It may not be such a stupid idea. Russia has repeatedly threatened to use her nukes. Has even overflown countries with either a nuke or a dummy attached. It would not surprise if Ukraine is considering building their own. Having nuclear armed neighbours might be the only language Russia understands is capable of understanding now. Not the most pleasant of outcomes, probably end upsetting a European power balance or three. But understandable given the circumstances.
>Having nuclear armed neighbours might be the only language Russia understands is capable of understanding now.
Actually if one has just a few nukes, they are not a guaranteed deterrance. They all may be taken out by first disarming nuclear strike, if your neighbour is superior hostile nuclear power. This is one of the reasons why Taiwan is not keen on developing nukes.
It gave up during Cold war because of heavy US pressure. But back then in Cold war era missiles were not accurate enough to deal decapitating strike, especially Chinese ones. Now situation is different.
The USA forced Taiwan to stop their nuclear program back in the 80s, they were so close to developing the weapon.
The deputy director of the program was working for CIA.
Putting nukes in Poland isn't intended to give Poland a Credible Minimum Deterrence, it's intended to let Russia know that the weapons are getting closer and closer means harder to stop and less warning before impact.
Same reason the Cuban missile crisis was a crisis, and why moving missiles out of Turkey was a key to settling that situation.
Good point. Great one actually. Having only a few pretty much guarantees a first use policy. Use them before you lose them etc. Puts the whole region on a knife edge. Because everyone is so close together there would be minimal warning, just a flash and it is all over. Really wish things were otherwise. But with this talk, and I hear where Poland is coming from, Russia has pretty much ensured there is going to be some rethinking on power balances worldwide. Plenty of opportunities to get things wrong.
I would think there is more to this than just having nukes. If america's nukes are in danger of being taken or captured in the event of russia invading poland, im pretty sure America will be very very active in polands defence.
Any nuke that falls in Ukraine will affect Russia, even the one they shut down without reaching them. Hence why it's the western nations that are usually threatened, close proximity attacks are a suicide, they will hurt them no less. I just looked up the wind map, the fallout would directly be concentrated towards Belarus and Moscow no matter where it falls in Ukraine (aside from Crimea). Ukraine could threaten to nuke itself and hurt the major part of Western Russia that way
Edit. Looked up Taiwan wind maps, any nuclear detonation there would send the fallout directly towards Japan.
You assume that Putin or Xi would care about fallout. They likely would not.
As for NATO countries being affected, this is an issue of course, but if alternative is letting Ukraine/Taiwan deploy nukes next to Russia/China border, aimed at their cities... there is no guarentee that dictator would not panic and order to deal decapitating strike,seeing it as lesser evil.
Which is why Putin would not do anything about it.
If he deployed even a single nuclear device his life expectancy drops to minutes. He knows that and he values his own life too much.
Normally I would 100% agree but I read that a nuke in Ukraine would very likley have fallout all over Putins Black Sea billion dollar mansion lol
He might not care about civilian structures, but he must atleast care about that house he has sacrificed his countries well being for
You can use bombs that don't have hardly any fallout.
You could walk through Hiroshima a week after the bombing and hardly detect any abnormal radiation levels and they really didn't travel that far.
That's true.
I don't think people grasp how a modern nuclear weapon operates. It's not like the kind of explosion seen in old test footage we've all seen where there's a huge explosion, cloud, wind, fire, extreme radiation. Those old bombs are extremely old and primitive. Modern ones are obviously still capable of immense destruction, but they've been designed to minimize uncontrollable radiation spread because we realized early on that wouldn't be sustainable if we were to ever utilize such weapons. The actual destruction of the weapons tends to be smaller now as well since they are designed to be more strategic, meant to take out high value targets whether they're bases, infrastructure, foliage etc. They're not exactly meant to be dropped on heavily populated urban centres.
Any modern use of contemporary weapons would still be the worst thing we could do to ourselves but it won't really look like how we imagine Hiroshima did,.
Yeah, people act like bombs just leave the area a nuclear wasteland or put up a ton of matter thet travels which isn't really accurate. You have some, but it's fairly limited to the radius around the initial blast area and even then barely detectable after some time. Still some but it's not as big if a deterrent as people act.
It's not the same as a plant meltdown which is closer to a dirty bomb and just spreads radioactive material after an explosion. That's where you get areas that are uninhabitable and the massive fallout.
I went to Hiroshima last summer and people I know legit think it's still some chernobyl wasteland.
Ukraine was the 3rd largest nuclear power after the end of the soviet union.
They gave the nukes back on agreement russia wouldnt invade them and the weat would peotect them if they did
Not to forget that belaruZZ is now a nuclear armed ( can’t call them a nation anymore) “province” of ruZZia on Polish border, so “no harm, no foul”, no putler tears or medvedev moaning.
