Current Nuclear Weapons Development

bobbymike said:
www.defensenews.com

Polish president wants NATO nukes for deterring Russia

The mechanics of Poland hosting NATO nuclear weapons could be the next contentious issue between President Andrzej Duda and Prime Minister Donald Tusk.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...

I think this a moot point; I cannot imagine the U.S. providing dual key weapons in this day and age. I also am not convinced it really provides additional security: it isn’t like the U.S. would have a lack of tactical weapons within easy flying range. It strikes me as just as pointless as nuclear weapons being moved to Belarus…sure, go on with your bad self. Not like that adds anything in capability, range, or surprise.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think this a moot point; I cannot imagine the U.S. providing dual key weapons in this day and age. I also am not convinced it really provides additional security: it isn’t like the U.S. would have a lack of tactical weapons within easy flying range. It strikes me as just as pointless as nuclear weapons being moved to Belarus…sure, go on with your bad self. Not like that adds anything in capability, range, or surprise.
Click to expand...
It puts an immediate nuclear response to an Article 5 attack.
 
Scott Kenny said:
It puts an immediate nuclear response to an Article 5 attack.
Click to expand...

As oppose to all the other immediate responses? It would still take US permission to use them, and it is not like Russia will be thinking "oh shit, what if they use a nuclear weapon in the next two hours instead of four hours from now"? Or just W76 mod2.
 
Scott Kenny said:
It puts an immediate nuclear response to an Article 5 attack.
Click to expand...

This! It means that Russia is much less likely to make a decision that is...rash.

Josh_TN said:
As oppose to all the other immediate responses?
Click to expand...

Other responses are slower also you are aware that current Russian military doctrine the use of tactical nuclear-weapons are still viable to be used tactically.

Josh_TN said:
It would still take US permission to use them,
Click to expand...

The US officers on the spot will no doubt have needed delegated authority to permit the use of US nuclear weapons in the proper circumstances.
 
When Russia makes a decision concerning first use, it will not be concerned with where the closest dual key B-61s are. It will be thinking about what happens when and if the US responds. And even were it the case that NATO nuclear sharing was a concern, there are five other NATO nations only a couple hours away as the bird flies storing those weapons already. There is no deterrent value to arming Poland; it would not enter into Russian first use calculus for even thirty seconds.

That said, I am not against the idea, were there to be broad political support for it. It just is not a hill I would die on.
 
NMaude said:
What is different this time is Putin's Ukrainian "Adventure" going on since February 24, 2022 with his increasingly obvious attempt restoring the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...
That is what people like you want to believe.
Because you are uninformed on Putin.
If you were informed you would not wrote this.
 
BullpupRafale said:
That is what people like you want to believe.
Because you are uninformed on Putin.
If you were informed you would not wrote this.
Click to expand...

It's fairly obvious what he's been doing, Putin described the collapse of the USSR as the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century, he clearly wants to bring it back while Russia still can.

It would be interesting to see what the current status of nuclear-weapons development would be in Russia with the likes of the SS-30 Satan II being deployed.
 
NMaude said:
It's fairly obvious what he's been doing, Putin described the collapse of the USSR as the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century, he clearly wants to bring it back while Russia still can.
Click to expand...
Again, that is what you want to believe.
Also thank you for your confirmation bias.
 
BullpupRafale said:
Again, that is what you want to believe.
Also thank you for your confirmation bias.
Click to expand...
We shouldn't believe the words of Putin?

I mean, he's a politician so that means he's lying any time his lips are moving, AND he's KGB so that means he's lying if he's still breathing, but still.

His words and national actions sure point to an attempt to rebuild the USSR, and he's panicking because all of the Eastern European buffer/client/slave states are part of NATO by their own choice.
 
It does not mean it is WISE to push NATO right up to the black sea? Hmm almost like Russia fears the west wants Russia out of Crimea. Almost as if Russians have been reading the whitepapers of out NGOs and think tanks and know what we wish to do and have done in eastern europe and caucasus region....
 
TMA1 said:
It does not mean it is WISE to push NATO right up to the black sea?
Click to expand...

Russia's own actions under Putin is responsible for this eastward expansion of NATO, countries such as Poland, Hungary, Romania and the Baltic states know from their own bitter experiences what it's like to be occupied by Russia/Soviet Union.

TMA1 said:
Hmm almost like Russia fears the west wants Russia out of Crimea.
Click to expand...

The Crimean peninsula belongs to Ukraine NOT Russia, this is internationally recognised and Russia has behaved very badly in it since 2014.
 
Last edited:
TMA1 said:
It does not mean it is WISE to push NATO right up to the black sea? Hmm almost like Russia fears the west wants Russia out of Crimea. Almost as if Russians have been reading the whitepapers of out NGOs and think tanks and know what we wish to do and have done in eastern europe and caucasus region....
Click to expand...
Was it wise to push Russia over 11% of the Earth's land mass and then start complaining about everyone who happens to be near you and invading them, only to then complain when the remaining ones want to join NATO? NATO is only a problem if you make it a problem, it has a far better record in Europe than Russia does.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
We shouldn't believe the words of Putin?

I mean, he's a politician so that means he's lying any time his lips are moving, AND he's KGB so that means he's lying if he's still breathing, but still.

His words and national actions sure point to an attempt to rebuild the USSR, and he's panicking because all of the Eastern European buffer/client/slave states are part of NATO by their own choice.
Click to expand...
You can assert that than admit people like you suffer from confirmation bias as you ignore any negative statement about USSR for sake of narrative.
 
Hey guys I’m pretty much a free speech absolutetist and far from perfect interjecting barely tangential things sometimes but as this is a private forum can we stick to the topic of the thread.

You are able to start a “Bar” thread like “Putin’s Geostrategic Aspirations” and have at it.
 

Lukashenko claims ‘several dozen’ Russian tactical nuclear weapons deployed in Belarus​

Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko has claimed that “several dozen” Russian tactical nuclear weapons had been deployed in Belarus.
Russia’s Tass news agency said the move was part of an agreement jointly announced last year with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
It follows warnings made by Mr Lukashenko that Belarus is facing grave threats internally and externally that have required it to change its security posture, meaning it must align with Russia further.
Click to expand...
www.telegraph.co.uk

Ukraine-Russia war live: Russia's war on Ukraine would 'struggle' without China, says US

Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine is dependent on support from China, Antony Blinken, the US secretary of state, said during a visit to Beijing.
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
 
Grey Havoc said:
I suspect they mean that the West is hoping to support a coup to replace the regime with a more pro-Western government. Not much chance of that coming off though.
Click to expand...
Not much pointing backing a coup in a dictatorship. Ultimately if the government and military are willing to simply shoot everybody it won't work anyway. If not, then it will work without any help.
 
Scott Kenny said:
It puts an immediate nuclear response to an Article 5 attack.
Click to expand...
Rather than that, it gives an immediate deterring effect. It's unlikely that any war between NATO and Russia would immediately go nuclear if it were to go down (especially after the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine). I would rather see it as a strong political statement against Russian nukes in Belarus, as well as a statement in favour of Poland's commitment to NATO.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom