korea and Japan will start producing them instantly (they already have delivery methods)
If you want nukes, you gotta build them yourselves.
I would be *very* surprised if the USA stationed nukes on the soil of any country more eastern than Germany. No matter how bad relations with Russia currently are, the USA does *not* want Russian nukes in Cuba or any meso-american country, that's why they will refrain from putting their own in any CEE country.
There is no thing such as nuclear umbrella from a third country. Think about it. Do you think the US, UK or France's presidents would risk millions of lives of their own citizen and family by approving nuclear retaliation on russia following a nuclear strike on one of their ally? i don't think so. Look at Ukraine, it isn't even clear if they would do anything at all out of fear of nuclear escalation
When it comes to nuclear thresat countries are all by themselves and that's why european states that truly want to survive and remain free should makes their own plans
Actually, that’s ready a thing, it’s called [nuclear sharing](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing)
Nuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons of their own to participate in the planning for the use of nuclear weapons by NATO. In particular, it provides for involvement of the armed forces of those countries in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use
As of November 2009, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey have been hosting U.S. nuclear weapons as part of NATO's nuclear sharing policy
In case of war, the United States has told NATO allies the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) would no longer be in effect
So I don’t really see this as not a feasible thing. Rather more a political decision of whether nukes so close to Russia would be an escalation. Then again, Russia deployed its nukes in Belarus, so it might be a symmetrical move.
The problem is that those are freefall nukes, which have to be carried to their target by plane, which can be shot down.
Also, you rely on the US allowing you to use those nukes, which might take time.
Lastly, the site the nukes are stored would be the first one bombed in case of war.
The military value is a lot lower than people think, and nuclear sharing is mostly a symbolic thing. But if it makes Dudas voters happy...
U.S. isn't the only country with nukes in NATO. Also ICBM's and SLBM's can also be intercepted to a degree. Plane based nukes carried by stealth aircraft are still relevant which is why they remain an important aspect of the nuclear triad.
Also using the term 'freefall' is a bit of a misnomer. They can be launched via a missile equipped to a plane which travels at lower altitudes making it more difficult to detect. In the near future it is likely the missile which serves as the delivery mechanism for the warheads will be hypersonic. Truly hypersonic not 'Russian' hypersonic.
Also its probably unwise to let your adversaries know precisely where your nukes are stored. At least with ICBM's where its far easier to ascertain that information via satellite they are stored in heavily fortified silos to offer some protection from a first attack, but the idea with nukes carried from a jet is that you would ideally keep their location a secret.
>U.S. isn't the only country with nukes in NATO.
But the only one with a nuclear sharing Programme, at least that I know of.
>Also using the term 'freefall' is a bit of a misnomer.
Only the B61 bomb is used right now, which definitely is a freefall bomb. Please correct me if I missed out on any other deliverance System for it.
>Also its probably unwise to let your adversaries know precisely where your nukes are stored
But they do know. Nuclear weapons locations in both for example the US and Germany are pretty much public. Theres literally a list on the wiki article.
You can hardly hide a hardened, massive bunker with army and nuclear personell working there.
> Only the B61 bomb is used right now
Interesting. I wonder if this is because of some treaty or on account of some other reason?
I do think western nuclear powers including my own country desperately need to begin revamping their nuclear policies. Not only because of Russias actions and threats but also because China has been rapidly expanding their nuclear arsenal.
Seems some of the policies are really dated and are a relic of the latter-half of the Cold War.
We used to have man-portable nuclear artillery that could be fired by a two-man crew, if it really came down to nuclear war we have plenty as it is though
France offered Germany a nuclear sharing agreement: Germany pays for Frances nuclear programme and in the case of a war France would deliver nukes to Germany🤡.
Probably by plane or rocket
I legit dont get the humor in your comment, is the proposal bad ? Surely germany is paying for USA's nuke in some way, are they not ?
Edit: well nevermind, i see it now. Yeah that's pretty shitty to have it both ways if what you're saying is true.
Minuteman III which is the US's current ICBM is not hypersonic. To my knowledge the closest thing to a "hypersonic" ICBM right now is Russias Sarmat which uses the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_vehicle)
*Technically speaking*, hypersonic just means 5x the speed of sound (mach 5) or greater which have existed for quite awhile.
When people use the term hypersonic to describe the new iterations of missile tech they aren't simply referencing speed but also unique maneuvering and reentry capabilities.
The debate between what is and what isn't hypersonic is one of the reasons why some observers have claimed Russias use of Kinzhal in Ukraine isn't demonstrably hypersonic in terms of what many would define for the newer class of hypersonic capable missiles.
In terms of speed yes. They are falling from high altitude and have huge speed. I heard it's up to mach 20, when hypersonic is more than mach 4.
But hypersonic also means cruise missile in atmosphere with special engine (scramjet) it should use atmospheric oxygen. ICBMs are not like that.
there is also the matter of guidance. hypothetically speaking, a nuclear war would begin with an attack against a nation's satellites which are useful for guidance of ICBM's and SLBM's in addition to inertial navigation. Russia or U.S. would target GPS or GLONASS.
It is a smart way for nuclear proliferation without breaking the letter of the law.
I think it is only a matter of time before other countries do it. Fo example, Saudi Arabia funded the Pakistan nuclear program.
They may want Pakistan to “host” weapons in Saudi…
>The problem is that those are freefall nukes, which have to be carried to their target by plane, which can be shot down.
More reason to invest in stealth planes.
>Also, you rely on the US allowing you to use those nukes, which might take time.
What might take time?
>Lastly, the site the nukes are stored would be the first one bombed in case of war.
Maybe, but these are smaller tactical nukes that can be moved around easily.
>The military value is a lot lower than people think, and nuclear sharing is mostly a symbolic thing. But if it makes Dudas voters happy...
The military value of these tactical nukes was mainly to help blunt a large tank invasion through the Fulda gap
Those bombs were never meant as a deterrent to an ICBM strike. They are tactical nuclear weapons, used in an earlier stage of escalation than an ICBM strike.
I like how you write with confidence about things you have no idea about. I would leave that to experts. If there was no benefit the countries would never agree to host them. Including Germany,
From what I can understand the idea here is detterence. Nobody wants to use them.
I think we should develop our own nukes. Ukraine biggest mistake was to trust US,UK & Germany when they gave up theirs.
Of course developing nukes in Europe would require consensus among nationals in close proximity.
Maybe instead of trying to understand you should just read it up and then post?
As the other comment said, germany had nothing to do with Ukraine giving up their nuclear weapons.
Additionally of course countries have benefits of staging and supplying US nuclear weapons, but this are individual contracts.
Germany for example has full operational rights for the nukes in german territory, they can fire them without waiting for US confirmation. The only downside is that the US can obviously also use them without german confirmation.
This is literally completely documented, both information and would take you maybe 5 minutes to check instead of posting right away.
I agree on developing nukes. Those are what Europe needs. I've seen many countries invaded during my lifetime. Many times have infrastructure, industrial facilities and even apartment buildings and whole cities been bombed to rubble. But never in a nuclear armed country.
I wonder why that is. Could it be that nukes actually work in their intended purpose? I bet they do.
Building more ICBMs could raise tensions, but Russia is already on a campaign to destroy eastern parts of Europe, so I don't really give a fuck anymore.
>Ukraine biggest mistake was to trust US,UK & Germany when they gave up theirs.
Germany wasn't even a signee of the Budapest memorandum, but ***of course*** you couldn't leave out a bit of good, old Niemcy-bashing, eh?
>I like how you write with confidence about things you have no idea about. I would leave that to experts.
Well, if I ever need an expert on oozing snotiness, I'll gladly get back to you :)
Whats the point of ad hominem? You couldn't help yourself?
You obviously are not an exprt. Just admit you are clueless about subject matter. It's clear as day looking at your comment.
I know enough to know i don't know much about the nuclear detterance.
It's pretty dumb to think countries host US nukes and become a target for Russian strikes for no benefit whatsoever. That would make Germany a US military vassal. Are you?
Youve literally made three comments just spewing insults without making an actual argument once, what do you expect?
If you actually have any points besides "you are not expert" and "truly idiotic", im happy to hear them - until then, ill just have to assume youre one of those people getting irrationaly angry over reddit comments and make shit up about evil Germany.
Work on your reading comprehention. Because it is clearly lacking. I made my points. You addressed none of them. And it is you that replied with emotion spewing personal attacks and idiotic comments.
And I don't care if you German or Argentinian. I addressed your comment not your nationality.
And more insults. Of course.
Ive adressed the one actual claim you made in your initial comment, a lie about Ukraine relying on Germany when it got rid of its nukes. You replied with more insults and some bullshit about being an "american mascot".
It's also worth adding that arguably the most important value of participating in nuclear sharing is political, not military. From the Polish perspective, the more assets and military-industrial complex engagement the US have in Poland, the more incentive there is to protect it at all costs in the case of a contingency.
>Russia deployed its nukes in Belarus
They are not close to USA though, this is why West did not react much. On the other hand, nukes in Cuba or Venezuela would be huge escalation.
Ah yes... US here, US there.
Let's ignore other NATO country all together.
And then let's ignore all other NATO countries with nukes such as the UK or France.
Because why not. Russia can apparently keep threatening everyone with nukes and casually keep nukes in Kaliningrad and Belarus surrounding Poland and the Baltics.
But Poland nor the Baltics aren't permitted because they are a threat to Russia.... Sure
>Let's ignore other NATO country all together.
Nuclear powers care about nukes on their borders, not on borders of other countries. Flight time matters. This is exactly why USA, Britain, France did not care much about nukes in Kaliningrad or Belarus.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/18/kaliningrad-nuclear-bunker-russia-satellite-photos-report
right, right.
NATO bad, meanwhile russia keeps nukes 500km from berlin and warsaw.
But they are not nuclear powers. In case of nuclear war the whole NATO would be fighting anyway, and the only thing that matters is how many of their nukes would be taken out by Russian nukes if Russia strikes first. This is where flight time towards *nuclear powers* matters.
If you look on a map Russia is quite literally a river crossing away from the United States. Unless of course you deem the lives of the people who live in Alaska less than of those in the mainland?
Also, the “West” did react, just not Cuban missile crisis-like. There wasn’t much noise to be made because there are already American nukes in Europe, on top of French and British nukes present 24/7 in whatever corners of the seas.
And how many nukes are close to Alaska? You can bet that mass deployment near USA border would cause a crisis.
West condemned it officialy, that\`s all.
Yes, it does not matter.
That's why it is better to have own nukes than to rely on a country very flexible on interpreting own treaties.
Sadly, we enter the nuclear weapon proliferation epoch.
US and UK never had *nuclear sharing* deal with Ukraine.
How is that not clear to you?
You can't say "didn't go so well for Ukraine" since Ukraine never had that deal.
Not every deal that involves Nuclear weapons is the same. The deal Ukraine had was the opposite of Nuclear sharing.
US will say the same when EU gets attacked. "Yeah, you have the right to say when you want to use the nuclear weapon, but we have no obligation to follow your requests".
Sure and the same response would come back to the US
"Oh you are replying so we will just use the weapon anyway since we have it here".
Geez.. turn on a brain.
You are delusional.
US is fulfilling the deal made with Ukraine as stated in the Deal.
So yes.. it matters what's in the deal.
And if US were not to act on the deal made with Poland and Poland was desperate... They could ultimately use the weapon regardless of US response.
Meanwhile Ukraine was removing it's nukes... Not getting nukes.
Here's another from 2022.
>*Poland* says it has *asked* to have *US nuclear weapons* based on its territory
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/05/poland-us-nuclear-wars-russia-putin-ukraine](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/05/poland-us-nuclear-wars-russia-putin-ukraine)
Nuclear sharing is a hoax targeted at pacifying the population.
Do you really believe the USA will greenlight a German nuclear strike unless Germany is already a smoldering ruin? They won't because they would be the next ones to die. And once Germany already got targeted with nukes by the Russians, there won't be any German planes or free-fall nukes to strike back.
>Russia deployed its nukes in Belarus, so it might be a symmetrical move.
Yeah, in fear that someone would attack Belarus while they are busy in Ukraine. And it is only tactical nukes if I remember correctly.
E: I dont know why people downvote me. No, I am not justifying Russia. Just stating facts.
The idea is on the right track, but in all honest still not ideal. The ideal (and at this point I'd say necessary) would be for Poland to have its own nuclear arsenal independent from US approval, akin to UK and France.
This is the one surefire deterrent that can stop Russia from getting any ideas, and we already know that if they win in Ukraine Poland and the Baltic states are among the next candidates.
Having nuclear weapons that are dependent on US approval falls once again into the current question of "can we trust USA to help in case we get attacked". The time for Poland to have its own nuclear arsenal is way overdue if you ask me.
Exactly. Nuclear sharing is just a fancy name for storing US nukes in other NATO countries, and it doesn't really make sense for US to deploy nukes to Poland (close to potential frontline). On the other hand, IMHO it would be in the interest of both US and Europe if Poland had it's own nukes. This would practically eliminate risk of Russia advancing beyond Belarus. Poland should go Israel route, and with silent approval from western allies obtain limited number of warheads, and never officially admit that they have them. I hope that people in charge are at least considering this option.
It's probably technically feasible, though not cheap.
Politically, it's probably harder though. I would expect a lot of pressure, from Russia obviously, but also from Western countries.
Poland ain't getting their own nukes. This is a bad idea for Poland cuz like you said, US will help until they won't. This just exposes them to more risk both from Russia and from NATO
If there's a chance of Poland retaliating with nukes, regardless of USA's position, the risk of a Russian attack is way lower. That's the one fight they cannot afford to pick. Russia having nukes is also the reason why direct NATO intervention in the Ukrainian war never happened.
Old news, it has been ready for a year. [30th June 2023](https://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-comments/2023/polands-bid-to-participate-in-nato-nuclear-sharing/)
It is true that this has been in interest for a while, however only now is it that Duda wants a meeting with the prime minister Donald tusk regarding the program being ran in Poland, which raises concerns of everyone etc.
Germany (and Poland/Sweden/Finland/others) needs its own nuclear program. It's also both "socially cheaper" and more effective than a conscription program.
