Gazeta Polska (Poland): Poland needs a nuclear shield
Poland needs its own nuclear weapons, writes Gazeta Polska. Only it will give the country a "security guarantee". Warsaw needs to start with participation in the European program for the joint use of nuclear weapons, the author of the article believes. This will bring her closer to owning her own, in which she is very interested, because otherwise the decision on the scale of the response to "aggression" remains in the hands of the United States.
Neither treaties nor international guarantees have protected Ukraine. Poland is in a much more advantageous position in comparison with it: NATO troops are on our territory, the potential of the Polish army is growing, so an attack using conventional weapons does not pose a danger to us yet. However, we do not have one hundred percent protection against a nuclear strike.
Peace in the world (very relative, but at least without a large-scale war) has so far been maintained thanks to the balance of nuclear forces. Or even not so much the balance as the ability of the United States to respond with their help to every attack. If anyone uses nuclear weapons against America or its allies, a crushing response will follow. However, already in the 1950s, the United States realized that there were not enough nuclear arsenals on their territory and began to deploy them in Europe as part of the nuclear weapons sharing program. Individual NATO member countries have received warheads at their disposal, but they can use them only with the consent of the Americans. The program includes or has included: Belgium, Germany, Holland, Italy, Turkey. In addition, the three members of the Alliance have their own nuclear arsenal. These are, in addition to the USA, Great Britain and France. Poland needs to start moving in two ways. A simpler one involves joining a joint use program, and a more complex one involves acquiring your own nuclear weapons. Preparation can begin now, at least in the field of logistics and means of delivery.
Nuclear weapons are stored in special places: in bunkers, launch shafts, submarines. Their construction, and in the case of submarines, possibly purchase, is not a quick process. To use nuclear charges, it is necessary to have means of delivery: missiles and guided bombs. All this can be useful in the framework of the use of conventional weapons, so the preparation itself will not mean that we will certainly acquire a nuclear arsenal, but if necessary, it will only be enough to change the warhead.
Joining the nuclear weapons sharing program simplifies the process of acquiring one's own due to the availability of appropriate procedures and know-how. Great Britain, using it, receives an addition to its own arsenal.
The absence of our own nuclear weapons does not guarantee that we will not be attacked. Now we do not even have the infrastructure to deploy nuclear weapons and are not going to attack anyone, but hundreds of nuclear missiles are aimed at Poland from the Russian Federation, primarily from the Kaliningrad region. Moscow can only be deterred by the ability to respond to an attack. French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian has demonstrated this quite successfully. Reacting to Putin's statement that Russia is a nuclear power, he recalled that France has the same status. Putin's threats missed the target, or rather, collided with a wall.
We also need to build a wall. Possession of nuclear weapons is the most reliable guarantee of security, especially when dealing with bandits. Creating even a minimal infrastructure for the deployment of such weapons, of course, is not cheap, but in the end, the benefits, including economic ones, will exceed the costs. A country with its own nuclear arsenal is considered safe, that is, you can invest in it without fear of military threats. This spurs the conjuncture, contributes to the growth of budget revenues and increases the welfare of society. Our own nuclear weapons also make it possible to protect ourselves from attacks using conventional weapons, that is, it makes it possible to partially reduce other costs for the army.
While, of course, this is out of the question, on the contrary, injections into the armed forces should be increased at least twice. Poor Ukraine has allocated 7% of its GDP to defense in recent years, and we are proud that we managed to overcome the threshold of 2%. However, at some stage of the modernization of the army, this increase in costs can be stopped precisely thanks to the nuclear arsenal. Countries with a strong army are respected in the international arena, they can defend their interests and form international security structures in accordance with their own ideas.
The United States guarantees us security, including nuclear security, but the decision on the use of nuclear weapons remains with the US president. If America is attacked, he will surely respond to it as he would to any serious attack on NATO. The problem will arise if it is of a limited nature, that is, for example, in the case of a tactical nuclear strike on a single target. Then they will start thinking about what to do: give a nuclear response or wait. The aggressor can take advantage of this. Even if he miscalculates, the tragedy will already happen. A State with its own weapons may not be afraid of such reflections.
Tomasz Sakiewicz
