This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
So, in Polish internet, there's currently some noise about mobilization. One user got summoned for the month-long military exercises, which supposedly ends with being forced to take an oath (which seems like a weird concept), and then being moved into 'active reserve'. Which means you can potentially get summoned for such exercises for 90 days per year.
A (translated) summary/context from /r/Polska:
Direct link to the results of that vote. Voted: 455, For: 450, Against: 0, Abstained: 5, Didn't vote: 5
@AM_Zukowska is a member of parliament, left-wing. Translation of some tweets:
I've also translated a text published by "Krytyka Polityczna", which is left-wing. Relevant context: in February there was a poll asking about support for mandatory conscription, here are the results, by gender. Women: 49% for, 47% against. Men: 39% for, 58% against.
Translation is in the separate comment (reply to this one), due to character count limit.
Interesting. Poland has been conducting a major military build up recently, buying a large number of Korean and American tanks, to go with their Leopards and upgraded T-72s. This quasi-training/mobilization would make sense to go with that. I don't understand what the point is, in strategic terms. They're in NATO, they've got good relations with the US. They've already got a large army by NATO standards. They can expect the rest of NATO to support them in a war.
What is the point of scrambling to buy hundreds of modern MBTs and creating a logistical nightmare? They're under a nuclear umbrella and their treaty allies have a military budget 10-20x larger than the only vaguely threatening force in the region? The only area Russia has parity is nuclear weapons, indeed they have superiority in that they have 2000 tactical nukes, much more than NATO. So what good is this large conventional force? I suppose it could help out the Ukrainians. But how does assisting Ukraine improve Polish security?
Imagine that the Russians had quickly won the war in Ukraine. Does it follow that they would invade Poland, who is in NATO and protected by nuclear powers? Poland also hasn't been fighting a low-level conflict with a Russian minority either, as in Ukraine and Georgia. There are Russian minorities in the Baltics and there's Transnistria, but there's no actual fighting there.
Now since Russia hasn't quickly won the war in Ukraine, surely it is even less likely that they would attack Poland. If there is a war between NATO and Russia, Russia would quickly start to lose. Then they'd use their massive advantage in tactical nukes to compensate, that's longstanding Russian doctrine. So what good are the tanks and the large conventional force Poland is making? Other than assisting with delusional US wars in the Middle East (Poland was amongst those who enthusiastically joined Iraq II), what can they do?
I suppose the Poles have been burnt by trusting their allies before. Maybe they think it's better to be safe than sorry. However, I think that the armies of Poland and Europe generally are just opportunistically expanding themselves now that they've got a decent-sounding excuse. Apart from tactical/strategic nukes and an embarrassing shortage of ammunition, they've already got more than they need.
Everyone is speculating about Poland’s historical traumas and why we can’t trust nukes etc so stockpiling tanks makes sense. But there is another scenario where this makes sense without mental gymnastics. Like any sensible nation the Polish military planners likely don’t have that much confidence in the Ukrainian state’s stability and capabilities. If the Ukraine collapses or seriously degenerates, Poland will need to secure the border areas and possibly beyond to avoid chaos. It’s the same reason why Turkey militarised so quickly when the Syrian regime collapsed and the border areas degenerated into anarchy
Does Poland need tanks, Apache gunships, rocket artillery and F-35s to do this though?
If Poland wanted to train a large force of infantry for such a task, that would make sense. Light drones too. But you don't really need hundreds and hundreds of main battle tanks to secure border areas of a collapsed state.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Relying on nuclear weapons alone for defense is foolish. They are really only a deterrent against the most extreme of threats, and even then, they are untested. Would Poland nuke Moscow over a few little green men crossing the border on special operations? Would they initiate doomsday over an air strike? Nukes don't do anything to deter lesser challenges to sovereignty, because actors like China and Russia know that no one is crazy enough to doom their civilization over these sorts of things- otherwise, why would any militaries exist outside of their nuclear capability? We tried that experiment after WWII and it resulted in an army completely unprepared for the realities of Korea.
