> So I hope you are correct (or, more importantly, that your opinion is shared by decision makers) Yep. I'm basing my stance on Poland's current defense strate

> So I hope you are correct (or, more importantly, that your opinion is shared by decision makers) Yep. I'm basing my stance on Poland's current defense strategy [0][1]. Furthermore, Poland's on track to outcompete Russia in rocket artillery and tanks, so it has day 1 capabilities that are comparable to a tactical nuclear strike minus the cost. > No, because it's not symmetric Yep. It isn't symmetric, but it doesn't matter, because crossing the nuclear launch threshold is enough to justify retaliatory strikes and counter-strikes - which is something a state which lacks a second strike or nuclear triad cannot deter against. And the Kargil War in 1999 was proof enough that two states having nuclear weapons capabilities alone cannot deter a war. [0] - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10736700.2020.1788779 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10736700.2020.1... [1] - https://www.iiss.org/globalassets/media-library---content--migration/files/research-papers/2022/03/non-nuclear-weapons-with-strategic-effect-new-tools-of-warfare.pdf https://www.iiss.org/globalassets/media-library---content--m...