Poland's aid to Ukraine if Russia invades - part 20

Lol. Comparing yourself to Kartofel Fuhrer now? This would make him very happy indeed.


For years I've refused to take Kania and Ironside seriously when they brought this up. Recent events have shown that these two guys understood something much better than I did, because now even Donald Tusk is going around talking up the idea of a Polish atom bomb.

I thought such a thing as a Polish atom bomb could never be normalized, but here we are - thanks to King Donald...

So if this thing is to be discussed seriously, you should have some numbers. Thankfully, today the FT ran an article about how Europe cannot rely on the French nuclear arsenal because it is woefully inadequate.

First, this quote:

Even if France wanted to somehow expand nuclear protection to Europe, experts say its arsenal of about 300 warheads - a fraction of America's 5,000 - is too small to protect the whole region. Russia has 5,580 warheads, and has recently moved some to Belarus.

Paris also lacks tactical nuclear weapons - less powerful, shorter range weapons designed for battlefield use - and has fewer options for gradual escalation than the US and Russia. If it was under grave threat, it would carry out a nuclear "warning strike" against an adversary before destroying key targets like major cities.

And now, the kicker... how much it will cost to get to some half way decent level:

However, "what really influences Russian decision-making is the scale of US deterrence", he said. Europe would need at least a decade of spending at around 6-7 per cent of GDP if it wanted to emulate that and acquire another 1,000 warheads, he added.

How about that, European friends?!? On top of your 2-3-5% (or whatever Trump is extorting you to spend on defense), plan to spend another 6-7% of your collective GDP on making a thousand nukes over the next decade.

It should be possible if you cut spending on healthcare, education, and infrastructure investment. You'll be a little more unhealthy and a little more uneducated, but you would have done a lot of work towards closing the gap that it took the USSR and USA almost 70 years to create.

Not a bad deal, no? Much better than continuing to live with your homeopathic quantities of warheads.

• 
  IMG_5847.jpeg
  

Normalised.

Why not?

Poland has superb scientists and engineers and at least one country's nuclear weapons programme was led by someone from Poland.

I noticed you completely ignored that the FT writes it will take 6-7% of GDP, over a decade, to produce an additional 1,000 warheads.

6-7% of ALL OF EUROPE'S COMBINED GDP.

How on Earth is that something remotely possible for Poland to fund, without completely bankrupting itself?

So 100 would cost 0,6% of GDP ?

Is 100 worth having ? Assume a 20 percent success rate. Sounds OK.

You guys are always looking for problems, not solutions.

The EU economy and the US economy are roughly the same size with similar deficit levels. if America can afford them so can we.

We will get the plutonium from Canada or somewhere like that.

Of course. People are well aware of that.

Perhaps we should all do what the free world wants and disarm. When however pariah states like r*SSia and China maintain arsenals that they don't need, that can't happen.


Because they try to distract and confuse. One tactic is to look at articles in other countries' media and misrepresent them.

Russia has nice and friendly banks.

America spent decades and developed a specialized industry to arrive at its present count of 5,000 (down from 30,000 at the peak, I believe).

So it's not a simple question of being able to afford it - I agree that Europe is not much poorer than the US - but the fact that you are trying to do it in a crash course lasting just a decade. The other parties took nearly a century to amass their stockpiles.


I quoted the article, where it's argued that France's 300 are not sufficient to act as a deterrent against Russia.

You can also read scientific papers from hawkish minded persons, that argue that US presidents should not agree to any further reductions with Russia because those lower levels may be insufficient to act as a deterrent.

So no - 100 is not worth having. All it does is paint a big fat target on your back, without giving you the ability to meaningfully coerce Russia.

If all of Poland is erased, but only several million Russians are affected - then according to game theory - a Polish president would never use the nukes. This means he gave away the game of escalation dominance, before he even sat down to play.

Thank you for your friendly advice. We'll take it into consideration. I'm sure we can work something out.

So why don't we just let your North Korean starving commie allies develop nukes ?

I'm sure they only have resources to build a few hundred but someone must have worked out they could still do some damage

We only need the same number as North Korea has - it will be fine

I honestly don't see how any North Nigerians can have a problem with Polish nukes

You want real advice?

Do what the Chinese did, and send some guy to have sex with a bat. Then put this new virus in a jar, and let Duda keep it in his office.

With biological weapons - cheap and effective - Poland will keep all enemies at bay.

Any attack on Poland would be followed by a global pandemic - causing millions of fatalities, and trillions of dollars of wealth destruction.

For a few million bucks, you can design the 21st century bubonic plague. Compare this to the hundreds of billions necessary for nukes.

Good idea. It could be used as a backup plan.

Great idea! The North Koreans have been accused of illicit nuclear technology transfers to Muammar Gaddafi, Bashar Al Assad, Ali Khamenei, and the military junta of Myanmar.

You will be joining an August club. Do you need introductions?