So with that out of the way, let's look at the allies situation. There has been a lot of doubt about the commitments to allies that NATO really has. Some members have mixed loyalties, some have other priorities, and some shirk responsibility. Or, as in the case of Germany, all of the above. America may be strong and willing to fight, but it tends to get tied up in world affairs, and it takes quite a long time to move a large force and build the facilities needed to sustain them. It is far better to have your own force that is guaranteed to be in your country, committed 100% to its defense, and ready to fight, than hoping that 3 months after you're invaded, the Americans will finally be delivering Abrams tanks on the front line, and that they aren't prioritizing an invasion of Iran or something. There's a lot of talk of how deployable US forces are, but it takes quite a lot longer than people appreciate to set up in large numbers for prolonged periods. Look how long it took for us to start getting more Abrams tanks to Poland after the invasion of Ukraine to paint a clear picture of why they want their own tanks.
You don't have to rely on them solely, you just don't need an army the size of Poland's unless you're looking for offensive wars. If there's a border conflict with little green men, you can use your reasonably sized army to fight them. You don't need over 1000 tanks for that.
The US didn't signal that it would defend South Korea before the war, let alone that it was under a nuclear umbrella. It wasn't included in the Asian Defense Perimeter under Acheson. The 'reality' is that the US didn't know what it wanted or what it was doing, that's why it was unprepared for Korea. Nukes work just fine for defense if you behave maturely and soberly in clearly designating and signalling what you're willing to defend with nuclear weapons.
Why should Poland trust that America would sacrifice New York for Warsaw if they can't even be sure that American ground forces will show up on time? The logic that calls for a large Polish army calls more loudly for a Polish nuclear deterrent. Furthermore, why are American ground forces even needed? Are the French, German, British, Spanish and Italian armies not enough? Are we stuck in 1979 when the Soviet Union fielded 200 divisions? Russian conventional forces are not that threatening.
More options
Context Copy link
As you point out, the problem with nuclear deterrent is that it is very easy to rationalize away the last resort as not being last enough.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Spend more than a few seconds considering what it means to have been burnt by allies before. Poland does not have the same eternal confidence in NATO that you do, and in terms of feeling existentially threatened as a Nation they fall closer to Israel/Jews than they do the average nation. Poles are a deeply skeptical and cynical people and I still don’t think any of them have the same theory about why the army is expanding now. Understand that these people’s relation to history is one of dreaming their past leaders armed themselves to the teeth in weapons and xenophobia while cleaning the toilets of the nations who at worst invaded them and best abandoned them.
Israel acquired nuclear weapons, instruments that actually do secure their defense. They are at least realistic in their paranoia.
If Poland is skeptical that their allies will defend them from Russia, why should they hope that Russia will refrain from nuking them? What good are tanks when one faces complete destruction?
Israel also, relatively, spends more on its conventional military than just-about any European nation. It isn't a good example of nukes trumping all.
Israel faces various unconventional threats in Hezbollah and Hamas. Poland does not. Israel also likes bombing various countries like Syria, Iraq and so on. For offensive purposes you need a strong military.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I highly doubt Poland is not pursuing nukes because they’re uninterested. Why do you think Israel pretends to not have nukes?
Ask Ukraine?
So they can get around US legislation about military aid to countries who haven't signed the non-proliferation treaty!
If not for massive NATO support, the Ukrainians would have given up. They would lack the weapons, money, training and ammunition to fight on. Furthermore, the Russians have fought this war half-heartedly. They did not launch major attacks on infrastructure until the last few months - going after power and water is standard practice from Day 1. Russian leadership seems to think Ukrainians are a brotherly people. They are not so friendly towards Poland. Nuking one's delusional brother and nuking an ancient foe is a wholly different concept.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
See war in Ukraine.
Or in Vietnam. Or Afghanistan (both USA and USSR editions). Or other wars where nuclear power lost without using nukes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Are you aware how well relying on alliances went for Poland during WW II?
Also, have you seen how Germany is spending its 100 billion?
And why you call Russia "vaguely threatening force"? Ongoing invasion is far from vague. And far from being definite victory, Ukraine can still collapse.