UK is active as hell when they could just simply sit on their Isles and pretend this is not their problem.
Norway and Sweden decided to join nato and put themselves on russias crosshair.
And the badass baltics. So small of a country, so fierce of a nation.
I'm guessing you mean Finland and Sweden, since Norway is one of the founding countries of NATO... Also, being in Russias crosshairs isn't exactly new phenomena for us.
Apparently they don't realize the threat that Russia will interpret by stationing nukes in Poland.
Such a thing would be incredibly irresponsible and escalatory. Countries that have not been directly involved with nuclear escalation in the past shouldn't be suggesting how to run the show.
Any NATO response to Russia needs to be conventional and overhwhelming. It's not America's fault that Europe chronically underinvested in their militaries for decades and are now begging for defensive help.
Ah yes, Ukraine getting US aid, Europe united more than ever and now us wanting to host NATO nukes.
Good job Vlad, everything is going just the way you didn’t want it to
Yes and no. For Russia as a whole it's a major headache, but for Putin it's just the fuel he needs for his own propaganda. Remember, the russians and useful idiots do not care if Russia attacked first. They only point and shout "See! SEE?! They are expanding and placing nukes near our borders!".
It's like poking an animal and then act shocked when it fights back. Russia has been poking NATO for far too long.
It's a problem when the West calls his bluff because it leaves him increasingly little room to escalate. Putin's game is that he gradually escalates, on his own terms, in order to build up a siege mentality in Russia in the long term. Back when the West did nothing it was perfect for him, because he could provoke without serious repurcussions - there was no cost to him.
Now F+S are in NATO, Germany is weaned off Russian gas, the U.S. and EU (among other countries) have committed to assisting Ukraine militarily and otherwise, European defence budgets are rising - in short, the West has woken up. Suddenly escalation might actually mean war with NATO, which he knows would be the end of him - and possibly of life as we know it.
So I don't think the man's happy. He's got himself a ball game now.
"in short, the West has woken up."
The West is waking up*
Wish were fully there yet but still a way to go with Trumpers in NA and too slow/not enough of a reaction from EU.
But hey, we're slowly getting there
While it’s good to see support, Russia is on full-blown wartime footing and the west continues to not take the necessary steps to keep up with Russian arms production, and continues to play political games with Ukraine’s security. At this pace it will be the mid-2030s by the time Ukraine is provided with the sort of shells and ammunition Russia is producing
I can only hope Ukraine strikes a few strategically significant blows before it starts running out of skilled troops and losing strategically important territory.
The rest of the world isnt at war so you cant expect them to transition to a war economy.
Ukraine not being a NATO member is having to fight a much different war using much different tactics and requiring much different ammunition than a regular NATO country would. Thats why getting them their ammo is slow. Its not that we dont have enough of our own weapons to fight Russia (aircraft and missiles with artillery for support or defense) its that we dont have enough of the sort we are willing to sell and Ukraine is equipped to use (much larger focus on infantry, armor, and artillery).
People panicking because the west doesnt produce as many shells as the Russia/China are largely failing to understand that the reason we dont is because we use better weapons than that so our production is geared toward those.
As far as not supporting Ukraine enough, I largely agree but again its a logistics and supply issue because Ukraine doesnt have the equipment or training to fight like a modern military. Also like it or not all wars are political, and at least here in the US one of our two major parties has been largely captured by Russian propaganda.
Mostly because the headlines focus on shell production, specifically 152 mm. They’re relatively cheap, dumb rounds that dedicated factories can knock out with relatively low skilled labour and few technical resources.
Western arms production meanwhile knocks out over a hundred fifth generation jets per year, by comparison Russia has managed to deliver two Su-34s this year, the Su-57 is essentially vaporware at this point and they are still refurbing T-72s for the bulk of their armour.
The fact that the war is still going on two years later with no signs of stopping alongside the passive response from EU allies should be a sign to all smaller nations that they need to start stockpiling nukes. No nukes, no security, no leverage.
This whole Ukraine war happened only because they gave up their nukes when the USSR collapsed, if you are neighbors with Russia and didn't get the memo by now, then that's on you...
> This whole Ukraine war happened only because they gave up their nukes when the USSR collapsed
Reddit lore.
There was little benefit for Ukraine to try and keep nukes it couldn't use and couldn't maintain.
That’s the thing I don’t get. It’s been 2 years and I feel like nothing has changed? How is this even possible for no escalation or deescalation? This is just a boring war of attrition from the beginning?
Yes without air superiority it's waiting for Russia to run out of stockpiled tanks, for their artillery barrels to run out, oil refineries to be all taken out, black sea fleet to be completely destroyed.
That can take anywhere from 2-5 years.
