Poland only has enough supplies to fight war “for a week or two”, says security chief
-
If Russia attacks Poland directly then half the planet is about to turn to glass within those first couple of weeks
US is not going to respond and if UK or France were to use tactical nukes they’d glass Poland to create a natural barrier. That was the plan during Cold War.
-
US is not going to respond and if UK or France were to use tactical nukes they’d glass Poland to create a natural barrier. That was the plan during Cold War.
i think there was an update or two since, don't you think
-
i think there was an update or two since, don't you think
Calculus didn’t change and were quickly regressing from things we took for granted. Paris will not nuke Moscow over Warsaw or Tallin.
-
Calculus didn’t change and were quickly regressing from things we took for granted. Paris will not nuke Moscow over Warsaw or Tallin.
Poland was part of the Warsaw Pact during the cold war... the overall calculus that tactical nukes would be used against an invading land army might not have changed, but Paris absolutely would nuke Moscow these days if Warsaw was attacked with strategic nukes. They have little other choice than that if their strategic deterrance is supposed to be worth anything.
As for Tallin... given the geographic location of it, it is highly unlikely that Russia would nuke it.
-
Calculus didn’t change and were quickly regressing from things we took for granted. Paris will not nuke Moscow over Warsaw or Tallin.
-
The head of President Andrzej Duda’s National Security Bureau (BBN), Dariusz Łukowski, has warned that Poland only has enough ammunition to defend itself “for a week or two” if it was attacked by Russia
But his remarks have been criticised as “outrageous” by a deputy defence minister, who says they are not true and will be exploited by Poland’s enemies.
Poland most likely has a lot of factories producing ammunition for Ukraine. In case of war, those would not go to Ukraine anymore.
-
Poland was part of the Warsaw Pact during the cold war... the overall calculus that tactical nukes would be used against an invading land army might not have changed, but Paris absolutely would nuke Moscow these days if Warsaw was attacked with strategic nukes. They have little other choice than that if their strategic deterrance is supposed to be worth anything.
As for Tallin... given the geographic location of it, it is highly unlikely that Russia would nuke it.
I wish I shared your optimism but reality calls for a cold shower.
- France/UK along most of the Western Europe was never at a real risk of war unless they started it on their own. They don’t have their skin in the game, they won’t risk anything big. People there want to live their lives undisturbed and will vote Le Pen / Farage if they are pulled into conflict.
- Russia won’t nuke Tallin obviously because of proximity to St Petersburg, but what would be the response to a quick land grab? Words of concern probably, unless Nordics step up on their own because they’re next.
- Nobody nukes anybody for a long time realistically because nobody is going to use nukes first and they’re not going to use nukes as a response to a conventional attack. It also looks embarrassing to nuclear powers, which is why Russia didn’t use nukes against Ukraine even though they considered it according to US intel.
Anybody glassing Poland means things got really bad but ethics didn’t stop those plans in the 80s and I think existential threat would be enough to go back to the basics.
-
I wish I shared your optimism but reality calls for a cold shower.
- France/UK along most of the Western Europe was never at a real risk of war unless they started it on their own. They don’t have their skin in the game, they won’t risk anything big. People there want to live their lives undisturbed and will vote Le Pen / Farage if they are pulled into conflict.
- Russia won’t nuke Tallin obviously because of proximity to St Petersburg, but what would be the response to a quick land grab? Words of concern probably, unless Nordics step up on their own because they’re next.
- Nobody nukes anybody for a long time realistically because nobody is going to use nukes first and they’re not going to use nukes as a response to a conventional attack. It also looks embarrassing to nuclear powers, which is why Russia didn’t use nukes against Ukraine even though they considered it according to US intel.
Anybody glassing Poland means things got really bad but ethics didn’t stop those plans in the 80s and I think existential threat would be enough to go back to the basics.
Well, you are kinda supporting my argument. This isn't about optimism, but military neccessity. If things get that bad that Russia nukes Warsaw, Paris best response is to nuke Moscow regardless who is in power at that time (and with near certainty Russia would try nuking Warsaw and Paris the same time if it ever came to that).
Of course conventional attacks are a different story, where I share your pessimism that western Europe might decide to do too little too late.
-
Well, you are kinda supporting my argument. This isn't about optimism, but military neccessity. If things get that bad that Russia nukes Warsaw, Paris best response is to nuke Moscow regardless who is in power at that time (and with near certainty Russia would try nuking Warsaw and Paris the same time if it ever came to that).
Of course conventional attacks are a different story, where I share your pessimism that western Europe might decide to do too little too late.