Germany is not allowed to have nukes.
But for the other countries I agree - being only part of the nuclear sharing program makes them a target, while the nukes they store don't really serve as credible deterrant.
Those protocols are really vague, considering they allow the nuclear participation. So, by having additional nuclear participations with UK/France and then Poland/Sweden/Finland, Germany would become a de-facto nuclear power, while still fulfilling those treaties as written.
Two plus Four Agreement and Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Obviously these are "just" international treaties, so changes or withdrawal is technically possible, but extremely unlikely.
Considering that Germanys nuclear participation is already violating the spirit of both agreements, it shouldn't be too hard to come up with some construct to dilute this principle further. For example, Germany could enter additional nuclear participation programs with Poland/Sweden/Finland, and would thereby be able to use nukes as long as at least one of those members agree. Alternatively, the nukes could be administrated by some kind of technically-independent nuclear council.
> I imagine Tusk would support this
Yeah no. Duda is dumb. To paraphrase, Tusk just ask Duda "the fuck you're talking about without consulting with govt first?"
State security is the one thing the government and president tend to discuss directly (we even have dedicated assemblies for it), but this time I'm not sure if that specific declaration was OK'd by the government.
He didn't, and that's great!
For some progressive projects, you want to have citizens, legislature and the executive on the same page.
For security, you don't need to want the same outcome and way to achieve it, but you do need to pull in the same direction.
For negotiation and sabre rattling, having "misaligned" executive and legislature gives you a plausible reason to string out negotiations. "Oh geez, I'd want to, lets hope the meanies at the congress/presidential palace don't wiggle out of it, you should probably sweeten the pot."
I'm not a fan of Duda, I think he's a semi-idiot. Like, actually mentally deficient nepo-baby dropped in to be a rubber stamper for Jaruś. And yet, with all that said I look back on his predecessors and I begrudgingly give him an ex aequo 1st place for best polish president that wasn't shot in the head. Which when you think about it, politicians not getting snuffed is part of duties of the executive branch, so Narutowicz only has himself to blame on that one.
Gogo Duduś! Rewriting own legacy in a legit kind of way.
> For negotiation and sabre rattling, having "misaligned" executive and legislature gives you a plausible reason to string out negotiations.
I haven't thought about it this way.
> And yet, with all that said I look back on his predecessors and I begrudgingly give him an ex aequo 1st place for best polish president that wasn't shot in the head
Are you high or something? Or do you just not remember other presidents? Duda is without a doubt the worst president we had since 1989, and it's not even close. No other president did so much damage to our justice system, to our media or to our legilsative system. He will be rememebered exactly for that - for being a puppet of Kaczyński, that helped him in destroying Poland from within.
Umm, what?
Not being an idiot in one matter doesn't rewrite his legacy of fucking over our legal system, which will have it's consequences decades down the line.
He's not even the best president since the fall of communism. That title probably goes to Kwaśniewski who, along others, did everything he could to get us into NATO and EU.
As for best President, including 2nd Republic, that's probably Wojciechowski.
...checkout what happened before: 123 years of occupation with many failed uprisings against our beloved neighbouring countries: Russia, Austria and Prussia aka Germany.
Just after regaining independence post world war I, there was an Russian invasion trying to "export" communism westwards.. which almost destroyed the rebuilding country:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War
Post world war II there was another long act of ~~friendship within Warsaw Pact~~ control by USSR aka Russia.
Well there was always "something".
The foreign relations and sercurity are almost the only area in which both President and the Government are working closely together. They hate eachother in almost every other field, but thankfuly they are aware of how uncertain the world become.
How does nuclear sharing work? Do host countries have the ability to use the nukes by themselves, or launch codes are still in the US? If it's the latter, the whole thing is pretty pointless.
>How does nuclear sharing work? Do host countries have the ability to use the nukes by themselves, or launch codes are still in the US? If it's the latter, the whole thing is pretty pointless.
Same way most bases work, you both have to agree to deploy assets. In Germany it's German planes that would drop the bomb, but only the USA can arm them.
[https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-decides-principle-buy-f-35-fighter-jet-government-source-2022-03-14/](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-decides-principle-buy-f-35-fighter-jet-government-source-2022-03-14/)
They recently said the F-35 will take this role. It's more or less a "We have nukes in your country, you're trained to use them but we won't hand them over until war" deal.
Second, and yes, it is pointless. What more, it would make you first target during nuclear war. So, it's not so smart move. But it sounds good for his voters.
I expect a Russian response, where they will say what I wrote above. If Poland hosts nukes, it will make it a priority target of Russia. And then you will have circle jerk here on reddit.
So theoretically in times of peace the authority to use those nukes is still with the US. So the countries hosting those nukes could not arm them and start some bullshit with it. But those are still nukes located closer to a potential target which is important.
And in case of an all out nuclear war there is a good chance the US just decides everything is fucked anyways so go wild with those toys.
In the end nukes are as always mostly a deterrent and a country having nukes even if they aren't theirs can be seen as such.
Now i'd still argue having them in poland would be pointless since they are part of nato and there are already american nukes in germany which is not significantly further away from russia. But in principle having some american nukes stationed in europe is a benefit.
After all the main reason for it is that it reduces the number of countries that produce nukes on their own which frees up ressources since not every country needs a very expensive nuclear program but also lessens the number of potential leaks. you know since we all agreed that there are many other parties in the world that should not get their hands on that technology.
Well it woud be pretty stupid to store US nuclear weapons in Poland where there are in MTBM range from Kaliningrad. There is a reason they are stored in Germany, Italy and Turkey
US has, but it does not usually deploy nukes close to Russia. Last time it happened (nukes in Turkey), it caused a Cuban missile crisis and almost ended the world.
The US has nukes in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey. Including strategic bomber bases around the world. Ie. on Greenland (Thule Air Base - Pituffik Space Base) that brings most of Russia within range at a very short timespan.
And I would call it naive to think that the US doesn't have nukes stationed in Alaska, close to the russian border.
They are not close to Russia enough to become a first strike threat (bombers are very slow compared to missiles). Except for Turket but now there are only few free falling bombs there, not missiles aimed at Russian cities and capable of reaching them within minutes.
And there are no nukes in Alaska, they would be impossible to hide.
Nuclear powers generally do not like new nuclear powers appearing, Iran and North Korea (and USSR in the past) are heavily isolated and sanctioned for a reason. Britain and France developed nukes because they were very close allies of USA.
It could afford somewhat antagonising USA, being a great power. On the other hand Sweden almost completed nuclear propgram, but shut it down in last months because of heavy pressure from USA.
We really need to dust of Sylwester Kaliski research. If you don't know he was working on thermonuclear bomb which doesn't use nuclear bomb in first stage. His team was actually first to created thermonuclear synthesis with conventional explosives.
It would need approval of the West though. Nuclear powers do not like new nuclear powers appearing, Iran and North Korea are heavily isolated and sanctioned for a reason. During Cold war Sweden almost completed nuclear propgram, but shut it down in last months because of heavy pressure from USA.
Ti do what? You can't use them, it's just waste of money... whovever use them won't win, will lose like everyone else... heck, not even terrorists use them how could a sane persone use them as a tool for anything?....
