[ingliz]

It doesn't seem like there is any real incentive

How would I know what the incentive is? I am not the US government.

But,

Some US officials are eyeing Poland as a new home to the US nuclear arsenal in Europe after German Social Democrats reopened the debate about whether the country should remain under Washington’s protective nuclear umbrella. And the latest twist has already displeased Russia, Poland’s mighty eastern neighbour.

— Euractiv, May 20, 2020

Euractiv is a pan-European media network specializing in EU policies, founded in 1999 by the French media publisher Christophe Leclercq.

[Politics_Observer]

@ingliz

The U.S. government isn't going to station nuclear weapons in Poland unless it thinks it has an incentive for doing so. Given our current posture and capabilities and based on my own assumptions (which I admit, I might not have the same assumptions as the U.S. government, so I could be basing my view on different assumptions than what the U.S. government is using) it would seem that the U.S. government would not have an incentive for doing so. Moreover, it would be unnecessarily provocative toward the Russians. NATO already has a strong nuclear deterrence as it stands without the need to station nuclear weapons in Poland.

[ingliz]

it would be unnecessarily provocative toward the Russians

It would be.

So why are US government officials speaking of it? Is it to provoke the Russians. If so, it is a very infantile game to play.

[Rugoz]

The Tomahawk is a long-range, unmanned weapon with an accuracy of about 5 meters (16 feet). The 5.6-meter (18.4-foot)-long missile has a range of up to approximately 2,400 km (about 1,500 miles).

Got the range wrong (I can blame the source), but nuclear Tomahawks still don't exist.

[Rugoz]

It would be.

So why are US government officials speaking of it? Is it to provoke the Russians. If so, it is a very infantile game to play.

Russian propaganda is infantile as fuck. Maybe NATO should act its part for once.

[Scamp]

Russia does not want to fight Finland.
There are still 100,000 Russian soldiers in Finland now.
They are along the border, buried 6 feet deep.

[Scamp]

The Tomahawk can carry either conventional or nuclear payloads.

This is true. We sell many countries the Tomahawk Missile. It has never been said that we gave them any nuke Tomahawks. We sell the ones with a 1,000 lb conventional warhead.
There is a mobile truck launcher we have sold many countries. It was reported that these were for anti ship missions.
But the Tomahawk can be programmed for lots of other missions.

[Politics_Observer]

@ingliz

Just because one of our ambassadors or politicians makes a suggestion or even makes a threat to station nuclear weapons in Poland, doesn't mean that the US would act on that suggestion or that such a threat is a credible threat. People make threats all the time that are not credible. Look at Obama and his "red line" threat in Syria. Turned out that was not a credible threat. The fact that Obama made that threat and then did not back it up with action, made any of his future threats seem to not be credible because now he had a track record of making threats that he did not back up.

Moreover, you have to consider the incentive for the U.S. to station such weapons in Poland. We already can destroy Russia from our current nuclear posture without stationing such weapons in Poland. Plus, we can credibly use tactical nuclear weapons on Russian forces if we ever needed using ballistic missiles from our submarines that cannot be located and such missiles can't be shot down by Russian air defense.

Lastly, stationing nuclear weapons in Poland would unnecessarily antagonize Russia so doing that is no payoff for us. It would be a stupid move. I think the ambassador you were quoting was just his running his mouth and making threats just aren't credible and would be a mistake to act on in my opinion. There really is no need for us to station nuclear weapons in Poland when we already have credible nuclear deterrence on both the strategic and tactical levels.

The Russians know this too and because they know this, stationing nuclear weapons in Poland would be just taking a stick and poking the bear. I doubt my government has an interest in antagonizing the bear in this manner especially given the current tensions over the invasion of Ukraine. When somebody makes a threat or a suggestion, you have to consider given the circumstances if such a threat or suggestion is really credible and consider if there are any incentives or disincentives from carrying out such a threat. If that person or nation really does have incentives for carrying out such a threat, then the threat is probably a credible threat. I kind of doubt that is the case here.

[ingliz]

incentive

Hypersonic missiles?

Historic parallel - Jupiter missiles to Turkey --> Cuban missile crisis

In 1957, the Soviet Union successfully launched the first unmanned satellite. Fearing that the Soviet Union had developed long-range missiles, America offered to install their intermediate-range ballistic missiles in NATO countries.

In October of 1959, an agreement to send Jupiter missiles to Turkey was signed. The missiles were installed covertly while the Soviet Primer Khrushchev was visiting the United States and the Turkish Parliament was out of session.

[ingliz]

^

Soviet Premier, not "Primer".

[ingliz]

threat

Donald Trump has confirmed the US will leave an arms control treaty with Russia dating from the cold war that has kept nuclear missiles out of Europe for three decades.

— Guardian newspaper, 20 Oct 2018

[Rugoz]

Donald Trump has confirmed the US will leave an arms control treaty with Russia dating from the cold war that has kept nuclear missiles out of Europe for three decades.

— Guardian newspaper, 20 Oct 2018

Russia has violated the treaty since the mid-2000s.

[ingliz]

Russia has violated the treaty since the mid-2000s.

Both sides had been in 'technical' violation of the treaties for years.

It was only after evidence that Russia had successfully tested a hypersonic missile and they would soon be ready to put it into serial production emerged that it all kicked off.

[wat0n]

There are other agreements between NATO (not the US, NATO itself) and Russia that would preclude stationing missiles in Poland.

Oh wait, Russia has been trying to violate those too.

[Rancid]

How much is Russia paying @ingliz?

[ingliz]

Russia has violated the treaty since the mid-2000s.

Both sides had been in 'technical' violation of the treaties for years.

The US retained thousands of warheads in storage for a "responsive force."

Under the arms control agreements, the United States should have destroyed the delivery vehicles so that their warheads would no longer count in the total of deployed warheads.

It did not.

How much is Russia paying @ingliz?

[Beren]

How much is Russia paying @ingliz?

They own ingliz for free anyway, which is part of their Soviet inheritance, I guess.

[Rich]

Finland and Sweden joining NATO in a timely fashion seems like a very good idea to me. I must confess I'm quite shocked by this display of wisdom by the Liberal establishment. I would be happy if we could get rid of Turkish membership, but would also like to see membership expanded to include Taiwan and even India.

I would be quite happy to see Russia come out of this war with some territorial gains, but the prid quo must be that Russia accepts that Finland, the Baltic states and Moldova are permanently gone from Russia's sphere of control.

[BlutoSays]

[Wels]

[...]So why are US government officials speaking of it? Is it to provoke the Russians. If so, it is a very infantile game to play.

Wasn't it the russians who provoked, and escalated, and killed, and still do?
I guess anything that shows Russia the middle finger is ok in the rest of the world's book.