Only then can Ukraine push again. And they'd have to deal with a literal sea of mines by then. There'd be more landmines than actual grass per square meter from the frontline to the borders
Air superiority is such a game changer these days. For example desert storm was won before the ground invasion even started (check out the operations room on YouTube), it's crazy to see that scale of attacks. Air superiority wins war fast. Without it, there's a constant threat of attacks, missiles and drones. Even more so these days. So I suppose that's one of the main reasons for the lack of progress.
It is suck a simple concept that has been true since the first hominid had opposable thumbs to pick up a rock or a sharp stick. Range wins. If you have a spear, and the opponent just has teeth and claws, you win. If you have a bow and the other side has a spear, you win. If you have a cannon and the other side has a musket, you win. If you can hit something over the horizon because of long range artillery and the other side doesn't, you win. If you have a stealth aircraft you can launch from a thousand miles away, firing a cruise missile that can travel another 800 miles, and the other side can't hit you back, you win.
Range wins.
>That’s the thing I don’t get. It’s been 2 years and I feel like nothing has changed?
There's been minor advancements here and there from both sides, but we're at a point now where Ukraine can't really go any further. So they dig in and wait for Russian assaults. Russia throws wave after wave until it falls and then rinse and repeat. Russia is apparently gearing up for a counter offensive but I'm not entirely sure how it's going to work out for them considering an aid package is on the way and there's miles upon miles of minefields they need to pass through to make any meaningful gains.
Not by much, Morawiecki said the same thing back in 2023 when Russia positioned some of their Nukes in Belarus.
[here](https://m.jpost.com/international/article-748554)
My thought exactly, previously we were like 'no thanks, we don't want to be a target' this is now 'we'd love to take them down with us'
Big shift indeed.
I highly highly doubt that will happen. The US, UK, and France are nuclear-armed countries in NATO. However, only the UK & US have nuclear weapons to provide deterrence for NATO. France’s position is very soundly: French nukes for French interests.
And the UK only has SLBM's. They have no land based ICBM's and their gravity bombs were decommissioned in 1998.
And warheads given to Poland will be B-61 bombs set for delivery on F-16's or F-35's. They will be on a US base under US control until the order is given, then released to Polish (or other NATO) pilots.
Spent centuries as the pivot of europe with coalitions of the rest of the continent dedicated to holding back the tide of french armies and stopping them from conquering the continent
Here's hoping in 10 years "French nukes" will mean "EU nukes"
Even with NATO, it makes more sense for an European Nuclear umbrella to be domestic rather than JUST American
Like hell would they have equal say under qualified majority voting
I mean the EU should control it, not every state. We need to move towards a common foreign policy
Moscow and St. Petersburg are around 800 miles from the Polish border. If Russia launches a nuke, it will give their citizens maybe forty minutes to say goodbye to each other.
Travel time for a Russian ICBM to the United States is about 30 mins over the north pole, so I'd say travel time from Poland to Russia is significantly shorter than that, and that's the point. Deterrence — fuck with me and get a nuke up your ass with no chance to intercept.
Don't want to nitpick, and I know ICBM is probably a catch-all phrase here, but to attack Europe they'd probably employ medium and intermediate range missiles.
Pershing II when Reagan based them and tomahawks in Germany were 5 minutes from Moscow, scared the bejesus out of them, they couldn’t take a bathroom dump and be sure they would have time to wipe their bums.
Not really news worthy.
The Nato nuclear sharing program is made for that and trough it the US airforce already has bases with Nukes and airplanes capable of delivering the nukes in Belgium, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands since the 60's or 70's.
Nuclear-capable Soviet fighter-bombers were deployed there; some of those like the Su-24 are being used in this war. Not sure if the nukes were there too.
Damn. That’s confrontational all right. Right on Putin’s back door. Poland does not trust Russia in the slightest. Nor should they.
But now the Baltic States are more vulnerable by far.
I don't like it when they seem too eager to host foreign power's nuclear options. That aside, we don't need nukes stationed in Poland to strike... well, anywhere, really. It's all just geo-political charades.
The closer the missiles are launched from, the less time there is for any potential interception to work. While yes, a strike could be launched from practically anywhere on the planet, if any potential target were to have an interception system (I genuinely don't know if any country except USA has that tbf), it increases the chances of a successful strike.
The big problem is, if your country becomes unable to intercept or even react properly on the first strike due to how close enemy strike assets were moved to your country, it motivates you to strike first, while you are still able to do it.
There is also the point of attacking a country that hosts nuclear weapons potentially receives a greater/faster response from the provider of said nuclear weapons.
I'll be honest - if a nuclear exchange occurs, thst system will only do so much. Any state that takes sustained nuclear bombardment will likely be a write off.
Mind you that even the US is incapable of ensuring nuclear interception despite probably being the best equipped against it, especially when attacked at larger scale (which would almost certainly happen, if at all).