It seems a real risk for me. In fact my reaction to full scale invasion on 24th February was to start drafting emigration plans as I was worried that Russian army will not stop on Poland-Ukraine border. Fortunately war went in unexpected way.
What if there would war between Poland and Russia?
yep
And Trump actually had a point about other NATO countries not pulling their weight.
Makes need for updating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_conflicts_involving_Poland_against_Russia less likely.
Intervening in Estonia in case Russia gets uppity and still does not get that they are not entitled to empire in Central/Eastern Europe?
Protect against whatever is happening in 15 years? How many people predicted in 2007 that in 15 years we will have full scale war in Europe, with 100 000+ dead and numbers increasing? With Russia losing 1500 tanks? And getting distinction of being the first nuclear power having its strategic bomber base in own territory being hit by missiles (that their own former empire produced...)? Getting its flagship sunk?
And with Ukraine adding own losses, with just independently confirmed losses being large enough to equip all land armies of Western Europe and have leftovers?
On political side: who in 2007 would predict that Poland will give Ukraine 230+ tanks because they are being invaded by Russia?
How many predicted that Russian leadership will believe own propaganda and it will run WW II parody combined with Gulf War parody at cost of billions, 100 000+ dead people, massive human misery and other costs?
This war reminded that having an actual army is really useful also in XXI century, also for European countries.
Not entirely sure what will be happening and 2037 but at this point I am not willing to base defence on "war is not going to happen because we are in Europe and NATO". NATO has some chance to be de facto not existing in 2037.
Well, if Polish army would not manage to use THAT to expand/modernize then it would demonstrate absurd incompetence cough German procurement cough.
Note also that photographing yourself with pile of tanks will work nicely in upcoming elections. Especially given that weakest area of opposition was its handling of Russia-related international relations, also proposed handling of Belarusian border crisis.
So focusing topic on "we are importing bajillion tanks" is done in part (probably quite small one) to look well during upcoming elections.
So maybe scale is overly large, maybe opportunity costs is high but I do not think it is so clear case of waste/bad decision.
The only thing that can protect Poland from Russia is nuclear weapons. If Poland is worried about having to fight Russia alone (in some nightmare scenario where NATO has disintegrated), they need nuclear weapons. Nothing else could save them. Now you might say that Poland can't get nuclear weapons because the US will throw a tantrum about it, that's the whole non-proliferation scam that they've been spruking for the last 70 years... But that's rather tangential to the massive conventional buildup.
Yes, if you don't have nuclear weapons!
If the Russians attack Estonia in the normal scenario (an extremely big if), where NATO is behind them, then Russia loses the conventional war and starts a nuclear war. Even if they go for the fait accompli of just storming in quickly (which they clearly aren't too good at), you can't just attack countries in major alliances and not expect retribution. That defeats the whole point. The US would counterattack, they have tripwire forces in the region.
In the nightmare scenario where NATO is gone and it's every state for themselves, the Poles get turned into a Russian satellite regardless of what conventional forces they have. What good are tanks if the enemy can raze your cities in minutes? I suppose they could try using conventional forces for a stalling action and desperately nuclearizing... but that's precisely the most dangerous position to be in if you face a nuclear power. That's when it's most logical to use nuclear weapons to quickly finish the war and pre-empt any nuclear counterattack.
Certainly!
As Ukraine is proving right now - having decent conventional army is also useful. USSR lost in Afghanistan, Russia lost the First Chechen War, USA lost multiple wars against enemies without nuclear weapons.
Second is not guaranteed and escalates it into global conflict.
There is also intermediate position with Poland in situation where Ukraine is right now.
If Ukraine had nuclear weapons, they wouldn't need a decent conventional army, nor would they be fighting. Nuclear weapons are better for all defensive scenarios. Ukraine is proving that having a decent conventional army gets you five/six-figure casualties, economic devastation, power shortages and much of your country fleeing overseas. Nukes give you much better security.
but harder to obtain
Not for all. You will not use nukes over minor incursion.
I am not claiming that having decent conventional army is preferable to having nukes.
