Zone1 Should Poland be Given Nuclear Weapons?

[Jarlaxle]

Here's the problem with saying a blanket 'No': Russia just put nuclear weapons in Belarus.

Putin says Russia put nuclear bombs in Belarus as warning to West

The Russian step is being watched closely by Washington and its allies as well as by China, which has repeatedly cautioned against the use of nuclear weapons in the war in Ukraine.

www.reuters.com

Source: Reuters. Least Biased, Very High factual reporting.

Denying such placement to Poland — who, if you remember, knows first-hand what it feels like to lack the weaponry they need to resist an invasion from Moscow — would be yet one more step of appeasement, allowing Putin and Lukashenko to get away with one more unopposed bite at the cheese.

We also would not be 'giving' Poland nuclear weapons; we would be parking ours there and allowing them a voice in the discussion about them, as we have been doing with many other European countries since 2009.

And another reminder for all readers: 'RT' stands for 'Russia Today.' It is an explicitly pro-Russian-state propaganda source.

RT News (RT.Com) - Bias and Credibility

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no

mediabiasfactcheck.com

Poland needs their own nuclear weapons, capable of reaching St. Petersburg and Moscow. They should probably also have large stockpiles of chemical weapons.

 

[DudleySmith]

Urban legend.

lol yes, whatever you do never ever use search engines to find stuff that has been in the open for years.

 

[Donald H]

lol yes, whatever you do never ever use search engines to find stuff that has been in the open for years.

Don't blow smoke up a dead dog's a-- if you're not prepared to delivery the meat.

 

[Donald H]

Poland needs their own nuclear weapons, capable of reaching St. Petersburg and Moscow. They should probably also have large stockpiles of chemical weapons.

No they don't and all Americans need to be cautious of not falling into the deliberate trap being laid out by Russia.

Nuclear non-proliferation is and always will be our priority.

One of Nato's most useful priorities is served by allowing America to represent the nuclear threat to Russia and soon to be China.

Nobody wants any more than America's finger on the button that sends humanity to extinction.

 

[Jarlaxle]

No they don't and all Americans need to be cautious of not falling into the deliberate trap being laid out by Russia.

Nuclear non-proliferation is and always will be our priority.

One of Nato's most useful priorities is served by allowing America to represent the nuclear threat to Russia and soon to be China.

Nobody wants any more than America's finger on the button that sends humanity to extinction.

That's wrong.

Poland needs their own nuclear weapons. (So does Taiwan.)

 

[ESay]

Yes. But it also has a psychological effect that far exceeds mere tactical ones. It also forces Putin to expend time and assets countering it. Soon he has everybody around him to worry about, thanks to his own dimwitted bloviating and nuclear blackmail attempts. It's not just about Poland in isolation.

At the moment, the U.S. is nearly the only power that can win a major war with conventional weapons, and we don't really need a nuclear threat; Russia's only leverage is its nuclear threats. Doesn't matter if he's merely bluffing, the fact is he made the threat and should be made to pay dearly for it.

Psychological, yes. As a whole, I think that NATO's response shouldn't be on a case-to-case basis. The whole strategy should be adapted to the reality not being based on sweet dreams of late 80s and 90s.

The NATO-Russia Founding Act isn't worth the paper and should be thrown in a dustbin. Permanent military bases on NATO's Eastern flanc should be an option.

 

[DudleySmith]

Don't blow smoke up a dead dog's a-- if you're not prepared to delivery the meat.

lol is that supposed to mean something?

 

[Jarlaxle]

I can see the plus side in that America's control over Europe would be negated.

But I can also see too many negatives.

This discussion is far above your paygrade.

Long past time to walk away.

 

[tahuyaman]

Should Poland be Given Nuclear Weapons?​

No.

 

[Kruska]

Does that mean ' its own' or 'to own'. You waste a page with window dressing and then blow the meaningful part!

What in your opinion would be the difference between "It's own" and "to own" ???

If you would have actually read my "window dressing" - then you would have also gotten the part that Belarus does NOT own or has it's own nukes - but they belong to Russia, just as those Russian owned nukes stationed in Ukraine, that Ukraine wanted to make a bargain out off in 1993.

And if the US would station nukes in Poland, - Poland would not own them - neither would Poland have own nukes!!!
e.g. Israel has own nukes and therefore also owns them.

BTW you are wasting my time and that of other people with your above cited posting

 

[Donald H]

e.g. Israel has own nukes and therefore also owns them.

Possible but probably not IMO.

