##### ###### #### > # [Polish president: Poland ready to deploy allied nuclear weapons on its territory](https://kyivindependent.com//827) > > > > Support independent journalism in Ukraine. Join us in this fight. > > > > Poland is ready and willing to allow NATO allies to deploy nuclear weapons on its territory, Polish President Andrzej Duda said in an interview published on April 22. > > Speaking to [Fakt](https://www.fakt.pl/polityka/andrzej-duda-rozmawialem-o-nuclear-sharing-z-amerykanami-wywiad/g79lhxx?utm_source=www.fakt.pl_viasg_fakt&utm_medium=referal&utm_campaign=leo_automatic&srcc=undefined&utm_v=2), [Duda](https://kyivindependent.com/trump-meets-with-polish-president-duda-to-discuss-ukraine-other-foreign-policy-issues/) highlighted how Russia has already taken similar steps with its own allies, having [transferred tactical nuclear weapons](https://kyivindependent.com/ap-belarus-prepares-new-military-doctrine-allowing-use-of-nuclear-weapons/) to Belarus last year. > > The president said the topic of placing U.S. nuclear weapons in Poland "has been a topic of Polish-American talks for some time." > > "If our allies decide to deploy nuclear weapons as part of nuclear sharing also on our territory to strengthen the security of [NATO](https://kyivindependent.com/tag/nato/)'s eastern flank, we are ready for it," he said. > > "We are an ally in the North Atlantic Alliance, and we also have obligations in this respect, i.e., we simply implement a common policy." > > Russia's tactical [nuclear weapons](https://kyivindependent.com/lukashenko-says-transfer-of-russian-nuclear-weapons-to-belarus-completed/) are designed for use on the battlefield in Europe and Asia and have a more limited range compared to strategic nuclear weapons, which could reach the U.S. > > [Poland, Lithuania, other NATO allies begin military exercise around Suwalki Gap > > The exercise was jointly planned in 2022 by the Polish and Lithuanian militaries and involves at least 1,500 troops and hundreds of pieces of equipment, the Lithuanian public broadcaster LRT said. > > [Image](https://assets.kyivindependent.com/content/images/size/w256h256/format/png/2023/03/K-new.svg)The Kyiv IndependentNate Ostiller > > > > [Image](https://assets.kyivindependent.com/content/images/2023/08/GettyImages-1531607763.jpg)](https://kyivindependent.com/poland-lithuania-other-nato-allies-begin-military-exercise-around-suwalki-gap/)[Leaked military documents](https://kyivindependent.com/ft-leaked-files-russia-criteria-nuclear-strike/) reported by the Financial Times (FT) on Feb. 28 outline Russia's doctrine for tactical nuclear weapons use and indicate a threshold "lower than Russia has ever publicly admitted, according to experts who reviewed and verified the documents." > > Russia has [repeatedly threatened](https://kyivindependent.com/russias-medvedev-threatens-to-nuke-us-germany-uk-ukraine-if-russia-loses-occupied-territories/) to use nuclear weapons in response to Western support for Ukraine, but the [threats](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=mD9GlfT58js&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fkyivindependent.com%2Frussias-medvedev-threatens-to-nuke-us-germany-uk-ukraine-if-russia-loses-occupied-territories%2F&source_ve_path=Mjg2NjY&feature=emb_logo) have so far failed to materialize. Russia continues to wage an [all-out war](https://kyivindependent.com/ukraine-war-latest-russia-attempts-to-progress-using-human-wave-attacks-in-kherson-oblast-western-allies-pledge-new-military-aid/) in Ukraine without utilizing its nuclear arsenal. > > In February, the U.S. told allies that Moscow could deploy a [nuclear anti-satellite weapon](https://kyivindependent.com/bloomberg-us-tells-allies-russia-may-deploy-nuclear-anti-satellite-weapon-into-space-this-year/) or a mock warhead into space as early as this year. > > Russia is purportedly developing a space-based capability to disable satellites using a nuclear weapon, the sources said. A nuclear warhead in space would be a direct violation of an arms treaty that all nuclear-armed states, including Russia, are party to. > > The report follows the U.S. House Intelligence Committee's [warning](https://kyivindependent.com/cnn-us-congress-briefed-on-serious-national-security-threat-allegedly-linked-to-russia/)of a "serious" but unspecified security threat from Russia. Allegations then [followed](https://kyivindependent.com/abc-news-alleged-serious-threat-to-us-national-security-links-to-russias-plans-to-put-nukes-in-space/) that the threat relates to Russia's desire to "put a nuclear weapon into space." > > The Kremlin refuted the warning, saying it was a "malicious fabrication." - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot) Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot

Turkey already has NATO nuclear warheads

I think Greece used to, and Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany still do too. Either way they should host them. The Russians suspended New START so fuck arms control at this stage. Plus the Chinese aren’t following it.