As we started from Poland: I am pretty sure that what was done to obtain this weapons would be glaringly insufficient to obtain nukes and enough ICBM/submarines/silos to act as counter to Russian invasion.
And conventional army would still be needed anyway.
You don't need 1000 tanks to defend against minor incursions, only full-scale wars and nobody launches 'minor incursions' against nuclear powers - if they do they are quickly squelched by both sides
Nukes are not hard to obtain for technically advanced countries like Poland
Only 100-200 warheads are needed, an arsenal on the scale of Britain and France. Even ICBMs are unnecessary since Poland is close to Russia. They only need mobile launchers, which is somewhat complicated.
Supposedly the Poles plan to field 300,000 troops, an increase on their current 150,000. That's a lot of troops.
Either I am deeply underestimating capacity of my country and its government or overestimate difficulty of getting nukes or overestimate how strongly other would react or you do the opposite.
But this claims seems laughable, even planned civilian nuclear power plant will be basically entirely imported tech. And importing nuke design would be quite hard to do.
This is untrue, Falklands for start. Situation in Israel and 9/11 may also count.
Also, India-China and India-Pakistan.
And probably many other cases, that is only what I remembered right now.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Setting aside projecting one's own viewpoint of someone else's interests onto them, the key point of the armor procurement is likely tech transfer and modernization away from Warsaw-pact era templates with an eye for future European market competition. The Ukrainian purchase Korean tanks has indicators of a technology transfer and local production deal, with the potential for a future Europe-based tank co-development program between Poland and Korea that could try and compete in the European market.
In general arms procurement, the seller wants to make the tanks at their own home, and keep the techs involved to themselves, while the buyers want the tanks made in their home, and to get technology transfers. The major western tank producers- US, UK, France, and Germany- have export-variants, but are generally tight-fisted with technology transfers. In the European military market context, the German Leopard 2 is the main legacy main battle tank of Europe, and has a preponderance of scale, but with modernization techs controlled by the German industry. The Koreans, by contrast, have a low-key reputation of being a bit more flexible with technology transfer concessions as their way to try and break into other markets, and Polish government's press on their priorities indicate Polish manufacturing base was a key priority. Add in that one of the model purchases is a model which allegedly hasn't even finished the design phase yet, as well as some floated discussion of future joint ventures, in the context of the European market dynamics where many military sales in most European countries must de facto come from another European country outside of technology-specific offerings...
In the near term, the immediate purchase of Korean tanks is more akin to a ring-swap replacement of the legacy Soviet-era T-##s the Poles still have. These Soviet tanks remain a major part of the inventory, but are long-term dead ends. These are almost certainly going to be sent to Ukraine in some form or fashion in the next year, when an infusion of armor would simultaneously give Ukraine armor and maneuver capacity and reduce the Polish logistics burden. Whether you agree with it or not, the Poles believe helping the Ukrainians throw the Russians out entirely is a major national interest, and playing a key role in doing so is almost certain to get them far more reconstruction access and integration for longer-term alignment for the post-war. Your evaluation may differ, but in consideration of future transfers, the immediate purchases is a substitution for 'good enough' tanks in the interim, but also the hook to open/expand the longer-term benefits.
In the medium term, Poland- which while it's had a large tank industry hasn't had exactly a modern one- will likely receive Korean technology transfers as part of the manufacturing/maintaining the current and future design tanks. The Korean technology transfer will be used to modernize Poland's own military industrial base, increasing its competitiveness inside the European market and abroad and reducing dependence on the primary European tank supplier, Germany, for non-warsaw pact tanks. This is, on its own, raising another competitor for the Koreans, but the opening purchase and Korea's own strategic prioritization is a 'worth it.' The Koreans get market access into Europe, expand production lines and logistics support that could be used to support Korea in case of a future conflict disrupting South Korea's domestic supply lines, build internal rapport with a fellow American ally, and so on.
The longer term prospect, more tentative and possible than decisive, is the prospect for Korea and Poland to do future joint armor/APC/combat vehicle design projects in the future, with the goal of competing with established European producers. The Koreans on their own would have virtually no hope of breaking into the European arms market, where many domestic procurement pressures are for European-production lines, but a 'Polish' vehicle could easily become a standard in parts of Europe, especially if it comes with the sort of integration/technology transfer that the Germans and French resist. In turn, joint ventures could also have variants aimed at other regions, whether the South Koreans and the Poles could work their separate lines of influence when lobbying for the sale on joint projects that- because of tech alignment and shared base- both would split the profits. This is all tentative, but possible, if developed on the basis of a techs-for-tanks transfer.
I buy your industrial development argument but they're also buying modern Abrams from America. While they're hoping to do some local production with the K2, it seems very much like they're scrambling for more firepower now. They're also buying Apaches, howitzers and so on.
The Poles clearly see this as a priority, they're paying a heavy price for a great deal of firepower. The Polish economy is not especially large. Their 1500 tank plan is very ambitious, significantly more than Germany, France and the UK combined. It's a ridiculously powerful army for a non-nuclear power. It does not particularly matter if Poland has 500, 1000, or 5000 tanks as far as self-defense is concerned. If the Russians are at war with Poland, the key factor is nuclear weapons. Why do they need 'good enough' tanks in the interim? Do they think that Putin is deterred from attacking Poland by the marginal addition of 200 Abrams?
Are you saying that the Koreans hope to import parts from Poland in case their own factories get blown up by the North Koreans/Chinese? If South Korea's domestic supply lines are in danger, I think Poland will be last on their list of priorities.
The Abrams are for defense of a different part of Poland than the Korean tanks. Broadly speaking, Abrams are for the flat plains leading to the capital region, and less heavy, more rough-terrain tanks are for the more restrictive terrain areas.
This also comes back to 'just because you don't think a current threat is valid doesn't mean others don't.' Projection of one's views onto others, and all that.
Not really. 1500 tanks is only ambitious relative to the multi-decade draw-down by Germany, France, and UK since the Cold War. Much larger tank armies were managed by relatively more modest economies during the Cold War. Moreover, the Poles are doing this from a pretty modest procurement perspective- they're not approaching this tank force as in addition to a world-class major airforce, navy, and what have you that traditionally dilutes budgets. The Poles are structuring their military to bring the armor and the close-air support, which very nicely compliments the Americans bringing the Air Force, Navy, and rapid-reaction but limited capability ground forces to a contingency.
Nuclear weapons haven't been a decisive factor in any war since the invention of nuclear weapons, including the only war in which nuclear weapons were used. They haven't even been key in mitigating western aid to Ukraine, let alone stopping multiple major and embarassing operational defeats that have rendered Ukraine a strategic disaster.
The Polish use for a tank army is less for if Putin attacks Poland, and more if Putin were to try and attack the Baltic states to Poland's immediate NE, were Poland would be the only realistic force beyond American immediate buildup able to interven in a Baltic scenario. While Russia is many years from being able to threaten Poland, smaller Baltic states don't need Ukraine-war sized forces to be threatened, and here we come back to projecting one's own judgement of the probability of such a thing from the regional actors' perspectives.
The development of a Polish tank industry is less for Russia, and more of creating a non-German/French arms supplier in the EU. This is a matter not only of profit, but supporting the creation of an eastern-European block that won't be dependent, and thus can't be held hostage to, German/French supply line influence in occasions where German/French interests would be willing to sacrifice eastern European interests, as was repeatedly tried in recent years. Poland's development is generally consistent with a nation trying to set itself up as a regional power able to counter-balance other regional powers. It doesn't need to out-produce Germany, it needs to keep the neighborhood from becoming dependent on Germany.
If you REALLY wanted to be paranoid, the Poles may also be preparing for post-Russian security concerns centered around future attempts to centralize the power of the European Union, but that's far more hypothetical than probable motive.
Poland doesn't need to be on their list of priorities. Poland just needs to be part of the American alliance network and able to fly highly-valuable supplies in relatively short order in case of crisis, thus helping the higher priorities.
