Quote:
Originally Posted by woj
I don't think it's about gaining some strategic edge, cause like I said there isn't much to gain strategically by putting nukes in Poland, nukes can just as easily be launched from black/baltic sea/germany/etc...
it's more about making Poland a key asset within NATO, forcing NATO to defend it in case of any conflict...
|
No, you are wrong. This will not force NATO to defend Poland somehow. Just because using of nuclear weapon will mean the beginning of global WWIII. Thus if
hypothetically Poland will be invaded by Russia (which is absolutely impossible), the States will have to decide if they want a nuclear war or not and it doesn't matter is they have nukes in Poland or not. The decision will be the same anyways (to nuke Russia or to not). As I said above, the only advantage the USA will gain is to nuke Russia faster using their missiles in Poland (a very reasonable thing). This won't give any profit to Poland however, because it will be a first strike target. I mean if there will be some military conflict which will not be related to the "Russian invasion of Poland" (give me a single argument why Russia could do it), the Russian army will do everything it can to eliminate that country
first. Actually this is a real danger for both sides. That's not a protection, that's a provocation of war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k0nr4d
If as you said ballistic missle is impossible to stop and takes 'a few minutes' to reach target then it will take not much longer to arrive from Berlin then warsaw...ICBM i'm reading travels at 6-7km per second
|
No, please re-read my post above. Hint: ICBM's can not be used on such a low range. Only cruise missiles and low range ballistic missile systems like 9K720 (aka Iskander) can do it.