In those old plans nuclear powers rarely nuke each other. In case of „7 days to Rhine” Russia spared France and UK for an obvious reason - they expected them to not retaliate unless attacked directly. It would be logical to assume nuclear powers prefer to use their arsenal proactively and far away rather than at their doorstep and as a last resort. Direct retaliation means further escalation which is more risky.
-
triple the defence budget
Our government might be thinking that - we can afford one or two super nice American bombs if we cut pensions to people over 80.
-
Our government might be thinking that - we can afford one or two super nice American bombs if we cut pensions to people over 80.
there's not that many of them and one Trident missile costs only $31M
-
The head of President Andrzej Duda’s National Security Bureau (BBN), Dariusz Łukowski, has warned that Poland only has enough ammunition to defend itself “for a week or two” if it was attacked by Russia
But his remarks have been criticised as “outrageous” by a deputy defence minister, who says they are not true and will be exploited by Poland’s enemies.
please..Poland can get to Moscow and Putin in matter of hours..
-
The head of President Andrzej Duda’s National Security Bureau (BBN), Dariusz Łukowski, has warned that Poland only has enough ammunition to defend itself “for a week or two” if it was attacked by Russia
But his remarks have been criticised as “outrageous” by a deputy defence minister, who says they are not true and will be exploited by Poland’s enemies.
Even if this is true (very big IF), why would you publish that? The OpSec makes no sense. Are they trying to bait Russia into attacking to get a unified response? That seems like an incredibly risky move.
-
I wish I shared your optimism but reality calls for a cold shower.
- France/UK along most of the Western Europe was never at a real risk of war unless they started it on their own. They don’t have their skin in the game, they won’t risk anything big. People there want to live their lives undisturbed and will vote Le Pen / Farage if they are pulled into conflict.
- Russia won’t nuke Tallin obviously because of proximity to St Petersburg, but what would be the response to a quick land grab? Words of concern probably, unless Nordics step up on their own because they’re next.
- Nobody nukes anybody for a long time realistically because nobody is going to use nukes first and they’re not going to use nukes as a response to a conventional attack. It also looks embarrassing to nuclear powers, which is why Russia didn’t use nukes against Ukraine even though they considered it according to US intel.
Anybody glassing Poland means things got really bad but ethics didn’t stop those plans in the 80s and I think existential threat would be enough to go back to the basics.
You are aware that french nuclear doctrine famously includes the nuclear warning shot? As in, nuke something and tell them "keep coming closer to France and the next one hits your capital".
-
You are aware that french nuclear doctrine famously includes the nuclear warning shot? As in, nuke something and tell them "keep coming closer to France and the next one hits your capital".
Nuclear doctrine is whatever you decide to show your enemies with whatever intention you might hold. Declassified plans from Cold War show that Russians assumed as much.
-
Even if this is true (very big IF), why would you publish that? The OpSec makes no sense. Are they trying to bait Russia into attacking to get a unified response? That seems like an incredibly risky move.
Political infighting is the reason but this is likely true. Most countries of this size have reserves for weeks of conventional warfare at most unless they massively stockpile.
-
there's not that many of them and one Trident missile costs only $31M
It was a bit of a joke referencing that Poland stocked up on HIMARS which as a system got a very good press in Ukraine but is also mighty expensive. Politicians did it for ratings but no further thinking was involved in that decision. It took just a year or two of war in Ukraine to make this kind of weaponry obsolete because drones can do same thing for cheaper.
The reason polish military expenditure looks so impressive is that we waste money like that. But this is also what Trump wants to achieve by making NATO members increase their spending - they will have to buy lots of American arms because they’re one of the few places capable of delivering required quantities.
-
It was a bit of a joke referencing that Poland stocked up on HIMARS which as a system got a very good press in Ukraine but is also mighty expensive. Politicians did it for ratings but no further thinking was involved in that decision. It took just a year or two of war in Ukraine to make this kind of weaponry obsolete because drones can do same thing for cheaper.
The reason polish military expenditure looks so impressive is that we waste money like that. But this is also what Trump wants to achieve by making NATO members increase their spending - they will have to buy lots of American arms because they’re one of the few places capable of delivering required quantities.
there's technology transfer from koreans https://www.polska-zbrojna.pl/home/ArticleShow/42536
also not everything can be done with drones, for some time-sensitive targets you need speed that MLRS delivers
-
please..Poland can get to Moscow and Putin in matter of hours..
Only if Finland doesn't do it first
-
Poland most likely has a lot of factories producing ammunition for Ukraine. In case of war, those would not go to Ukraine anymore.
Simplify the supply line. Instead of Poland → Ukraine → Russia it becomes Poland → Russia