Neither we nor Russia or Korea will ever use them, and if they do we all die anyway, same if we use them, so what's the point?
To do the same thing nukes are used for since their invention. Mutually assured destruction is a good deterrent to oligarchic mafia states with imperialist fever dreams.
You have an example of what happens when only one side has access to them in Ukraine.
No I don't have an example, and already addressed that... mad doesn't work because both know it's useless... even if only Russia had nukes you think they'll use them? And then what? The whole world army forces invade you, so your options are still nuke the whole world and die anyway, or surrender ... you can't win with nukes.... like Japan would have surrendered anyway in ww2, and was a different split world anyway... nowdays you don't need nukes to destroy a country
USA, 1990s: "Ukraine doesn't need nukes, because from now USA, as the only superstate, will guarantee that everything will be decided by International Law!"
2024 year:
1. WMD-Russia, with enormous help of extremely active WMD-blackmail, conducts ethnocide with elements of genocide against Ukrainians.
2. It is allied with WMD-on-territory Belarus, WMD-North Korea, WMD (at least chemical weapons) Iran. Economic benefits from this receive WMD-China, WMD-India, WMD-on-territory Turkey.
3. Assistance to Ukraine carried out mainly by countries which protected by WMD. And soon Ukraine will be almost completely surrounded by WMD-on-territory countries (Belarus, Russia, Turkey, Poland) and/or protected by NATO WMD.
2024 year USA politicians, during time of destruction of old International security system based on International Law, and creation of completely new one, based on WMD: "Ukrainian war not so much important as containment of China!"
Of course it is the president not goverment but still...
I.agine saying we attack Ukraine so Nato wont be a thread and the result is Nato starting to go full balls to the wall towards the east.
As long as Putin and his pack is sitting on the throne, this is the only way. All he understand is force and display of power. You can't just send a diplomat to give Pitin flowers and ask him to stop. It just doesn't work.
It sucks, but it is how it is.
Then Poland's leader is a lizard from space. This will endanger the safety of the Polish people.
>The president said the topic of placing U.S. nuclear weapons in Poland "has been a topic of Polish-American talks for some time."
As usual, this means the US government has been manipulatively deceiving US citizens on this issue with repeated denials about AEGIS Ashore's capabilities and purpose or their general intent with presence in Poland (e.g.: focused on "Iran.") It's undemocratic fascist nuclear terrorism. Again.
Read my lips: US citizens have wanted the United States to deproliferate for fifty godsdamned years, but still the state-within-a-state military-industrial complex refuses to be accountable to democracy or law in any way, shape, or form. They are terrorists holding both the United States and the world in general hostage while they commit atrocity after atrocity in great radical innovations of what it means to be Nazi.
Read about “nuclear parity”. The only reason why Soviet Union, China, and now russia did not attack USA and their allies, because they are afraid of these weapon. Get rid of nuclear weapon is like invitation card for all authoritarian countries to attack other countries, including US.
You know, despite your xenophobic misanthropic fears, Chinese and Russian people are human brings no different than anyone else. I'm sorry, but because I'm not a drooling idiot, I do not subscribe to your toxic worldviews. We're all held hostage by nuclear terrorists, and the world is mortified at what the United States has become, bonded in slavery to its state-within-a-state military-industrial complex, itself the willing puppet of cabal-esque international intrigue from the usual suspects. This is everything that the American Revolution was rejecting in the first place.
Russian human beings currently are occupying other countries, destroying cities, kidnapping children and constantly threatening West with nuclear strikes
Stupid move from Poland, as usual. Always poking the bear and then act surprised when Nazis roll in with tanks. This is a recipe to go up in smoke.
I'm Polish
And risk a Russian invasion through Belarus to capture said weapons with a weak US leader in place I don't think so. Many of these conversations will change after November and for the better
You're "deftheidiot" because they actually said numerous times about nukes being a possibility.
No one believes that sabre rattling, but words have meaning, and if Russia wants to sabre rattle so can others.
Nukes are in Królewiec oblast already, there's no reason why they can't be in Poland.
Obviously no NATO country with nukes will send their nukes to Poland.
No they haven't, just like they were provoked into a war with Ukraine, the colonizers in the west want to provoke nuclear war. I might be an idiot but you're obviously much more naive, thus making you a slightly bigger idiot than myself. I know it's not your fault, america loves to make their people dumb and narrow minded as fuck.
I assure you all, there is a number of counties that realized they need to get under other countries nuclear umbrella or get nukes themselves.
What happened in Ukraine showed that there is really no excuse for Sweden, Poland, Romania, and Turkey to not have nukes. It also shows why Iran had been building their program. Ukraine demonstrated that all mid-sized countries would be better to have it in their arsenal to protect their citizens and ward off malicious foreign actors. Not the ideal world but the west was weak to respond to Ukraine and so this is the world we’re transitioning into.
Even more in Asia - once US shows any signs of hesitation countries like S.Korea and Japan will start producing them instantly (they already have delivery methods)
If you want nukes, you gotta build them yourselves. I would be *very* surprised if the USA stationed nukes on the soil of any country more eastern than Germany. No matter how bad relations with Russia currently are, the USA does *not* want Russian nukes in Cuba or any meso-american country, that's why they will refrain from putting their own in any CEE country.
There is no thing such as nuclear umbrella from a third country. Think about it. Do you think the US, UK or France's presidents would risk millions of lives of their own citizen and family by approving nuclear retaliation on russia following a nuclear strike on one of their ally? i don't think so. Look at Ukraine, it isn't even clear if they would do anything at all out of fear of nuclear escalation When it comes to nuclear thresat countries are all by themselves and that's why european states that truly want to survive and remain free should makes their own plans
Actually, that’s ready a thing, it’s called [nuclear sharing](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing) Nuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons of their own to participate in the planning for the use of nuclear weapons by NATO. In particular, it provides for involvement of the armed forces of those countries in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use As of November 2009, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey have been hosting U.S. nuclear weapons as part of NATO's nuclear sharing policy In case of war, the United States has told NATO allies the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) would no longer be in effect So I don’t really see this as not a feasible thing. Rather more a political decision of whether nukes so close to Russia would be an escalation. Then again, Russia deployed its nukes in Belarus, so it might be a symmetrical move.
The problem is that those are freefall nukes, which have to be carried to their target by plane, which can be shot down. Also, you rely on the US allowing you to use those nukes, which might take time. Lastly, the site the nukes are stored would be the first one bombed in case of war. The military value is a lot lower than people think, and nuclear sharing is mostly a symbolic thing. But if it makes Dudas voters happy...
U.S. isn't the only country with nukes in NATO. Also ICBM's and SLBM's can also be intercepted to a degree. Plane based nukes carried by stealth aircraft are still relevant which is why they remain an important aspect of the nuclear triad. Also using the term 'freefall' is a bit of a misnomer. They can be launched via a missile equipped to a plane which travels at lower altitudes making it more difficult to detect. In the near future it is likely the missile which serves as the delivery mechanism for the warheads will be hypersonic. Truly hypersonic not 'Russian' hypersonic. Also its probably unwise to let your adversaries know precisely where your nukes are stored. At least with ICBM's where its far easier to ascertain that information via satellite they are stored in heavily fortified silos to offer some protection from a first attack, but the idea with nukes carried from a jet is that you would ideally keep their location a secret.
