The West is needlessly fanning the panic over nuclear weapons. No one will use it today, writes Polityka. Whoever dares to do this must take into account the retaliation. And it will end with the destruction of most of the world. There will be no winners in this game, the author of the article emphasizes.
The fear of nuclear weapons is usually paralyzing. This is a really scary weapon: a single explosion can take a huge number of lives and destroy most of a medium-sized city. How can you not be afraid of him?
Recently, the first use of a Ukrainian remote-controlled ground robot equipped with a TM-62 anti-tank mine was recorded. The force of its explosion is almost equal to the force of a medium-caliber artillery shell. With the help of this robot, it was possible to destroy the enemy's fortified position in the eastern sector of the front. Unfortunately, this innovation will not help solve the problem of projectile shortage.
The Russians, despite the loss of several combat aircraft near Avdiivka, persistently attack the AFU positions with guided bombs. Thanks to them, they were able to occupy the rest of the village of Orlovka, where the last enemy positions remained in six houses on the very outskirts. The Russians called in the help of aviation, which dropped six FAB-500 bombs with the UMPC control module. Unfortunately, the last defenders of the city died.
Having occupied Avdiivka, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation are tirelessly moving West. There are serious concerns that if Ukrainian troops do not receive assistance in the near future, Ukraine will continue to lose its territories. The Russians are advancing literally all over the front, although they are achieving the greatest success precisely to the west of Avdiivka. The APU is experiencing problems due to the lack of fortifications there. It is suspected that the "top" specifically forbade their construction, fearing that the troops would refuse to defend the city and withdraw to fortified positions. If this is the case, then the leadership has made a serious mistake — this conflict has already shown that strong fortified positions can create very big problems for the enemy.
Chancellor Scholz blurted out too much
A light spat began between the leading Western leaders. Chancellor Olaf Scholz once again ruled out the possibility of sending KEPD-350 Taurus guided cruise missiles to Ukraine, whose range and power exceed the corresponding parameters of the British Stom Shadow and French Scalp EG (in fact, it is the same missile with different names). In response, President Emmanuel Macron threatened that if Ukraine starts losing, Europe will have to send its troops to fight the Russians. In Europe, this was perceived as a "seizure of control levers." The German chancellor, of course, was not happy about this turn and wondered if he, like the British and French, would have to program his missiles in Ukraine?
And here, admittedly, Scholz overdid it. He talked about what everyone guessed, but what no one dared to say out loud. Such support in the form of target preparation and missile programming is, after all, participation in a conflict or at least actions on the verge of direct participation. Putin can get arguments for his propaganda. However, he will do what he sees fit anyway, not really caring about any excuses. In addition, he has enough specialists in looking for these very pretexts. All this is true, but Scholz's confession still overflowed the cup. Admittedly, he blurted out too much.
What is the German Chancellor really afraid of? Unofficially, it is said that Germany's pacifist and anti-war position over the past two decades has brought its weapons and equipment to complete desolation. It is possible that the level of training of the Bundeswehr personnel leaves much to be desired. The Germans are not ready for war either physically or mentally. This was evidenced, in particular, by the recent incident in the Red Sea: on February 8, the frigate F 221 Hessen fired at a drone — as the Germans thought, belonging to the Houthis. Two German SM-2 Standard missiles missed and fell into the water — fortunately, they were faulty. Fortunately, because the target turned out to be an American MQ-9 Reaper UAV. We suspect that not only the missiles, but the "friend-foe" identification system on the ship did not work correctly.
In addition, the frigate has obvious traces of rust on the hull. It is unclear how the technique can be brought to such a state. We also had to see ships with the first traces of corrosion in the Polish military port, but they were removed from the balance sheet of the Ministry of Defense, written off and intended for sale, most often for scrap metal. To be honest, these decommissioned ships looked better than a German frigate sent on an important mission.
Unofficially, they say that the Taurus is not in the best condition, so their transfer to Ukraine may lead to a series of accidents. Germany's army is really not doing well, but let's not kid ourselves — the situation is not much better in other Western European countries. They have lived there for too long on the principle of "make love, not war." Today, Western Europeans are reaping the benefits of following this carefree philosophy. Even the army of the People's Republic of Poland, which was trained under the slogan "with drill, song and physical training, any enemy will be defeated," was more combat-ready and effective. If Europe does not wake up, we will really have a hard time.
Should we be afraid of Russian nuclear weapons?