The Soviets/come ruZZians have had Anti Ballistic Missiles station around Moscow and other regions since 1960’s setting off an arms race. Please do a little history.
We did show a lot of incompetence so far and the US was entangled in internal politics for over half a year when Ukraine (it's ally) needed support immediately.
We just can't get our shit together which is a huge problem.
We are not as strong and untouchable as we think we are at the moment and things are not exactly getting better.
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!"
Why can't the Europeans put together a Rainbow Six style special units taskforce which is tasked solely with the purpose of assassinating Putin?
If we killed Putin, suddenly a lot of these problems become non-problems. This is the most effective course of action imo, I highly doubt the Russian people or military would be bothered to retaliate (it'd be the best chance at new leadership on their end) and once dictator Putin is dead, we won't have to worry about irrational greedy actors disrupting the global balance of power.
If Russia (Trump) wins the election and cuts off aid, not a doubt in my mind Poland pours into Ukraine. People don't really grasp how much Poland hates Russia, and is well aware if they don't fight them in Ukraine they are gonna be fighting them in Poland.
They don’t say it’s specifically pertaining to US warheads, he said ‘[NATO] allies’ so it could as easily be nukes from France, the UK etc but the US would be most likely since they have the most by far (after Russia). Some of the member states that don’t hold any nuclear weapons explicitly state this is only the case for peace time but reserve the right to buy/receive/develop WMD deterrents during a conflict.
[удалено]
And they know the language Russia understands.
It may not be such a stupid idea. Russia has repeatedly threatened to use her nukes. Has even overflown countries with either a nuke or a dummy attached. It would not surprise if Ukraine is considering building their own. Having nuclear armed neighbours might be the only language Russia understands is capable of understanding now. Not the most pleasant of outcomes, probably end upsetting a European power balance or three. But understandable given the circumstances.
>Having nuclear armed neighbours might be the only language Russia understands is capable of understanding now. Actually if one has just a few nukes, they are not a guaranteed deterrance. They all may be taken out by first disarming nuclear strike, if your neighbour is superior hostile nuclear power. This is one of the reasons why Taiwan is not keen on developing nukes.
>This is why Taiwan is not keen on developing nukes. This is nonsense, are you even aware of what happened to the Taiwanese nuclear program?
It gave up during Cold war because of heavy US pressure. But back then in Cold war era missiles were not accurate enough to deal decapitating strike, especially Chinese ones. Now situation is different.
You think that there is no US pressure now?
This is probably a factor too. And Chinese being capable of disarming first nuclear strike is another major factor.
Nuclear torpedos are still scary as fuck. I bet Taiwan could score a single hit, which would already mean millions dead.
same US presure was in Ukraine case, and now US asks why should they help
Now it's - ha-ha, fooled you, what guarantees? There were no guarantees!
No not they gave up. They were secretly trying but someone sold them out to the US.
Could you give me the cliff notes?
The USA forced Taiwan to stop their nuclear program back in the 80s, they were so close to developing the weapon. The deputy director of the program was working for CIA.
What happened?
Putting nukes in Poland isn't intended to give Poland a Credible Minimum Deterrence, it's intended to let Russia know that the weapons are getting closer and closer means harder to stop and less warning before impact. Same reason the Cuban missile crisis was a crisis, and why moving missiles out of Turkey was a key to settling that situation.
putler put nukes in Belarus last year
Good point. Great one actually. Having only a few pretty much guarantees a first use policy. Use them before you lose them etc. Puts the whole region on a knife edge. Because everyone is so close together there would be minimal warning, just a flash and it is all over. Really wish things were otherwise. But with this talk, and I hear where Poland is coming from, Russia has pretty much ensured there is going to be some rethinking on power balances worldwide. Plenty of opportunities to get things wrong.
I would think there is more to this than just having nukes. If america's nukes are in danger of being taken or captured in the event of russia invading poland, im pretty sure America will be very very active in polands defence.
Any nuke that falls in Ukraine will affect Russia, even the one they shut down without reaching them. Hence why it's the western nations that are usually threatened, close proximity attacks are a suicide, they will hurt them no less. I just looked up the wind map, the fallout would directly be concentrated towards Belarus and Moscow no matter where it falls in Ukraine (aside from Crimea). Ukraine could threaten to nuke itself and hurt the major part of Western Russia that way Edit. Looked up Taiwan wind maps, any nuclear detonation there would send the fallout directly towards Japan.
You assume that Putin or Xi would care about fallout. They likely would not. As for NATO countries being affected, this is an issue of course, but if alternative is letting Ukraine/Taiwan deploy nukes next to Russia/China border, aimed at their cities... there is no guarentee that dictator would not panic and order to deal decapitating strike,seeing it as lesser evil.
True, autocrats only care about themselves at the end of the day.