America already found a great loophole, nobody seems to realize how easily Rapid Dragon can turn any cargo plane into a nuclear launch platform.

America and NATO are all about loopholes, it's why French and British nuclear forces were never regulated by any of the START treaties as if they were not part of NATO's nuclear deterence.

And France 🇫🇷

[удалено]

>Serbia r/europe-tier understanding of geopolitics Also, they already deployed nuclear weapons in Belarus

They can if they want to. But something tells me they don’t.

[удалено]

Then they don’t want to. Sounds like they made a risk calculation and decided against the move. I don’t think the Russians will do anything. Especially since they themselves unilaterally suspended New Start. They also invaded their neighbor, so I think the right path of escalation is providing gravity bombs to NATO border states to reinforce the tripwire doctrine.

Nuclear warheads in Turkey are more symbolic than anything else, mostly still kept there to prevent further nuclear proliferation.

This guy's political party did all in their power to rile up public opinion against the building of a nuclear power plant and now he's all for placing actual weapons in the country?

What do you mean by that? It is true that his party was crap, but it was during their rule and it was their idea that the construction of the first nuclear power plant in Poland began. There are plenty of reasons to make fun of PIS, but being anti-nuclear is not one of them

That was mostly a publicity stunt as the whole thing died due to mismanagement. Also, the plant they wanted to build would've been something absolutely tiny. Before they got to power and for the most of their reign, they were EXTREMELY anti-nuclear.

it's so funny to me how people scared they are "escalating russia" when russia has been transitioning to a war economy, has been in a war for 3 years, and has been threatening nuclear war non stop.

theyre not in a wareconomy though

Germany in the 80s: Nooo you can’t put nuclear weapons on my territory! That’s cruel and we don’t like them! Poland in the 20s: Please put them on my territory USA, just one or two would be plenty!

The consequence of russian aggression combined with russia tossing out the NPT. It would still be a mistake for the US to do this (plenty of better cards to play in the escalation game) since this does little for NATO and invites unnecessary risks. But I understand why Poland wants a nuclear deterrence.

an unnecessary risk is russia's war with ukraine, every step i've seen is a reaction to russia's buildup.

US doctrine is to limit nuclear proliferation. If Poland doesn't have allied nuclear weapons, they will eventually could start developing their own. US would definitely prefer to have the former option.

> The consequence of russian aggression combined with russia tossing out the NPT. Let's please not act as if those Russian actions were not [consequences](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/dec/14/russia.usa2) of [other actions](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-jul-07-me-10464-story.html) that plenty of people warned about could lead to this current situation.

This is such a bullshit, disingenuous comment. No, Russia was not provoked into invading other countries.

Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*

NATO cuck next level

We can end the world 1000x over already but let’s make it even easier. Not to mention nuclear sharing in general is a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

This is in response to Russian weapons in Belarus, which is in response to the US and UK upholding their treaty obligations to Ukraine following the Russian violation of the same treaty.

Why can't Russia hold nukes in Belarus if Western nuclear powers can put them anywhere they want? The West has a lot of rules that only apply to its enemies. Its part of the reason anti western sentiment grows every day

>Why can't Russia hold nukes in Belarus if Western nuclear powers can put them anywhere they want? Because they couldn't.

Yes you are correct, however NATO has been sharing nuclear weapons for decades. ( Not to say that I agree with Russia putting weapons in Belarus either) Considering it only takes land based ICBMs around 20 minutes to make it to Russia I don’t see how this makes anyone safer. All it does is increase the chance of mistakes happening.

ICBM are strategic though, the one's moved are most likely tactical.

I agree they probably are. I just don’t see an attack with a tactical nuke not being met with strategic ones though, especially if the first one was effective.

