You've just demonstrated that you are confused.
Would nuclear weapons on the border of Russia keep Russia in check? Possibly.
Ex-Russian president comments on Polish nuclear request
Dmitry Medvedev has warned that the deployment of US nuclear weapons to Poland could lead to a nuclear warwww.rt.com
Why would Poland want them? Why would America supply them to Poland?
Would it be a wise decision to allow Poland to put some teeth into threatening Russia.
In hopes that this can be discussed rationally without becoming a vengeful pissing match?
I'm posting this in the CDZ because it's a question that needs to be faced before it's too late! IMO.
Moderators: Can we have strict Zone 1 moderating of this topic?
That's America's agenda if it can't step across Russia's borders to break the Russian superpower gas station into manageable pieces.
Lukashenko is only giving Russia lip service in a lot of ways and keeping up on the appearance of going along with Putin. He is a wiley character....one of the slickest I've seen in a while. But in my estimation he has his own agenda which is not in lock step with Russia.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with what ActionJackson stated. (aside maybe the Biden part
) since it is about countries and not a present government. nothing could be scarier than JOey Buyme fumbling with the nuclear codesThere is absolutely nothing wrong with what ActionJackson stated. (aside maybe the Biden part
The one who has to get himself up to speed is YOU
TPNW negotiations - ICAN
Poland has not yet signed or ratified the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).
Poland did not participate in the negotiation of the TPNW at the United Nations in New York in 2017 and thus did not vote on its adoption. On the opening day of the negotiating conference, it joined the United States and several other states in protesting against the treaty.
In 2016, Poland voted against the UN General Assembly resolution that established the formal mandate for states to commence negotiations on “a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination”.
In a document sent to NATO members ahead of the vote, the United States “strongly encourage[d]” members, including Poland, to vote against the resolution, “not to merely abstain”. In addition, it said that, if the treaty negotiations do commence, allies and partners should “refrain from joining them”.
As such your statement: Poland joining the nuke club negates the need for America, which is Nato? is irrelevant or even ignorant in view of the fact that it was the USA who encouraged it in the first place. - Trump Administration. - reduce the US obligation and $ towards Europe, and make NATO self-reliant.
According to the TPNW, It is actually the 5 official nuke possessing countries responsibility and duty, to discourage and prevent other countries from obtaining nuclear weapons. (and all 5 have not signed nor ratified the TPNW)
However the same way e.g. Iran and N-Korea are being punished and sanctioned - the same should apply towards Poland, if the latter should proceed in that direction. But politics isn't about being honest and equal towards principles.
And again no new NATO member country needs own nukes to defend itself - But only in regards to act as a deterrent towards e.g. Russia, in the event of e.g. Poland getting ideas towards adding territory via conventional means. - since such an action would exclude NATO article 5 from being enacted.
Furthermore the Russian nukes in Belarus do not belong to Belarus, neither are they under the control of the Belarus military nor government. Putin in that case simply did what the USA has been doing within NATO member states till today, and what the former Soviet-Union had practiced in the former Warsaw Pact states.
A country such as e.g. Poland wanting OWN nuke weapons is a total different issue and animal altogether. And it is an extremely dangerous "issue".
I believe that White 6 - explained it already several times - clearly and correct
I agree that this move won't bring any advantage in military sense. And would have rather a symbolic meaning.
That also means that these sites will be more vulnerable. The closer to a border, the less time left for an air defence system to react.
You state that "we" know.....
You said it yourself "less time to react", but shortening the reaction time of nuclear delivery by mere minutes is not of concern and would change nothing. The Bear ain't what it used to be. Back in the day, the number of units, tanks, troop carriers, artillery pieces the projected enemy had in proximity or even in existence, compared to size and scopes of identified axis' of advance, so outnumbered what was located or could be projected by NATO into that region, tactical nuke was a consideration as a stopgap measure to assure destruction of enemy assembly massing, forward control points, choke point, etc. That simply is not the case now. So no need to be able to lob over a boarded by standard artillery. Low altitude terrain following, programmable, GPS target cruise missiles and the much less smaller possible enemy and of course, the absolute inefficiency and ineptitude of their upper staff and leaders, has done away with the possible need for speed, in relation to capabilities, conventional and strategic.
Does that mean ' its own' or 'to own'. You waste a page with window dressing and then blow the meaningful part!
Urban legend.