Ad Verecundiam. How about using your brain and remembering what the acronym MAD means?
300 nukes is not a deterrent lolzo. As a Iranian general stated recently, Israel is a two bomb country.

We were in a great club until January - the US decides to disband it

So now we have to make new arrangements. We won't be the only country looking at this

But quite large nuclear ones... although one hydrogen bomb would also be enough.

I want to ask you - genius - do you know what MAD means?

Russia and the United States - just for sh*ts and giggles - kept producing nuclear warheads into the tens of thousands. They didn't have Amiga500 to advise them, who could tell them - "Guys! Stop! 300 nukes is more than enough to destroy all the major cities in Russia and the US! Wake up!"

MAD - means Mutually Assured Destruction. Key words - MUTUAL and ASSURED.

I will explain, for people with bone in middle of brain. This meant, that if the USSR decided to effect an unprovoked "decapitating" strike - the United States was still guaranteed to respond. Even if the White House lay under a pile of ashes, and every American leader lay dead... American strategic bombers circling the North Pole, and American submarines could launch a retaliatory response.

Do you follow so far?

Not being used to finding themselves in a stalemate - the clever leaders in both countries quickly saw a loophole. They thought to themselves, "Well, what if I simply had much more nukes than the other guy? Maybe I could still knock him out with the first punch? What if I built so many warheads, that I could saturate every goddamn square mile of US territory? Surely they wouldn't be able to respond after such an OVERWHELMING strike?!"

So we entered the nuclear arms race - where each side tried to extract itself out of the agonizing logic of MAD. It didn't end until Nixon and Brezhnev sat down and said "enough".

Now do you begin to see why 300 may not be sufficient?

People make stupid decisions, for a cause, one-upmanship or to keep the gravy train rolling..Tthe next generation follows their ideological fathers, transforming the stupid decision into accepted wisdom & tradition. You yourself mentioned submarines, which anyone can see having 9 or 9000 missiles is not going to prevent a nuclear counter attack, thus MAD still applies.

There are three purposes of the American and Russian nuclear arsenals.

1) Counter-force: Involves hitting the enemy's airbases, submarine pens, icbm silos, and other military targets.

2) Counter-value: This involves simply destroying cities and causing massive casualties.

3) For allies: This involves hitting the enemy's allies. That is, we need enough nukes not just for the US, but for all of their friends too.

The strikes on military targets are first in order of priority, not simply wasting cities as the average civilian thinks.

So then the logic of maintaining extremely large stockpiles of nukes is to ensure redundancy. Even if 80% of a huge arsenal of 30,000 warheads gets destroyed in a first strike, you still have thousands more to load onto bombers and subs.

Those carried by those already in the air or underwater are not enough to knock out a country of Russia's size. That is, you need to send several waves.

Special for you amiga, I found an article on the evolution of America's SIOP, or Single Integrated Operating Plan.

Already in 1961, with SIOP-62, American planners considered that it would require 3,200 nuclear weapons to incapacitate the USSR.

Source: nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB56/BerlinC1.pdf

By 1985, the amount of warheads required according to the planners had grown to approximately 10-16,000.

So what exactly will Poland do with a 100 nuclear bombs? Drop them all on Russian cities without any warning, and pray for the best?

What? Members of the cult of "Witnesses of the Polish Atom Bomb"?

Where are you?

Yes - something like that - fire them, hope for the best just wipe out Omsk. You can write all the military blog **** you want but it won't make any more sense to us.

Similar to what the NNNs did with their one modern missile a few months ago. I heard they tried another one but it blew up in NN airspace

You don't understand what happens in other places - and you make the wrong conclusions.

North Korea is not being invaded - not so much because America is afraid of a strike on Seattle or San Francisco, but because they have 80,000 troops in South Korea. Their ally's capital is just a few miles away from the DMZ. In such a context, a North Korean nuke can lead to catastrophic results.

This is why everyone babysits North Korea, and why Trump considers it worthwhile to meet them.

But look at the others? Saddam had nothing - they said he had something - came in and destroyed his country.

Gaddafi - he admitted he had something. Bargained out some kind of a deal. As soon as he did the deal, they came and destroyed his country.

The only country that avoids punishment and lives above the law is Israel. Do you think Poland is Israel? It is not.

I see my favourite topic of future Polish Nuclear Forces is discussed. Splendid.

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude for all the concern shown for the state of Polish finances, health services, education etc. in case of Poland acquiring our own nuclear weapons. It is deeply touching and - frankly - heartwarming to see how foreigners worry about our treasury. Their kindness and consideration shall not be forgotten. Thank you.