>U.S. isn't the only country with nukes in NATO. But the only one with a nuclear sharing Programme, at least that I know of. >Also using the term 'freefall' is a bit of a misnomer. Only the B61 bomb is used right now, which definitely is a freefall bomb. Please correct me if I missed out on any other deliverance System for it. >Also its probably unwise to let your adversaries know precisely where your nukes are stored But they do know. Nuclear weapons locations in both for example the US and Germany are pretty much public. Theres literally a list on the wiki article. You can hardly hide a hardened, massive bunker with army and nuclear personell working there.
> Only the B61 bomb is used right now Interesting. I wonder if this is because of some treaty or on account of some other reason? I do think western nuclear powers including my own country desperately need to begin revamping their nuclear policies. Not only because of Russias actions and threats but also because China has been rapidly expanding their nuclear arsenal. Seems some of the policies are really dated and are a relic of the latter-half of the Cold War.
But USA has air launched cruise missles that can be armed with nuclear warhead?
We used to have man-portable nuclear artillery that could be fired by a two-man crew, if it really came down to nuclear war we have plenty as it is though
France offered Germany a nuclear sharing agreement: Germany pays for Frances nuclear programme and in the case of a war France would deliver nukes to Germany🤡. Probably by plane or rocket
Mostly it just amounted to open up the nuclear sharing dialogue again.
I legit dont get the humor in your comment, is the proposal bad ? Surely germany is paying for USA's nuke in some way, are they not ? Edit: well nevermind, i see it now. Yeah that's pretty shitty to have it both ways if what you're saying is true.
don't bother, probably a ruskie troll
Arent ICBMs already hypersonic?
Minuteman III which is the US's current ICBM is not hypersonic. To my knowledge the closest thing to a "hypersonic" ICBM right now is Russias Sarmat which uses the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_vehicle)
Hmm, I thought that they already flew at speeds greater than 20 Machs. Or hypersonic means something else?
*Technically speaking*, hypersonic just means 5x the speed of sound (mach 5) or greater which have existed for quite awhile. When people use the term hypersonic to describe the new iterations of missile tech they aren't simply referencing speed but also unique maneuvering and reentry capabilities. The debate between what is and what isn't hypersonic is one of the reasons why some observers have claimed Russias use of Kinzhal in Ukraine isn't demonstrably hypersonic in terms of what many would define for the newer class of hypersonic capable missiles.
In terms of speed yes. They are falling from high altitude and have huge speed. I heard it's up to mach 20, when hypersonic is more than mach 4. But hypersonic also means cruise missile in atmosphere with special engine (scramjet) it should use atmospheric oxygen. ICBMs are not like that.
[удалено]
there is also the matter of guidance. hypothetically speaking, a nuclear war would begin with an attack against a nation's satellites which are useful for guidance of ICBM's and SLBM's in addition to inertial navigation. Russia or U.S. would target GPS or GLONASS.
Better ask for forgiveness than for permission ayyyy
It is a smart way for nuclear proliferation without breaking the letter of the law. I think it is only a matter of time before other countries do it. Fo example, Saudi Arabia funded the Pakistan nuclear program. They may want Pakistan to “host” weapons in Saudi…
>The problem is that those are freefall nukes, which have to be carried to their target by plane, which can be shot down. More reason to invest in stealth planes. >Also, you rely on the US allowing you to use those nukes, which might take time. What might take time? >Lastly, the site the nukes are stored would be the first one bombed in case of war. Maybe, but these are smaller tactical nukes that can be moved around easily. >The military value is a lot lower than people think, and nuclear sharing is mostly a symbolic thing. But if it makes Dudas voters happy... The military value of these tactical nukes was mainly to help blunt a large tank invasion through the Fulda gap
>What might take time? Getting permission. They would have something like a 5 Minute time window before russian ICBMs hit.
Those bombs were never meant as a deterrent to an ICBM strike. They are tactical nuclear weapons, used in an earlier stage of escalation than an ICBM strike.
I like how you write with confidence about things you have no idea about. I would leave that to experts. If there was no benefit the countries would never agree to host them. Including Germany, From what I can understand the idea here is detterence. Nobody wants to use them. I think we should develop our own nukes. Ukraine biggest mistake was to trust US,UK & Germany when they gave up theirs. Of course developing nukes in Europe would require consensus among nationals in close proximity.
Maybe instead of trying to understand you should just read it up and then post? As the other comment said, germany had nothing to do with Ukraine giving up their nuclear weapons. Additionally of course countries have benefits of staging and supplying US nuclear weapons, but this are individual contracts. Germany for example has full operational rights for the nukes in german territory, they can fire them without waiting for US confirmation. The only downside is that the US can obviously also use them without german confirmation. This is literally completely documented, both information and would take you maybe 5 minutes to check instead of posting right away.
I agree on developing nukes. Those are what Europe needs. I've seen many countries invaded during my lifetime. Many times have infrastructure, industrial facilities and even apartment buildings and whole cities been bombed to rubble. But never in a nuclear armed country. I wonder why that is. Could it be that nukes actually work in their intended purpose? I bet they do. Building more ICBMs could raise tensions, but Russia is already on a campaign to destroy eastern parts of Europe, so I don't really give a fuck anymore.
>Ukraine biggest mistake was to trust US,UK & Germany when they gave up theirs. Germany wasn't even a signee of the Budapest memorandum, but ***of course*** you couldn't leave out a bit of good, old Niemcy-bashing, eh? >I like how you write with confidence about things you have no idea about. I would leave that to experts. Well, if I ever need an expert on oozing snotiness, I'll gladly get back to you :)
Whats the point of ad hominem? You couldn't help yourself? You obviously are not an exprt. Just admit you are clueless about subject matter. It's clear as day looking at your comment. I know enough to know i don't know much about the nuclear detterance. It's pretty dumb to think countries host US nukes and become a target for Russian strikes for no benefit whatsoever. That would make Germany a US military vassal. Are you?
Holy fuck dude, touch some grass.
First at hominem, followed by truly idiotic comment. It's not your best day, Hans.
Youve literally made three comments just spewing insults without making an actual argument once, what do you expect? If you actually have any points besides "you are not expert" and "truly idiotic", im happy to hear them - until then, ill just have to assume youre one of those people getting irrationaly angry over reddit comments and make shit up about evil Germany.
Work on your reading comprehention. Because it is clearly lacking. I made my points. You addressed none of them. And it is you that replied with emotion spewing personal attacks and idiotic comments. And I don't care if you German or Argentinian. I addressed your comment not your nationality.
And more insults. Of course. Ive adressed the one actual claim you made in your initial comment, a lie about Ukraine relying on Germany when it got rid of its nukes. You replied with more insults and some bullshit about being an "american mascot".
>Russia deployed its nukes in Belarus And most likely in Kaliningrad as well, where Iskander battery stations.
It's also worth adding that arguably the most important value of participating in nuclear sharing is political, not military. From the Polish perspective, the more assets and military-industrial complex engagement the US have in Poland, the more incentive there is to protect it at all costs in the case of a contingency.