 

[tahuyaman]

It would be a dumb idea to post nukes in Poland. It would be a very unnecessary and provocative move. There’s no valid reason to station nuclear weapons in Poland.

 

[Donald H]

It would be a dumb idea to post nukes in Poland. It would be a very unnecessary and provocative move. There’s no valid reason to station nuclear weapons in Poland.

I agree and so they probably won't.

Macgregor did an hour long piece on the truth about the war yesterday or the day before. It's on utube so I'll try to find it again.

 

[Donald H]

This one is part of it and will serve the purpose. His utube videos are being repeated in part every day. Most like because the truth can only be the truth!

In any case, this guy is solid on what he knows and he can back it all up.

Most interesting about this one is when he talks about Putin needing to make a choice on whether Russia goes right up to Poland's border, or he continues to tread water hoping for negotiations.

 

[Likkmee]

No.

Yes. Special delivery. Please launch immediately

 

[Donald H]

Strange thing is, somel utube source is taking Macgregor's comments and editing out pieces of it. This one I've posted was at least an hour long and was even done by a different interviewer.

However, in the first ten minutes or so, it contains much of the important facts!

Starting at about 7 minutes and going to about 15 will set those who hear it, straight on the facts.

 

[Kruska]

It's a fact- latest since Yom Kippur in 1973.

In 1986, former nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu was kidnapped by Israeli intelligence services and spent 18 years in prison after giving a detailed interview about Israel’s nuclear program to the Sunday Times.

Under Peres’ stewardship, Israel purchased a substantial package, including a research reactor and plutonium separation technology, from France in 1957, as well as 20 tons of heavy water from Norway in 1959. The ground for the Negev Nuclear Research Center was broken near Dimona in early 1958.

Although the Negev center was always intended for the development of nuclear weapons, the United States did not become aware of its true purpose for another decade, even after US intelligence became aware of its construction in 1958. This was largely due to a highly successful Israeli deception and disinformation campaign aimed at convincing US inspectors that the complex was for civilian use.
As a result, they were unaware–and perhaps unwilling to consider the possibility, that a six-story underground reprocessing facility was being built right under their noses.

The construction of the chemical reprocessing plant was reportedly completed in 1965, and Israel began plutonium production in 1966. Since the late 1960s, every Israeli government has practiced a policy of nuclear ambiguity. “Amimut,” as it is known, deliberately obscures whether Israel actually possesses nuclear weapons, and if so, how its arsenal is operationalized.

In a July 1969 memorandum addressed to President Nixon, Henry Kissinger noted that “We and Israel differ on what ‘introducing’ nuclear weapons means. Ambassador Rabin believes only testing and making public the fact of possession constitute ‘introduction.’ We stated in the exchange of letters confirming the Phantom sale that we consider ‘physical possession and control of nuclear arms’ to constitute ‘introduction”

The first instance was during the Six-Day War in June 1967, when according to primary sources and testimonies from former Israeli officials, a small team of commandos was tasked with conducting Operation “Shimson” (Samson)––a planned nuclear detonation for demonstrative purposes––in order to change the Arab coalition’s military calculus. Given Israel’s eventual military success in the war, this plan was never put into action.

The second instance reportedly came during the October 1973 Yom Kippur War, when Israeli leaders feared that Syria was about to defeat the Israeli army in the Golan Heights. The rumor first appeared in Time magazine in 1976, and several unidentified former US officials allegedly stated in 2002 that Israel put nuclear forces on alert in 1973. there are also protocols of the German intelligence service (BND) in regards to intercepted Israeli transmissions - pertaining to Israel’s Jericho (MD-620) ballistic missile force.

The third instance is the 1979 Vela incident - who's timeline is in perfect alliance with former South-Africa's nuclear capability. These former SA nukes are most likely now in Israeli hands - and maybe not just simply dismantled and discarded.

After the end of the Cold War, Israel began to fear that the United States’ tacit support for Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal would soon fade, given US engagement on a possible Middle East nuclear-weapon free zone. As a result, Israel has reportedly requested that each American president since Bill Clinton sign a letter indicating that any future US arms control efforts would not affect Israel’s nuclear arsenal.

Three years later, in a December 2006 interview with German television, then-prime minister Ehud Olmert appeared to compromise the deception when he criticized Iran for aspiring “to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia”.

The German magazine Der Spiegel reported in 2012 that the German government had known for decades that Israel planned to equip the submarines with nuclear missiles. Former German officials said they always assumed Israel would use the submarines for nuclear weapons,- in view of those 4x650mm tubes, in addition to six standard 533 millimeter torpedo tubes.