As for the number of warheads necessary, then I suppose that if Pakistan can have around 200 and not starve, then it might (just might) also be possible for us. Our reason for having nuclear weapons is not to "incapacitate" any other nuclear superpower. No. We are modest, simple people. We have no such ambitions. The reason is to make any invasion and occupation of Poland thoroughly unprofitable. For this 200 deployed warheads is quite enough. The reason is to never see our country enslaved and our loved ones slaughtered in most horrific ways; dying in a flash of nuclear explosion is better for our children than going into a gas chamber, away from their moms and dads, with terror in their eyes and hearts, or than being raped and then slaughtered like animals. To make sure that such horrors never happen again, 200 warheads is quite enough. And yes, we would rather die than be slaves, even if some vermin here *coughNovichokcough* don't understand the concept of freedom.

Someone rightly noticed that our engineers are not the worst in the world, and our industry and military are not totally hopeless either, so let's say that 50 out of the 200 of our missiles would reach their targets. Is there anything even remotely so valuable about Poland for any of our enemies to risk losing their 50 most densely populated cities? The answer is: 'no, there isn't'. That's why nobody would ever invade nuclear Poland and that's why Poland must and will have nuclear weapons.


What can I say. Eventually common sense filters up from the people to the politicians. It's a slow and painful process most of the time, but eventually it happens.

No honestly you deserve this. Iron too.

I thought you guys were f*cking crazy.

Now it seems I was the naive one.


See? Now you understand who your brothers are. I laid out everything for you, as a brother would.


After so many months of denying any such intention... allow me to say what makes Poland valuable?

1) It is an unsinkable aircraft carrier in the heart of the European continent.

2) It represents a sizeable manpower pool. Unwilling, suspect, prone to desertion? Perhaps. Not a novel problem.

3) Control over Ukraine AND Poland means Russia controls the lion's share of the continent's food and material resources. This is a significantly more powerful Russia. Perhaps able to challenge the Chinese and the Americans much more liberally, despite a nominal disadvantage in GDP size.

I think people don't appreciate the amount of firepower it takes to "incapacitate" a country the size of the United States or Russia.

The dust arising from the debris of the major cities bombed, is supposed to be so thick - that it will cause guaranteed nuclear winter lasting 1-2 years.

Modern modeling of the later effects does not so much support the Cold War idea of a longer lasting nuclear winter - which could eventually extinguish all life on Earth - but the above prognosis is a virtual guarantee.

A mutual exchange between Russia and the United States, would likely lead to a near complete crippling of the economies of both these regions and their satellites.

Electromagnetic pulses generated by nuclear weapons would have disabled all electronics and orbiting satellites at this point.

International trade would effectively have seized. Global capital markets would similarly freeze. The citizens of Russia and the West would be reduced to a form of lifestyle last existing at the start of the 20th century.

With the West and Russia (and possibly China) completely crippled an enormous vacuum would form. Unexpected players like Brazil and India would suddenly begin to play a much more central role in global affairs. Struggling as they are from the global effects of the war, they would still have much more of their pre-war apparatus intact.

I guess the only real life test we have is Chernobyl - the result of typical UNNR laziness, incompetence and secrecy.

This was just a small leak but did plenty of damage, including to Polish health.

Perhaps you mean "it would take". The free world hasn't incapacitated you.

Yet.


Two of my grandparents were alive then and did pretty well. The factories were mostly powered by town gas or steam, the railways by coal. Food supply would of course be an issue as it was in WW2 however there's a certain "if you know, you know" aspect to that which would mitigate it.


If the effects are so bad, why don't you disarm? Nobody is interested in invading you, after all.

Yeah, I think even as a bombed out radioactive husk we would rather soon re-establish ourselves vis-a-vis the "Global South". Their problems, after all, are deep.

But health issues, like cancers - would explode.

Many regions would become uninhabitable for centuries.

We would have lost the collective knowledge and experience of hundreds of millions of innocent people.

In the end this is not f*cking Christian to drop bombs on each other's heads to the point that both of you are near death, and a bunch of wannabes begin controlling things.

The NNs have been waving their rusty nukes around for 3 years but are suddenly outraged that other countries want them. Especially weird for such an amoral regime to consider if it fits in with a Christian values

Golden Cow gave birth to this idea, with a one sentence remark in his office last week.

cbsnews.com/news/trump-nato-article-5-collective-defense-europe-doubt-us-treaty-commitment/

The so called Artist of the Deal managed to undo 80 years of valuable alliances and soft power for the sake of a quick soundbite that would impress his core vote on their bar stools day drinking in Steubenville, but that everyone else would just know was a crazy idea.

Rests assured that not a single day passes without me understanding who my brothers are.

One way or another, I hope you didn't fail to understand my main point: there is nothing as valuable about Poland (even being an "unsinkable aircraft carrier", "a manpower pool" and all that) for any country to risk losing their 50 biggest cities for it. And that's why we will have those 200 warheads. Not many but top-notch, state-of-the-art stuff. We must have them. Even such a testicle-less, mediocre, nondescript technocrat like Tusk understands it these days.

Iron, dobri brate, we won - Poland will be safe. We won. :)