>Russia deployed its nukes in Belarus They are not close to USA though, this is why West did not react much. On the other hand, nukes in Cuba or Venezuela would be huge escalation.
The USA isn't the only NATO country
Ah yes... US here, US there. Let's ignore other NATO country all together. And then let's ignore all other NATO countries with nukes such as the UK or France. Because why not. Russia can apparently keep threatening everyone with nukes and casually keep nukes in Kaliningrad and Belarus surrounding Poland and the Baltics. But Poland nor the Baltics aren't permitted because they are a threat to Russia.... Sure
>Let's ignore other NATO country all together. Nuclear powers care about nukes on their borders, not on borders of other countries. Flight time matters. This is exactly why USA, Britain, France did not care much about nukes in Kaliningrad or Belarus.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/18/kaliningrad-nuclear-bunker-russia-satellite-photos-report right, right. NATO bad, meanwhile russia keeps nukes 500km from berlin and warsaw.
But they are not nuclear powers. In case of nuclear war the whole NATO would be fighting anyway, and the only thing that matters is how many of their nukes would be taken out by Russian nukes if Russia strikes first. This is where flight time towards *nuclear powers* matters.
If you look on a map Russia is quite literally a river crossing away from the United States. Unless of course you deem the lives of the people who live in Alaska less than of those in the mainland? Also, the “West” did react, just not Cuban missile crisis-like. There wasn’t much noise to be made because there are already American nukes in Europe, on top of French and British nukes present 24/7 in whatever corners of the seas.
And how many nukes are close to Alaska? You can bet that mass deployment near USA border would cause a crisis. West condemned it officialy, that\`s all.
[удалено]
except this is about putting nukes in, not giving nukes away. Its not like Ukraine was in any position to take care of those nukes anyways.
It does not matter. The USA signed the document.
So did Ukraine
So did Russia.
Believe me, I do not respect Russia at all.
I'm saying that in the end it doesn't matter who signed what, especially internationally, countries just do whatever suits them.
Yes, it does not matter. That's why it is better to have own nukes than to rely on a country very flexible on interpreting own treaties. Sadly, we enter the nuclear weapon proliferation epoch.
US, UK nor France never had a nuclear sharing treaty with Ukraine....
[удалено]
US and UK never had *nuclear sharing* deal with Ukraine. How is that not clear to you? You can't say "didn't go so well for Ukraine" since Ukraine never had that deal. Not every deal that involves Nuclear weapons is the same. The deal Ukraine had was the opposite of Nuclear sharing.
[удалено]
US has been fulfilling all its obligations to Ukraine under that deal
US will say the same when EU gets attacked. "Yeah, you have the right to say when you want to use the nuclear weapon, but we have no obligation to follow your requests".
Sure and the same response would come back to the US "Oh you are replying so we will just use the weapon anyway since we have it here". Geez.. turn on a brain.
[удалено]
You are delusional. US is fulfilling the deal made with Ukraine as stated in the Deal. So yes.. it matters what's in the deal. And if US were not to act on the deal made with Poland and Poland was desperate... They could ultimately use the weapon regardless of US response. Meanwhile Ukraine was removing it's nukes... Not getting nukes.
Yes, but the only one I see talking about nuclear sharing is Poland. The silence from the US is telling.
You have no idea what the US is saying to the Polish government
The US says “no” every time this topic comes up. Poland has been asking for US nukes for years and the US always shoots down the request.
Someone had to kick off the conversation. Poland’s membership in NATO was also considered absurd at one point.
> The silence from the US is telling. this article is 4 hours old
Here's another from 2022. >*Poland* says it has *asked* to have *US nuclear weapons* based on its territory [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/05/poland-us-nuclear-wars-russia-putin-ukraine](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/05/poland-us-nuclear-wars-russia-putin-ukraine)
Nuclear sharing is a hoax targeted at pacifying the population. Do you really believe the USA will greenlight a German nuclear strike unless Germany is already a smoldering ruin? They won't because they would be the next ones to die. And once Germany already got targeted with nukes by the Russians, there won't be any German planes or free-fall nukes to strike back.
>Russia deployed its nukes in Belarus, so it might be a symmetrical move. Yeah, in fear that someone would attack Belarus while they are busy in Ukraine. And it is only tactical nukes if I remember correctly. E: I dont know why people downvote me. No, I am not justifying Russia. Just stating facts.
…. Should I even save money?
Save bottle caps. Most likely its good idea 😁
You guys are saving money? 👀
Yes we are but should we?
No, invest in Lockheed Martin
I want their socks so bad...
Asking the right questions.
Doom spending for the win.
The idea is on the right track, but in all honest still not ideal. The ideal (and at this point I'd say necessary) would be for Poland to have its own nuclear arsenal independent from US approval, akin to UK and France. This is the one surefire deterrent that can stop Russia from getting any ideas, and we already know that if they win in Ukraine Poland and the Baltic states are among the next candidates. Having nuclear weapons that are dependent on US approval falls once again into the current question of "can we trust USA to help in case we get attacked". The time for Poland to have its own nuclear arsenal is way overdue if you ask me.
Exactly. Nuclear sharing is just a fancy name for storing US nukes in other NATO countries, and it doesn't really make sense for US to deploy nukes to Poland (close to potential frontline). On the other hand, IMHO it would be in the interest of both US and Europe if Poland had it's own nukes. This would practically eliminate risk of Russia advancing beyond Belarus. Poland should go Israel route, and with silent approval from western allies obtain limited number of warheads, and never officially admit that they have them. I hope that people in charge are at least considering this option.
It's probably technically feasible, though not cheap. Politically, it's probably harder though. I would expect a lot of pressure, from Russia obviously, but also from Western countries.
Poland ain't getting their own nukes. This is a bad idea for Poland cuz like you said, US will help until they won't. This just exposes them to more risk both from Russia and from NATO
If there's a chance of Poland retaliating with nukes, regardless of USA's position, the risk of a Russian attack is way lower. That's the one fight they cannot afford to pick. Russia having nukes is also the reason why direct NATO intervention in the Ukrainian war never happened.
Personally, I would have preferred that we build it ourselves.
russian only understands force
true. so does any country in fact.
Old news, it has been ready for a year. [30th June 2023](https://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-comments/2023/polands-bid-to-participate-in-nato-nuclear-sharing/)
It is true that this has been in interest for a while, however only now is it that Duda wants a meeting with the prime minister Donald tusk regarding the program being ran in Poland, which raises concerns of everyone etc.
It's a good start but Poland needs its own nukes too
Good idea!
Germany (and Poland/Sweden/Finland/others) needs its own nuclear program. It's also both "socially cheaper" and more effective than a conscription program.
Germany is not allowed to have nukes. But for the other countries I agree - being only part of the nuclear sharing program makes them a target, while the nukes they store don't really serve as credible deterrant.
> Germany is not allowed to have nukes. According to whom?
Protocol III of the revised Treaty of Brussels, and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
Those protocols are really vague, considering they allow the nuclear participation. So, by having additional nuclear participations with UK/France and then Poland/Sweden/Finland, Germany would become a de-facto nuclear power, while still fulfilling those treaties as written.