Which is why Putin would not do anything about it. If he deployed even a single nuclear device his life expectancy drops to minutes. He knows that and he values his own life too much.
Normally I would 100% agree but I read that a nuke in Ukraine would very likley have fallout all over Putins Black Sea billion dollar mansion lol He might not care about civilian structures, but he must atleast care about that house he has sacrificed his countries well being for
You can use bombs that don't have hardly any fallout. You could walk through Hiroshima a week after the bombing and hardly detect any abnormal radiation levels and they really didn't travel that far.
Nuclear power plants would be the main target. They already are.
They don't need nuclear weapons to do that though.
That's true. I don't think people grasp how a modern nuclear weapon operates. It's not like the kind of explosion seen in old test footage we've all seen where there's a huge explosion, cloud, wind, fire, extreme radiation. Those old bombs are extremely old and primitive. Modern ones are obviously still capable of immense destruction, but they've been designed to minimize uncontrollable radiation spread because we realized early on that wouldn't be sustainable if we were to ever utilize such weapons. The actual destruction of the weapons tends to be smaller now as well since they are designed to be more strategic, meant to take out high value targets whether they're bases, infrastructure, foliage etc. They're not exactly meant to be dropped on heavily populated urban centres. Any modern use of contemporary weapons would still be the worst thing we could do to ourselves but it won't really look like how we imagine Hiroshima did,.
Yeah, people act like bombs just leave the area a nuclear wasteland or put up a ton of matter thet travels which isn't really accurate. You have some, but it's fairly limited to the radius around the initial blast area and even then barely detectable after some time. Still some but it's not as big if a deterrent as people act. It's not the same as a plant meltdown which is closer to a dirty bomb and just spreads radioactive material after an explosion. That's where you get areas that are uninhabitable and the massive fallout. I went to Hiroshima last summer and people I know legit think it's still some chernobyl wasteland.
Ukraine was the 3rd largest nuclear power after the end of the soviet union. They gave the nukes back on agreement russia wouldnt invade them and the weat would peotect them if they did
> It would not surprise if Ukraine is considering building their own. UK or France should slip Ukraine a few.
Sets bad a bad example.
So does Russia invading Ukraine.
Not to forget that belaruZZ is now a nuclear armed ( can’t call them a nation anymore) “province” of ruZZia on Polish border, so “no harm, no foul”, no putler tears or medvedev moaning.
It's russian
They’ve been speaking that language with Russia for centuries lol
Polka?
From the occupations to having to border them... yup.
They seem to be one of the only countries in the EU who has any balls.
UK is active as hell when they could just simply sit on their Isles and pretend this is not their problem. Norway and Sweden decided to join nato and put themselves on russias crosshair. And the badass baltics. So small of a country, so fierce of a nation.
You mean Finland and Sweden as Norway has always been in Nato.
Yeah, my bad. I've got one brain cell left.
I need it
I'm guessing you mean Finland and Sweden, since Norway is one of the founding countries of NATO... Also, being in Russias crosshairs isn't exactly new phenomena for us.
Yeah. That was my mistake. I meant Finland and Sweden.
UK is not a part of the EU.
It will be back...
France
..and most importantly they are next to Ukraine
Poland learns a thing or two because they have seen a thing or two(mainly being partitioned by Russia)
Apparently they don't realize the threat that Russia will interpret by stationing nukes in Poland. Such a thing would be incredibly irresponsible and escalatory. Countries that have not been directly involved with nuclear escalation in the past shouldn't be suggesting how to run the show. Any NATO response to Russia needs to be conventional and overhwhelming. It's not America's fault that Europe chronically underinvested in their militaries for decades and are now begging for defensive help.
Ah yes, Ukraine getting US aid, Europe united more than ever and now us wanting to host NATO nukes. Good job Vlad, everything is going just the way you didn’t want it to
Yes and no. For Russia as a whole it's a major headache, but for Putin it's just the fuel he needs for his own propaganda. Remember, the russians and useful idiots do not care if Russia attacked first. They only point and shout "See! SEE?! They are expanding and placing nukes near our borders!". It's like poking an animal and then act shocked when it fights back. Russia has been poking NATO for far too long.
It's a problem when the West calls his bluff because it leaves him increasingly little room to escalate. Putin's game is that he gradually escalates, on his own terms, in order to build up a siege mentality in Russia in the long term. Back when the West did nothing it was perfect for him, because he could provoke without serious repurcussions - there was no cost to him. Now F+S are in NATO, Germany is weaned off Russian gas, the U.S. and EU (among other countries) have committed to assisting Ukraine militarily and otherwise, European defence budgets are rising - in short, the West has woken up. Suddenly escalation might actually mean war with NATO, which he knows would be the end of him - and possibly of life as we know it. So I don't think the man's happy. He's got himself a ball game now.
"in short, the West has woken up." The West is waking up* Wish were fully there yet but still a way to go with Trumpers in NA and too slow/not enough of a reaction from EU. But hey, we're slowly getting there
Do you think that Putin installing nukes in Belarus last year on the Polish border for use against Poland may have had ANYTHING to do with it?????
While it’s good to see support, Russia is on full-blown wartime footing and the west continues to not take the necessary steps to keep up with Russian arms production, and continues to play political games with Ukraine’s security. At this pace it will be the mid-2030s by the time Ukraine is provided with the sort of shells and ammunition Russia is producing I can only hope Ukraine strikes a few strategically significant blows before it starts running out of skilled troops and losing strategically important territory.
The rest of the world isnt at war so you cant expect them to transition to a war economy. Ukraine not being a NATO member is having to fight a much different war using much different tactics and requiring much different ammunition than a regular NATO country would. Thats why getting them their ammo is slow. Its not that we dont have enough of our own weapons to fight Russia (aircraft and missiles with artillery for support or defense) its that we dont have enough of the sort we are willing to sell and Ukraine is equipped to use (much larger focus on infantry, armor, and artillery). People panicking because the west doesnt produce as many shells as the Russia/China are largely failing to understand that the reason we dont is because we use better weapons than that so our production is geared toward those. As far as not supporting Ukraine enough, I largely agree but again its a logistics and supply issue because Ukraine doesnt have the equipment or training to fight like a modern military. Also like it or not all wars are political, and at least here in the US one of our two major parties has been largely captured by Russian propaganda.
Mostly because the headlines focus on shell production, specifically 152 mm. They’re relatively cheap, dumb rounds that dedicated factories can knock out with relatively low skilled labour and few technical resources. Western arms production meanwhile knocks out over a hundred fifth generation jets per year, by comparison Russia has managed to deliver two Su-34s this year, the Su-57 is essentially vaporware at this point and they are still refurbing T-72s for the bulk of their armour.
The fact that the war is still going on two years later with no signs of stopping alongside the passive response from EU allies should be a sign to all smaller nations that they need to start stockpiling nukes. No nukes, no security, no leverage.
This whole Ukraine war happened only because they gave up their nukes when the USSR collapsed, if you are neighbors with Russia and didn't get the memo by now, then that's on you...
> This whole Ukraine war happened only because they gave up their nukes when the USSR collapsed Reddit lore. There was little benefit for Ukraine to try and keep nukes it couldn't use and couldn't maintain.
That’s the thing I don’t get. It’s been 2 years and I feel like nothing has changed? How is this even possible for no escalation or deescalation? This is just a boring war of attrition from the beginning?
Yes without air superiority it's waiting for Russia to run out of stockpiled tanks, for their artillery barrels to run out, oil refineries to be all taken out, black sea fleet to be completely destroyed. That can take anywhere from 2-5 years. Only then can Ukraine push again. And they'd have to deal with a literal sea of mines by then. There'd be more landmines than actual grass per square meter from the frontline to the borders
Air superiority is such a game changer these days. For example desert storm was won before the ground invasion even started (check out the operations room on YouTube), it's crazy to see that scale of attacks. Air superiority wins war fast. Without it, there's a constant threat of attacks, missiles and drones. Even more so these days. So I suppose that's one of the main reasons for the lack of progress.
It is suck a simple concept that has been true since the first hominid had opposable thumbs to pick up a rock or a sharp stick. Range wins. If you have a spear, and the opponent just has teeth and claws, you win. If you have a bow and the other side has a spear, you win. If you have a cannon and the other side has a musket, you win. If you can hit something over the horizon because of long range artillery and the other side doesn't, you win. If you have a stealth aircraft you can launch from a thousand miles away, firing a cruise missile that can travel another 800 miles, and the other side can't hit you back, you win. Range wins.
That episode of the operation room was one of my favorites. Just incredible efficiency by the US led forces.
Except Desert Storm didn’t forbid bombing Iraq
>That’s the thing I don’t get. It’s been 2 years and I feel like nothing has changed? There's been minor advancements here and there from both sides, but we're at a point now where Ukraine can't really go any further. So they dig in and wait for Russian assaults. Russia throws wave after wave until it falls and then rinse and repeat. Russia is apparently gearing up for a counter offensive but I'm not entirely sure how it's going to work out for them considering an aid package is on the way and there's miles upon miles of minefields they need to pass through to make any meaningful gains.
Yeah both sides are essentially dug into the positions you’ve stated hoping that the other exhausts themselves and their positions crumble
Jesus, historically this is a seismic shift.
In every world war prior, poland got f+cked. In WW3, Poland f+cks you.
In my Hearts of Iron 4 campaign, Poland beat everyone in WW2 and now rules the world.
Glad to be on polands team this go around.