A key lesson of the Ukrainian war, besides that nukes don't decide conventional wars, is that no one nation can run a high-intensity war on their peacetime buildup. The Russians started a medium-scale war with an entire superpower's stock of military surplus and depots, and started running out of operational stocks of precision munitions in the first two months, and tapping their contingency stocks until the point of buying Iranian drones in lieu of cruise missiles. Even the US is seeing real dips in select categories of munitions, and it's not even directly involved. Whether you stockpile PGMs that go out in weeks, or dumb-rounds that are exhausted in months, high-intensity makes support needs immediate.
But another key lesson is that while no one can beat the logistics strength of the American alliance network, compatibility matters. The Ukrainians spent the first months of the war dependent on Warsaw Pact systems and aid delivery, first because it was all they were familiar with and then because it was all they could shoot. Trying to incorporate new artillery systems and ammo trains- even when made available- has been a real hurdle. Speed of integration can have operational relevance, both in immediate pre-war buildups, but post-war resupplies.
Sharing common production systems is what clears this hurdle, and is a key strength of being mutual members the American alliance network. In theory, the French and the Germans have been trying to do this for some time with their European Strategic Autonomy proposals for a common EU procurement, but 'Buy European' has tended to be 'Buy French/German,' and French/Germany wrangles have delayed numerous projects past the point of relevancy. What Korea has achieved is that someone else really will be maintaining a lot of compatible tanks, and is probably going to be more willing to part with armor (parts) than the Germans.
Nuclear weapons are like the sea to fish. They dominate the power structure wars are fought in, post-WW2 at least. There's a reason Libya and Iraq got hammered by the US but North Korea didn't. There's a reason no two nuclear powers have fought anything more than a few skirmishes, limiting the intensity of their wars. There's a reason the US and the other nuclear powers are so keen on nuclear non-proliferation. If nuclear weapons weren't decisive, they wouldn't care so much about them. If nuclear weapons weren't decisive, Russia wouldn't have dared to infringe upon NATO's interests in this war, since they have vast conventional superiority.
I suspect that the Yom Kippur war is the strongest example you have of nuclear weapons not helping defend a country. Yet when Israel threatened to use nukes, the US quickly moved to fly in huge quantities of military aid. They didn't care about the wrath of the Arabs causing hundreds of billions of damage to the US economy via oil prices. The superpowers put huge pressure on their clients to end the conflict in a stalemate before nukes could be used, they didn't let the conflict fester as in so many other wars. Nukes don't need to be used to be decisive in controlling the situation. If they were used, they would be even more powerful.
If Russia attacks, going for a fait accompli, why should the US end the war even if the Russians sweep through the Baltics in 48 hours? It makes the US look totally pathetic if they don't come in and retake that ground eventually. While I maintain that nuclear weapons are dominant, they favor defense over attack. Russia's nuclear threats to defend its army occupying the Baltic aren't as credible as NATO nuclear threats against Russian nuclear first use. Furthermore, Russia has only attacked non-NATO members in conflict with Russian minorities. Even if the Baltics get into a spat with their Russian minorities, they're still in NATO. It would be an incredibly risky and provocative move to attack the Baltics. It'd be a far more aggressive move than invading Ukraine.
I'm afraid I still don't understand why Korea would care at all about such a niche scenario. They plan for some kind of highly-urgent crisis where the Koreans suddenly need more ammunition, so they fly it in from Poland? Why not just plan ahead and buy your own ammunition from your own companies before hand, store it in your own country and keep the airlift capacity for moving things you don't make like US forces or Patriot batteries? There certainly has been a syndrome where NATO countries don't bother to produce ammunition, Russia has been firing off entire years of US artillery production in weeks. But surely the simplest cure is just to produce munitions and spare parts for the weapons one designs, builds and operates!
What if the crisis strikes quickly and there's no time to airlift supplies from Poland, through hostile airspace, to South Korea? What if Poland needs its supplies because it also faces a crisis? What if South Korean defence industry needs some more cash? I agree that the Koreans want to open up markets but this is too far.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Perun came to much the same conclusion with some additional minor comments about why Poland might want a large conventional military force rather than just relying on NATO/Nuclear options. Essentially +1 to above.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link