Poland & Nuclear Weapons for Defense - Opinions

@Ron2
nuclear weapons are not intended to be used the fact that they exist and could be used is enough. The exception is Israel and possibly India/pakistan but definitely Israel. They were preparing to use them in 1973 so the US stepped in to win that war for them and prevented carnage and reinforcing their reputation as a hypocritical state.

Agreed, they are a defensive deterrent.

My concern is that this is a 90-year-old technology developed during the propaganda era. Nukes are just glorified conventional bombs. 99% of people know about nuclear weapons only through Hollywood movies, just as they do about the "moon landing." The US has used this story to justify attacks on other countries, and it's in their interest to keep the propaganda alive.

Otherwise, what formal excuse would society have to approve aggression against other nations? There would be none.

I believe the Polish government knows this is bulls*it and they are afraid of wasting money on something that will turn out a complete fiasco. The US wants Poland to have 'nukes' and pay 200x their real worth, but Poland is right to think it's a scam.

I suppose you don't believe in nuclear power plants either, then?

Our knowledge about nuclear plants is not from propaganda movies.

The same thing that happens inside a nuclear reactor happens inside a nuclear bomb.

A fissile nucleus absorbs a neutron.

It splits into two lighter nuclei.

Energy is released.

2-3 new neutrons are emitted.

-//-

If you believe in nuclear plants - because you "didn't only see them in Hollywood" - then what prevents you from carrying over that belief to a bomb?

A bomb is simpler in principle than a reactor.

Having nukes, Poland would have to be the military front line, again. Let Poland's neighbors have them instead ;)

As the chief of NATO has already explained to you.......

• 
  keepdreaming.jpg
  

It is. The consensus is that the orcs would do a decapitation strike on the main military bases and the defence headquarters and then carry on as if Poland didn't exist.


Germany is too self-seeking to put themselves at risk and Czech doesn't have the wherewithal.

Poland can make a deal - give us an extra 5% of the EU's GDP and we'll host nukes and agree to be Russia's military target. Still, Russia can be smarter and attack Germany first ;

Germany signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. They are not giddy to obtain nukes.


Right after Poland stops to be the main EU leech.


Well, we wish you all the best in your future endeavours.

Most places did, however sadly the risk from r*SSia remains. As does Germany's aversion to risk.

No wonder after two world wars. Germany could easily increase its military spending to 5% GDP or more, but European neighbors would crap their pants if they did. Germany being both the economic and military powerhouse of the continent would make quite a few people feel slightly uncomfortable. Remember that Germany was forced to reduce their military before they were allowed to reunite.

Which they only started because they were convinced they'd win and couldn't believe it when they didn't.


That is fading now and they're particularly vulnerable to AI. An analogue economy in a digital world.


Amazon we allowed them to have one. Three strikes so they should have been out. Perhaps that was about East Germany.

Oh come on... this is not true.

Austria-Hungary bears the lion's share of the blame. In response to the Duke's assassination, they presented Serbia with a list of ultimatums that they knew would be unacceptable. They wanted to use the events of the day, as a pretext for the military subjugation of Serbia.

Russia was afraid to lose its influence in the Balkans, and backed Serbia to the hilt.

Germany escalated by assuring Austria it had its back, and activated the Schlieffen Plan.

Russia counterescalated by declaring total mobilization.

Germany interpreted Russian mobilization as an act of war and declared war on Russia.

France backed Russia.

Germany invaded Belgium, and so the UK became sucked in as well - due to violation of Belgian neutrality.

And then it was off to the races.

-//-

Not fair to say the Germans started it, or were assured in their victory.

-//-

WW2 also different.

THE GERMANS KNEW THEY HAD A GOOD CHANCE OF WINNING, IF THEY MANAGED IT FAST.

They knew they were doomed if it became a long slog.

So claiming they "could not believe" they were losing - is wrong.

The Germans were gamblers, and gambled wrong twice.

That was number two. Number one (Franco Prussian) and number three (WW2) were them, al5hougn and Austrian person was of course in a catalyst for number three.

They've not changed much since the three wars and would so it now if they thought the6 could and thought it would be financially advantageous.