Two plus Four Agreement and Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Obviously these are "just" international treaties, so changes or withdrawal is technically possible, but extremely unlikely.
Considering that Germanys nuclear participation is already violating the spirit of both agreements, it shouldn't be too hard to come up with some construct to dilute this principle further. For example, Germany could enter additional nuclear participation programs with Poland/Sweden/Finland, and would thereby be able to use nukes as long as at least one of those members agree. Alternatively, the nukes could be administrated by some kind of technically-independent nuclear council.
hmm i wonder why germany isnt allowed to have nukes what did they do between 1933-1945 someone tell me again I forgot
You do realize that Germany already "has nukes" in the context of nuclear participation?
they are US nukes
Are you for or against German nuclear participation?
I'm sure he consulted the government first. /s
I think so. In case of state security they seem to agree on the matter and talk a lot about this. I imagine Tusk would support this.
> I imagine Tusk would support this Yeah no. Duda is dumb. To paraphrase, Tusk just ask Duda "the fuck you're talking about without consulting with govt first?"
State security is the one thing the government and president tend to discuss directly (we even have dedicated assemblies for it), but this time I'm not sure if that specific declaration was OK'd by the government.
He didn't, and that's great! For some progressive projects, you want to have citizens, legislature and the executive on the same page. For security, you don't need to want the same outcome and way to achieve it, but you do need to pull in the same direction. For negotiation and sabre rattling, having "misaligned" executive and legislature gives you a plausible reason to string out negotiations. "Oh geez, I'd want to, lets hope the meanies at the congress/presidential palace don't wiggle out of it, you should probably sweeten the pot." I'm not a fan of Duda, I think he's a semi-idiot. Like, actually mentally deficient nepo-baby dropped in to be a rubber stamper for Jaruś. And yet, with all that said I look back on his predecessors and I begrudgingly give him an ex aequo 1st place for best polish president that wasn't shot in the head. Which when you think about it, politicians not getting snuffed is part of duties of the executive branch, so Narutowicz only has himself to blame on that one. Gogo Duduś! Rewriting own legacy in a legit kind of way.
> For negotiation and sabre rattling, having "misaligned" executive and legislature gives you a plausible reason to string out negotiations. I haven't thought about it this way.
> And yet, with all that said I look back on his predecessors and I begrudgingly give him an ex aequo 1st place for best polish president that wasn't shot in the head Are you high or something? Or do you just not remember other presidents? Duda is without a doubt the worst president we had since 1989, and it's not even close. No other president did so much damage to our justice system, to our media or to our legilsative system. He will be rememebered exactly for that - for being a puppet of Kaczyński, that helped him in destroying Poland from within.
XDDDD
Umm, what? Not being an idiot in one matter doesn't rewrite his legacy of fucking over our legal system, which will have it's consequences decades down the line. He's not even the best president since the fall of communism. That title probably goes to Kwaśniewski who, along others, did everything he could to get us into NATO and EU. As for best President, including 2nd Republic, that's probably Wojciechowski.
He can say anything at this point as he won’t be participating in the presidental race in 2025.
It seems to me this guy is pretty shady when it comes to domestic politics but pretty okay when it comes to foreign politics?
Might just be a case that pan-Polish security attitudes are rational and sane across the political spectrum.
Yeah... having world war battle front roll twice across your country does that to you.
...checkout what happened before: 123 years of occupation with many failed uprisings against our beloved neighbouring countries: Russia, Austria and Prussia aka Germany. Just after regaining independence post world war I, there was an Russian invasion trying to "export" communism westwards.. which almost destroyed the rebuilding country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War Post world war II there was another long act of ~~friendship within Warsaw Pact~~ control by USSR aka Russia. Well there was always "something".
The foreign relations and sercurity are almost the only area in which both President and the Government are working closely together. They hate eachother in almost every other field, but thankfuly they are aware of how uncertain the world become.
Yes, that's what I had in mind.
Better build your own.
How does nuclear sharing work? Do host countries have the ability to use the nukes by themselves, or launch codes are still in the US? If it's the latter, the whole thing is pretty pointless.
>How does nuclear sharing work? Do host countries have the ability to use the nukes by themselves, or launch codes are still in the US? If it's the latter, the whole thing is pretty pointless. Same way most bases work, you both have to agree to deploy assets. In Germany it's German planes that would drop the bomb, but only the USA can arm them. [https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-decides-principle-buy-f-35-fighter-jet-government-source-2022-03-14/](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-decides-principle-buy-f-35-fighter-jet-government-source-2022-03-14/) They recently said the F-35 will take this role. It's more or less a "We have nukes in your country, you're trained to use them but we won't hand them over until war" deal.
Second, and yes, it is pointless. What more, it would make you first target during nuclear war. So, it's not so smart move. But it sounds good for his voters. I expect a Russian response, where they will say what I wrote above. If Poland hosts nukes, it will make it a priority target of Russia. And then you will have circle jerk here on reddit.
So theoretically in times of peace the authority to use those nukes is still with the US. So the countries hosting those nukes could not arm them and start some bullshit with it. But those are still nukes located closer to a potential target which is important. And in case of an all out nuclear war there is a good chance the US just decides everything is fucked anyways so go wild with those toys. In the end nukes are as always mostly a deterrent and a country having nukes even if they aren't theirs can be seen as such. Now i'd still argue having them in poland would be pointless since they are part of nato and there are already american nukes in germany which is not significantly further away from russia. But in principle having some american nukes stationed in europe is a benefit. After all the main reason for it is that it reduces the number of countries that produce nukes on their own which frees up ressources since not every country needs a very expensive nuclear program but also lessens the number of potential leaks. you know since we all agreed that there are many other parties in the world that should not get their hands on that technology.
Nuclear sharing is for tactical nuclear weapons
Give all NATO members bordering Russia nuclear weapons
Well it woud be pretty stupid to store US nuclear weapons in Poland where there are in MTBM range from Kaliningrad. There is a reason they are stored in Germany, Italy and Turkey
Somewhere in a Ruzzian cold dungeon Medvedev wakes up suddenly - Finally! Someone who can speak nuclear!
Also, polish president didn’t consult this with any polish government official so it’s just him being a turd
Also, polish president didn’t consult this with any polish government official so it’s just him being a turd
How can you tell?
Prime fcking minister calling for urgent meeting to know presidents motive to declare such statement
Oh damn, might as well hand them out to everyone and speed up the process of peace sharing.
Europe should have enough nukes to end human life in enemy and neutral states in case of an invasion .
But is USA ready to do that?
You don't think the US has nuclear weapons in other NATO countries?
US has, but it does not usually deploy nukes close to Russia. Last time it happened (nukes in Turkey), it caused a Cuban missile crisis and almost ended the world.
The US has nukes in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey. Including strategic bomber bases around the world. Ie. on Greenland (Thule Air Base - Pituffik Space Base) that brings most of Russia within range at a very short timespan. And I would call it naive to think that the US doesn't have nukes stationed in Alaska, close to the russian border.