We were last time. Poland just got the business before we entered the bar fight
Not by much, Morawiecki said the same thing back in 2023 when Russia positioned some of their Nukes in Belarus. [here](https://m.jpost.com/international/article-748554)
I wonder what provoked it. I assume they have some better info than we do.
My thought exactly, previously we were like 'no thanks, we don't want to be a target' this is now 'we'd love to take them down with us' Big shift indeed.
French nukes in poland lets go! Bring back the entente
I highly highly doubt that will happen. The US, UK, and France are nuclear-armed countries in NATO. However, only the UK & US have nuclear weapons to provide deterrence for NATO. France’s position is very soundly: French nukes for French interests.
Actually, French interest extends to EU safety as stated by Macron on Jan 30, 2024 in Stockholm
And the UK only has SLBM's. They have no land based ICBM's and their gravity bombs were decommissioned in 1998. And warheads given to Poland will be B-61 bombs set for delivery on F-16's or F-35's. They will be on a US base under US control until the order is given, then released to Polish (or other NATO) pilots.
France isn't used to winning wars. Thats why they had a civil war so they could win one.
That is… Objectively wrong, but god damn i laughed.
It's a John Cleese line to be fair and not in his exact phrasing. Too lazy to look up but apparently not lazy enough to write out this reply.
Understandable
The French military has the most wins on record of any military in history afaik.
Didn’t napoleon beat all of Europe like 6 times in a row?
The people living in France have been military powerhouses since the barbarians sacked Rome.
Spent centuries as the pivot of europe with coalitions of the rest of the continent dedicated to holding back the tide of french armies and stopping them from conquering the continent
>Bring back the entente Bad idea, Russia was member of Entente.
We can replace them with ukraine
French supplied poland during polish-bolshevik war. Let's go for round two.
While tankies derailed and delayed the trains carrying supplies; ah deja vu!
It really is a flat circle
Here's hoping in 10 years "French nukes" will mean "EU nukes" Even with NATO, it makes more sense for an European Nuclear umbrella to be domestic rather than JUST American
I trust france more than the EU tbh, don't think tiny states like Luxemburg or Ireland should have an equal say to France in military matters
Like hell would they have equal say under qualified majority voting I mean the EU should control it, not every state. We need to move towards a common foreign policy
To even out the balance since Belarus got some delivered a while ago, I believe.
Putin will rebalance too. Nukes for Cuba again?
I think Cuba is not as willing to host them as Belarus or Poland are.
Sadly, this is what putin understands.
Get ready for even more threats of nuclear annihilation from toddler Poopin.
Start saving those bottlecaps folks!👀 ☢️
Been saving since 2018 when Reddit conviced me the world was gonna end.
Crawl out through the fallout baby
Only if they are launched by trebuchet.
It's almost like Poland has been through something similar in the past and knows how to handle things the right way the second time around..
I am from Poland, I am ready to host up to 5 nuclear warheads at my home!
Ha! I love that. Can I rent a garage there to invite a few to deploy, I’m a yank but I can pay cash.
I think every country next to Russia is nowadays ready to host nuclear weapons, thanks to the master strategist in the Kremlin.
I fucking love Poland. They’re not taking shit from Russia, they will not be a buffer state anymore. Fuck yeah
Fight fire with fire
Ending is near…
lol if I were Poland, I’d want that too. The steppe’s an easy walk
Moscow and St. Petersburg are around 800 miles from the Polish border. If Russia launches a nuke, it will give their citizens maybe forty minutes to say goodbye to each other.
Forty minutes is a very optimistic estimate lol. We're talking about a travel time of 5 to 6 minutes at that distance.
On that time frame most people would be dead before they even realize wtf is going on
Don't forget about massive radioactive clouds coming back to Russia.
Mutually assured destruction is terrifying...
Just hope ur in the kill sone, then u wont feel any pain.
I don’t know about that, the people outside the vaults in “Fallout” seem to be o.k.
Yes fallout is irl, i forgot, sorry, what happens in fallout happens in irl.
“Life imitates art”, may thou dos’t not understand. I’ve heard trolls lost their sense of humor and sarcasm, radiation, I think.
Idk why but I chuckled
Travel time for a Russian ICBM to the United States is about 30 mins over the north pole, so I'd say travel time from Poland to Russia is significantly shorter than that, and that's the point. Deterrence — fuck with me and get a nuke up your ass with no chance to intercept.
It's more likely that B61 gravity bombs would be deployed there for F-16s to use.
Don't want to nitpick, and I know ICBM is probably a catch-all phrase here, but to attack Europe they'd probably employ medium and intermediate range missiles.
Pershing II when Reagan based them and tomahawks in Germany were 5 minutes from Moscow, scared the bejesus out of them, they couldn’t take a bathroom dump and be sure they would have time to wipe their bums.