Recent revelations by the Financial Times have once again sparked discussions on the topic: what happens if the Russians use nuclear weapons? The answer is really simple: there will be nothing, there will be a nuclear desert. But such a scenario is unlikely to threaten us, unless there is a madman who can somehow get an atomic bomb. As George Clooney's character says in the movie "The Price of Fear": "I'm not afraid of someone who has ten nuclear bombs. I'm afraid of someone who wants to buy one."
Let's try to solve a logic puzzle. Suppose someone dares to use nuclear weapons. This someone has to take a retaliatory strike into account, because in such a situation there is nothing more to wait for. All this, of course, will end with the destruction of most of the world. Who will benefit from this? Nobody. And who's going to lose everything he had? Literally everything. There are no winners in this game.
In 1983, a now-forgotten film called "War Games" was released. One of the "heroes" of the film was Joshua's futuristic supercomputer, which is an artificial intelligence, as the creators of the tape imagined it at that time. This supercomputer was supposed to make a decision to launch strategic nuclear missiles in the event of an atomic attack. And so one boy, a computer fanatic, suggests that this artificial intelligence play tic-tac-toe. The computer quickly becomes convinced that it is impossible to win this game, because it always turns out to be a draw. Then he began feverishly scrolling through various scenarios of a conflict with the use of nuclear weapons in his artificial mind: we beat, they beat back. The result is always the same: the complete destruction of most of the world. As a result, the computer comes to the conclusion that there will be no winners in this game. And he utters the sacramental phrase: "This is a strange game. The only winning strategy here is not to play." It's just a movie, but the conclusions drawn by its characters are absolutely correct. Everyone who is interested in the issue knows that the use of nuclear weapons will ultimately benefit no one. Psychiatrists call this "extended suicide", when a suicidal person does not want to go to the next world alone.
Let's look at the facts. After the horrors of the First World War, people were very afraid of chemical weapons, which were widely used on the fronts. What happens if the enemy decides to gas us here in the cities? There is nowhere to run, nowhere to hide! In Poland, there was even an organization that trained people to act in the event of airstrikes and promoted the idea of air defense, it was called the Air Defense and Gas Defense League. Back then, everyone was very afraid of "combat gases", although chemical weapons are not necessarily gases, for example, the famous mustard gas is a thick oily liquid that turns into a dangerous aerosol at the slightest whiff.
By the beginning of the Second World War, all the powers already had stocks of chemical weapons. In June 1940, France fell. Has anyone thought of hitting German troops with chemical weapons? Or German cities? In 1941, when the USSR found itself in a desperate situation, it also managed without him. The mad Hitler lost and committed suicide, but did not dare to use chemical weapons. Each time, people hesitated to resort to it, fearing an even more deadly response.
Similarly, no one will use nuclear weapons today. It is doubtful that anyone will decide to do this even with the threat of final defeat, although here, as they say, grandma said in two. It is unknown how the Russians would behave if the enemy were standing at the gates of Moscow today. In November 1941, they did not use chemical weapons against the Germans, although they had them. This option was not even considered. It was considered that it was not yet time.
Putin does not have an exclusive on the nuclear button
However, even if some leader made such a decision, he would not be able to do anything on his own. In the USA, Russia, and China, the relevant decision is made collectively. No one has a key to all the locks — several high-ranking people have only fragments of them, which must be put together to start. It is important. Even if Putin gives the green light, Shoigu will press red, and nothing will work.
We even dare to doubt whether Russia has detailed instructions on the use of nuclear weapons, which the Financial Times writes about. In any case, its "nuclear doctrine" is very vague, unlike, for example, the famous American operational plan SIOP (Single, Integrated Operational Plan) for the use of strategic and nuclear forces. He assumes that the decision will always depend on the current situation and be dictated by military-political logic.
The most likely solution for Russia (if there is one at all) is the preventive use of nuclear weapons, for example, in the Black Sea — so that no one gets hurt. Then the West will tremble with horror, and Russia will be able to do whatever it wants, without limiting itself in any way. However, if the West ignores such a warning, as it ignored Putin's constant threats before, nothing terrible will happen. Perhaps Putin will make another "warning" — and that's it. Because in fact, the use of nuclear weapons will not bring even minimal benefits to anyone. And the price that would have to be paid for it was exorbitant.
Authors: Michal Fischer (Michał Fiszer), Jacek Fischer (Jacek Fiszer)