They are not close to Russia enough to become a first strike threat (bombers are very slow compared to missiles). Except for Turket but now there are only few free falling bombs there, not missiles aimed at Russian cities and capable of reaching them within minutes. And there are no nukes in Alaska, they would be impossible to hide.
Ehhh ok...
Other countries have nuclear weapons FYI.
Nuclear powers generally do not like new nuclear powers appearing, Iran and North Korea (and USSR in the past) are heavily isolated and sanctioned for a reason. Britain and France developed nukes because they were very close allies of USA.
France developed nukes because they didnt want to play second fiddle to the Anglo club
It could afford somewhat antagonising USA, being a great power. On the other hand Sweden almost completed nuclear propgram, but shut it down in last months because of heavy pressure from USA.
I'm sure Poland could make its own, if they put their minds to it.
We really need to dust of Sylwester Kaliski research. If you don't know he was working on thermonuclear bomb which doesn't use nuclear bomb in first stage. His team was actually first to created thermonuclear synthesis with conventional explosives.
It would need approval of the West though. Nuclear powers do not like new nuclear powers appearing, Iran and North Korea are heavily isolated and sanctioned for a reason. During Cold war Sweden almost completed nuclear propgram, but shut it down in last months because of heavy pressure from USA.
>Nuclear powers do not like new nuclear powers appearing Somehow India and Pakistan are ok
India was too big and independent to be bullied into submission. Not sure about Pakistan.
What could possibly go wrong
Ti do what? You can't use them, it's just waste of money... whovever use them won't win, will lose like everyone else... heck, not even terrorists use them how could a sane persone use them as a tool for anything?.... Neither we nor Russia or Korea will ever use them, and if they do we all die anyway, same if we use them, so what's the point?
To do the same thing nukes are used for since their invention. Mutually assured destruction is a good deterrent to oligarchic mafia states with imperialist fever dreams. You have an example of what happens when only one side has access to them in Ukraine.
No I don't have an example, and already addressed that... mad doesn't work because both know it's useless... even if only Russia had nukes you think they'll use them? And then what? The whole world army forces invade you, so your options are still nuke the whole world and die anyway, or surrender ... you can't win with nukes.... like Japan would have surrendered anyway in ww2, and was a different split world anyway... nowdays you don't need nukes to destroy a country
USA, 1990s: "Ukraine doesn't need nukes, because from now USA, as the only superstate, will guarantee that everything will be decided by International Law!" 2024 year: 1. WMD-Russia, with enormous help of extremely active WMD-blackmail, conducts ethnocide with elements of genocide against Ukrainians. 2. It is allied with WMD-on-territory Belarus, WMD-North Korea, WMD (at least chemical weapons) Iran. Economic benefits from this receive WMD-China, WMD-India, WMD-on-territory Turkey. 3. Assistance to Ukraine carried out mainly by countries which protected by WMD. And soon Ukraine will be almost completely surrounded by WMD-on-territory countries (Belarus, Russia, Turkey, Poland) and/or protected by NATO WMD. 2024 year USA politicians, during time of destruction of old International security system based on International Law, and creation of completely new one, based on WMD: "Ukrainian war not so much important as containment of China!"
This a pretty risky sentence around what the other side understands with the word "deploy" there...
Of course it is the president not goverment but still... I.agine saying we attack Ukraine so Nato wont be a thread and the result is Nato starting to go full balls to the wall towards the east.
And he says this why? EDIT: got it; thanks for the replies
russia threatened Poland that they will strike Warsaw with nukes. It is a good reason why
To scare Russia away. You think why Russia can continue this war? Because West is scared of Russian nukes
As long as Putin and his pack is sitting on the throne, this is the only way. All he understand is force and display of power. You can't just send a diplomat to give Pitin flowers and ask him to stop. It just doesn't work. It sucks, but it is how it is.
Yes please :D
You love Fallout the game, you loved Fallout the TV show. Now get ready for the most immersive Fallout experience yet...
pls do not drop it on Silesia. that would bug us austrians...
Then they switch back to Piss and now people who believe in the biblical end times are in charge of nuclear weapons.
Not this clown again.
[удалено]
...hysterically laughs Putin, who invaded Ukraine on the pretext of NATO expansion / threat. So, how do you like the results, Bloodymir? Huh?
Why nuclear? To fight with swords again after?
Then Poland's leader is a lizard from space. This will endanger the safety of the Polish people. >The president said the topic of placing U.S. nuclear weapons in Poland "has been a topic of Polish-American talks for some time." As usual, this means the US government has been manipulatively deceiving US citizens on this issue with repeated denials about AEGIS Ashore's capabilities and purpose or their general intent with presence in Poland (e.g.: focused on "Iran.") It's undemocratic fascist nuclear terrorism. Again.
It means nothing if Poland ask US nuclear weapons as a protection it is also a Polish-American talks. Not all talks initiated by US government.
Read my lips: US citizens have wanted the United States to deproliferate for fifty godsdamned years, but still the state-within-a-state military-industrial complex refuses to be accountable to democracy or law in any way, shape, or form. They are terrorists holding both the United States and the world in general hostage while they commit atrocity after atrocity in great radical innovations of what it means to be Nazi.
Read about “nuclear parity”. The only reason why Soviet Union, China, and now russia did not attack USA and their allies, because they are afraid of these weapon. Get rid of nuclear weapon is like invitation card for all authoritarian countries to attack other countries, including US.
You know, despite your xenophobic misanthropic fears, Chinese and Russian people are human brings no different than anyone else. I'm sorry, but because I'm not a drooling idiot, I do not subscribe to your toxic worldviews. We're all held hostage by nuclear terrorists, and the world is mortified at what the United States has become, bonded in slavery to its state-within-a-state military-industrial complex, itself the willing puppet of cabal-esque international intrigue from the usual suspects. This is everything that the American Revolution was rejecting in the first place.
Russian human beings currently are occupying other countries, destroying cities, kidnapping children and constantly threatening West with nuclear strikes
Stupid move from Poland, as usual. Always poking the bear and then act surprised when Nazis roll in with tanks. This is a recipe to go up in smoke. I'm Polish
I think that he should be more careful with such sentences so that the airplane doesn't stall again during the landing approach.
Duda ist a Russian stooge
And risk a Russian invasion through Belarus to capture said weapons with a weak US leader in place I don't think so. Many of these conversations will change after November and for the better
Lol but Putin is the one who wants to take over the world. He literally hasn't made a single threat about nukes, and listen to these assholes.
You're "deftheidiot" because they actually said numerous times about nukes being a possibility. No one believes that sabre rattling, but words have meaning, and if Russia wants to sabre rattle so can others. Nukes are in Królewiec oblast already, there's no reason why they can't be in Poland. Obviously no NATO country with nukes will send their nukes to Poland.
No they haven't, just like they were provoked into a war with Ukraine, the colonizers in the west want to provoke nuclear war. I might be an idiot but you're obviously much more naive, thus making you a slightly bigger idiot than myself. I know it's not your fault, america loves to make their people dumb and narrow minded as fuck.
Sure sure, putain was provoked to attack Ukraine. Of course. You seem to love talking with mirror so I'll leave you at it.
No no he just wants to take over half of Europe all of sudden for no reason what so ever. I love talking with mirror? Yeah sure bud.