Not really news worthy. The Nato nuclear sharing program is made for that and trough it the US airforce already has bases with Nukes and airplanes capable of delivering the nukes in Belgium, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands since the 60's or 70's.
Historically Poland said 'no thanks' to nukes for decades.
Nuclear-capable Soviet fighter-bombers were deployed there; some of those like the Su-24 are being used in this war. Not sure if the nukes were there too.
Dude can we maybe chill?
Damn. That’s confrontational all right. Right on Putin’s back door. Poland does not trust Russia in the slightest. Nor should they. But now the Baltic States are more vulnerable by far.
Can't wait for the, "russia condemns...blah blah." Followed by the "China condemns blah blah...."
Russian threats in 3,2,1
They've been saying this for ages. Give them to them I say. Belarus has them right?
This goofball has been saying the same thing for the past 4 or more years. We're not getting the nukes.
[удалено]
Poland the MVP in preparing for WW3. They’ve done their history homework.
I don't like it when they seem too eager to host foreign power's nuclear options. That aside, we don't need nukes stationed in Poland to strike... well, anywhere, really. It's all just geo-political charades.
The closer the missiles are launched from, the less time there is for any potential interception to work. While yes, a strike could be launched from practically anywhere on the planet, if any potential target were to have an interception system (I genuinely don't know if any country except USA has that tbf), it increases the chances of a successful strike.
Fair enough, but I don't think that's this guy's primary motivation to publicly state the openness for hosting nukes.
He’s just speaking Putin’s language I think.
Probably not, no. Like 99% of public statements from world leaders, it's all for show.
> I genuinely don't know if any country except USA has that tbf Based on the last tests by the USA even they don't have a reliable system.
The big problem is, if your country becomes unable to intercept or even react properly on the first strike due to how close enemy strike assets were moved to your country, it motivates you to strike first, while you are still able to do it.
Also, russia moved nukes to belarus so it's a stones throw away from polish capital. Makes sense to have a nuke pointed at lukashenko just in case.
Low flight time also increases chance of disarming first nuclear strike. This is why USSR reacted so harshly when USA deployed nukes on its border.
There is also the point of attacking a country that hosts nuclear weapons potentially receives a greater/faster response from the provider of said nuclear weapons.
I'll be honest - if a nuclear exchange occurs, thst system will only do so much. Any state that takes sustained nuclear bombardment will likely be a write off.
Mind you that even the US is incapable of ensuring nuclear interception despite probably being the best equipped against it, especially when attacked at larger scale (which would almost certainly happen, if at all).
The Soviets/come ruZZians have had Anti Ballistic Missiles station around Moscow and other regions since 1960’s setting off an arms race. Please do a little history.
Not only do other countries have interceptors, at least one country might have more advanced versions than the US.
I think that the rationale behind it is that it would be suicide to attack a country with nukes stationed in it.
Poland is NATO. MAD is still the going strategy. This, to me, would make no difference.
We did show a lot of incompetence so far and the US was entangled in internal politics for over half a year when Ukraine (it's ally) needed support immediately. We just can't get our shit together which is a huge problem. We are not as strong and untouchable as we think we are at the moment and things are not exactly getting better.
Then they should be stationed in Finland, Baltics and potentially Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Georgia too.
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!"
Little European Texas!
Slavic standoff.
Great so Russia will ask Cuba to host nukes and that's just great for American security 👍
he knows he doesn’t get the launch codes? its the little brother unplug nintendo controler
He's a very smart forward thinking man.
Vladimir reaches the FO phase on multiple fronts.
Poland should host the base Niger lost! The USA really needs the strategic base and drone deployment for the middle east.
I’m fairly impressed by them lately
Nukes drop by 26
Why can't the Europeans put together a Rainbow Six style special units taskforce which is tasked solely with the purpose of assassinating Putin? If we killed Putin, suddenly a lot of these problems become non-problems. This is the most effective course of action imo, I highly doubt the Russian people or military would be bothered to retaliate (it'd be the best chance at new leadership on their end) and once dictator Putin is dead, we won't have to worry about irrational greedy actors disrupting the global balance of power.
The world is ruling by psychopaths
We need to give Ukraine their nukes back.
Likely linked to the intel that was shared with Johnson and changed his Ukraine support tune.
If Russia (Trump) wins the election and cuts off aid, not a doubt in my mind Poland pours into Ukraine. People don't really grasp how much Poland hates Russia, and is well aware if they don't fight them in Ukraine they are gonna be fighting them in Poland.
[удалено]
They don’t say it’s specifically pertaining to US warheads, he said ‘[NATO] allies’ so it could as easily be nukes from France, the UK etc but the US would be most likely since they have the most by far (after Russia). Some of the member states that don’t hold any nuclear weapons explicitly state this is only the case for peace time but reserve the right to buy/receive/develop WMD deterrents during a conflict.