They invented military science and could never handle it when your country and mine did the opposite of what they thought. We weren't apparently "playing by the rules of war".

Added irony/tragedy in that all three countries were headed by members of the same family.

Always boggles the mind to realize how alike they were (at least George and Nicholas).

Reading their letters to each other, with the "Oh Willy" and "Dear Nicky" also causes peculiar feelings.

• 
  IMG_9342.jpeg
  
• 
  IMG_9343.jpeg
  

Prisoners in a gilded cage. Thick as two short planks, most of them.

I was surprised to learn that Tsar Nicholas and his wife always spoke English to each other and their kids.

They spoke Russian with an accent.

As did the previous 4 generations of the family, with the exception of Nicholas' father, Alexander III, who had a fetish for the "muzhik"-style life and all things Russian.

Peter's descendants really f*cked us by saddling us with all these Germans for 200 years.

Oh well... I suppose the Norman nobility didn't bother with English either for the first few centuries.

Much the same. Our last English ones were in the sixteenth century, until recently anyway.

Look closer and you will find that the root cause for most past and present day conflicts was the meddling of an arrogant British Empire.

....Empire building and invading half the world, archenemy France for centuries, but blaming Germany for all woes and wars....that are our Brits!

Yes, it was after all the arrogant British Empire who persuaded Ukraine to keep fighting the drunk rapist invaders from North Nigeria

Bollox!


So, Germans were completely innocent in trying to and very nearly succeeding in dominating Europe ? Don't be an $hitbag BB, The British Empire was from a different time and different mentality.Please don't try to compare 20th century Germans to the 16th and 17th century British Empire,I know that The British Empire lasted through to the 19th and early 20th century but that does not allow Germans to say that they were not colonialists in the 1930's and onwards.

Germans were the worst colonialists ever! They wanted everyone to be German.The British never did that.

We only smell like roses! :)

Yeah, it will take decades before you are cleared of your obnoxious guilt.

....but we still are better at football, so! :)

Or in fact you won't.


A lot of them forget that the term empire only started to be used in connection with dismantling it. Something fairly well done in comparison with France and r*SSia.


That's the French. The Germans were the opposite as millions of people found out in a particularly unpleasant way.

That's what you think.

-- No Treaty of Versailles -> No Hitler -> No WW2 -> No Holocaust -> No Israel -> No war in the Levant

-- No dismantling of the Ottoman Empire -> No dividing up the Middle East amongst the British and French colonial powers -> No permanent conflicts in the region

-- No toppling of a democratically elected Iranian Premier by the Brits and Americans -> No Shah -> No mullahs -> No islamic terrorists

The list goes on and on, and the British Empire paid dearly for its arrogance. In the end it was destroyed and replaced by the USA.

And whose fault was the Treaty of Versailles? I mean that it has to happen in the first place?

Whose fault was WW1, which led to the Treaty of Versailles in the first place?

Not Britain. I'm fairly sure that we didn't assassinate some f*cking archduke and cause all the Continental Europeans to start fighting each other. As usual, mainlanders start wars that the Anglo Saxon mir has to finish for you, just like WW2.

WW2 was another one we didn't start, but we joined it anyway, and the English-speaking world and its colonies ended it pretty much singlehandedly in all places apart from Eastern Europe, where the Red Army did the hard work.

If you want to start this before WW1 though, at the Treaty of Versailles, the American economic crash caused them to put pressure on the UK and France to pay back their loans. They, in turn, put pressure on Germany to pay them. This, along with the French behaviour in the Ruhr, exacerbated German economic woes, leading to the kind of climate where a fascist dictator rises. So, who really started this 'chain of events', if we're using Versailles as your starting point?

If you are really putting Britain in the frame for the f*cking Holocaust - as opposed to the Germans, who literally committed it - then you really must be batsh*t crazy. If you are blaming Britain for WW1 or 2, you must be even crazier. And if you're blaming Britain for the current situation in the Middle East - rather than Germany which created the imperative for a hostile fortress 'Jewish state' and the Americans that have backed and armed said state for its entire history, as well as destabilising the entire region with many bloody wars - you must be strait-jacket, padded room, out of your god-damn mind.