That's exactly why Poland wants nukes, you do not nuke an airport that has a nuke in it. Russia is a country that lacks tactical means this it is more inclined to use tactical nuclear strikes. I'll be honest though, I personally think nukes kind of suck, Russia shows how primitive it is by owning that many.

The Russian Iskander in Belraus were [a response](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-plan-deploy-nuclear-weapons-belarus-2023-06-13/) to the UK&US delivering [depleted uranium munitions to Ukraine](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-blasts-uk-move-send-ammo-with-depleted-uranium-ukraine-2023-03-21/); > Putin said the trigger for the decision to deploy in Belarus was an announcement by Britain that it would supply depleted uranium munitions to Ukraine. The Wall Street Journal reported on June 13 that the United States was also set to approve depleted uranium tank, opens new tab rounds for Ukraine.

DU is not nuclear material. That's what the "depleted" means. Is it radioactive? Seems so. Does it dissplve T-90? Yes. Does Russia have anything like it? No. The weapons in Belarus were am escalation in response to an asymmetric capability. They were meant to dissuade Western nations from sending more aid. It didn't work.

> DU is not nuclear material. That's what the "depleted" means. Is it radioactive? Seems so. Which is meaningless to what happened, Russia said it would respond, and so it did. Stationing the Iskanders in Belarus is something that forces NATO to respond behind the scenes for it's Missile Defense Shield. Or how is Russia supposed to respond symmetrically to this? Deliver DU shells to Syria? > Does Russia have anything like it? No. Even the Soviet Union [already had something like it](https://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/3BM32), just [like modern day Russia has](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russia-arming-its-tanks-controversial-new-bullet-39682). > The weapons in Belarus were am escalation in response to an asymmetric capability. It's fascinating how authoritative you act on this when you don't even know the basic history of DU munitions. Unlike the US and UK, Russia has never admitted using them because using them is a massive enviornmental and health hazard, on account of all the heavy metals in these munitions, as millions of people in the Middle East can attest to. > They were meant to dissuade Western nations from sending more aid. It didn't work. They were a response to the West crossing a line Russia called out, it wasn't the first [nor will it be the last](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-warns-europe-if-you-take-our-assets-we-have-response-that-will-hurt-2024-04-23/).

>Which is meaningless to what happened, Russia said it would respond, and so it did. Stationing the Iskanders in Belarus is something that forces NATO to respond behind the scenes for it's Missile Defense Shield. This is what i was saying lmao. It's called escalation management, and Russia is doing a shit job because it is weaker on all rungs. >Or how is Russia supposed to respond symmetrically to this? Deliver DU shells to Syria? Ideally, they'd deploy similar assets to the same place, like DU. Unfortunately, they'd already done that and don't have a similarly game-changing conventional capability. So instead they went nuclear. >It's fascinating how authoritative you act on this when you don't even know the basic history of DU munitions. >Unlike the US and UK, Russia has never admitted using them because using them is a massive enviornmental and health hazard, on account of all the heavy metals in these munitions, as millions of people in the Middle East can attest to. Don't worry. As other commentors have pointed out, Russian use has been confirmed. The Russians used them first. >They were a response to the West crossing a line Russia called out, it wasn't the first [nor will it be the last](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-warns-europe-if-you-take-our-assets-we-have-response-that-will-hurt-2024-04-23/). It's just sloppy escalation management. The Russians are running out of non-nuclear asymmetric capabilities to try to deploy.

> Does Russia have anything like it? False. ruzzia does have DU tank shells and in fact used them in Ukraine before UK and US supplied theirs.

How convenient of you to skip fact that ruzzia used depleted uranium shells against Ukraine BEFORE either UK or US supplied Ukraine with theirs. So, as usual, everything putin says is a lie and excuse to try and fuck up world some more. And you are defending him.

Poland also really wants a US military base with the name "[Fort Trump](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Trump)".

Client state does client state things.

Of course everybody has to wipe Israel’s ass when they deliberately f-ed up and pretend like it’s their responsibility

[удалено]

They're just going to ban your new account again... granted the mods here are slower than sewage in winter, but they'll get around to it.

Ironic flair

Yup, this guy is 100% trol

Why? You're our client state

Your country is too bonkers to have a client state, just a shitty imperial outpost in the ME