​

I imagine 4 deployment strategies partly based on Cold War history:

​

1. Deployment of nuclear missiles in Poland and Romania, which are NATO frontier states bordering Russia and Russian-occupied Belarus respectively. During late Cold War, NATO deployed Pershing II MRBM in the Netherlands. Despite Netherlands shielded from the Warsaw Pact by West Germany, the [North German Plain was vulnerable to Warsaw Pact’s sweeping attacks should a full-scale war break out](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_German_Plain#Military_importance), so Reagan’s missile deployment was absolutely reasonable. Given that the current Russian invasion of Ukraine bordering Poland, Slovakia and Romania, the war threat is palpable and so it is not unreasonable to consider boosting the air defense by strong nuclear deterrence. Also, [Poland and Romania are both ex-communist countries where anti-Russian sentiment is widespread](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Russian_sentiment#Statistics), NATO nuclear deployment may not experience as much public opposition as they did in the 1980s Netherlands, smoothing things over further, may it?
2. Deployment of tactical nuclear bombs in Poland and Romania just as NATO did in West Germany, the Lowland Countries, Italy, Turkey and Greece. They could be nuclear landmines and/or nuclear artillery pieces, with maximum precision and portability, couldn’t they?
3. Nuclear mining of the border of the Baltic states with Russia, which is the most escalatory option as Putin may be backed into the corner to launch insane preemptive strikes or deploy likewise in Cuba to replicate the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis — if the Cuban communist tyrant dares allow it.
4. Deployment of nuclear missiles and/or tactical nuclear bombs in Finland and/or Sweden, which are becoming NATO members if the parliaments and governments of the remaining 7 NATO member states ratify their accession. These 2 Nordic countries are militarily potent themselves due to long-standing conscription and large army reserves, [with Finland’s reserve having 900,000 men on constant combat readiness](https://intti.fi/en/in-the-reserve). This would be more preferable than option 3 because the combined population of the Baltic states doesn’t even exceed 6,000,000, much less physically fit men who can be mobilised, wouldn’t it?

​

I have no history background. This is all based on my shallow and amateurish understanding of military history accumulated by years of relevant reading.

​

What do you think?

8 comments

  2. Irrelevant for anything. Nuclear weapons are called non conventional for a reason – YOU DO NOT USE THEM. Nuclear weapons still exist only because other guys have it. It’s a pretty simple idea. Enemy won’t use them, because we might. Also, unlike CONVENTIONAL weapons, nuclear weapons usually are based on continental missiles in a form or a warhead, or other forms of mobile platform. From NATO perspective there is no need to place them in Poland, because in the event of an actual nuclear conflict they might as well be used from the country of origin and reach any target.

  3. I mean to be honest if WW3 was to break out between NATO and Russia and their allies, Poland and Romania would be nuked anyway with or without nukes being stationed there.

  4. Nuclear weapons are way overrated and mainly for deterrence.

    NATO can bomb Russia into oblivion without even touching a single nuke. Some figures:

    NATO military budget = 30x Russia
    USA military budget = 14x Russia

    Just to give you an idea …

  5. Russia never ask this kind of questions itself. They just move more nukes to the Kaliningrad.
    So yeah, sure. Fuck russia.

  6. No. Deployment of any military stuff makes the place where it’s deployed always more dangerous not the opposite. It’s a very common misconception people here have.

  8. No. It would only make us a bigger target (like we aren’t one already). Even if it comes to war we should do everything in our power to avoid their use.

Leave a Reply