Also, if people are not aware, Poland has the highest % GDP dedicated to military in the Europe, outspending even the US. Their military has bought and stocked up on every single advanced weapon system. It cannot be understated how badly they were treated the USSR and how much they don't want to dragged into the Russian sphere again should Ukraine fall.
So USA would get less security, less help from their NATO partners and less power projection over the world because they have limped NATO.
Idiocracy...
Poland is a signatory of the international nonproliferation treaty, although that's merely symbolic because anyone can exit with just 90 days' notice[0].
Less symbolically, Poland has a Section 123 treaty agreement with the United States[1], which obligates nonproliferation and is tied to literally tens of billions[2] in ongoing commercial nuclear power investments. Granted that in the current political climate, anything could happen; during the ancien régime, this action would (I understand) have triggered automatic US sanctions on nuclear technology—something that'd be stupidly expensive with the amount of nuclear reactors Poland is currently buying from the USA (and from Korea, another 123 signatory).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio...
[1] https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/123-agreements-peaceful-cooperat...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_reactors_in_Euro...
Sorry, I wish it wouldn't be such a bleak outlook. With DT and El Moron siding with Russia, I think Poland's approach could be the necessary kick in the butt the whole EU needs to get they sh*t together and _not_ depend on the US.
The US hired a couple college grads to do the Nth Country Project, to build a bomb. In 1964. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jun/24/usa.science https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42817514 https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2025-0...
Sure, ICBM's are big and expensive to build. I'm not sure that Poland feels compelled to have such range, at least from the start. This also depends on how big a bomb they feel they need, and how miniaturizable the bomb is. Maybe you want to go bigger, but the US built the considerable B54 portable nuclear munitions in 1963, weighing ~50 lbs. A medium sized drone of today could carry that quite a long range.
I really wish this was unnecessary. The US abandoning allies and siding with the Russians is below my worst expectations, and I expected a good amount of this egregious nation destroying shit.
> Less symbolically, Poland has a Section 123 treaty agreement with the United States[1], which obligates nonproliferation and is tied to literally tens of billions[2] in ongoing commercial nuclear power investments.
I mean, Poland has another treaty with the US (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty), but, y’know…
> something that'd be stupidly expensive with the amount of nuclear reactors Poland is currently buying from the USA
Those are now not due to start til _2040_, so I’d be surprised if much money has changed hands yet. Other nuclear vendors are available (notably, again, France).
Like, this is all obviously very extreme stuff, but if we are seeing a US re-alignment towards Russia, which, well, is kind of how things are looking, then, y’know, it’s an extreme situation.
We're on Trump's second term, the countries facing Russia would be insane to rely on us or respect agreements with us.
North Korea has been the perfect example, and soon to be Iran, when it comes to securing yourself from invasion. Ukraine has been a lesson for the entire world, Nuclear Weapons are your only guarantee.
Genuinely curious: what reason do you see they have to avoid this dismantling?
The NPT is arguably a relic of a world in which NATO was considered reliable. We may not be in that world anymore. If Putin invades Poland, will the US help? Or will Putin wave the piss tape in Trump’s face and bring him to heel? This is not as clear-cut as one might like it to be.
I'm kidding. We know exactly what, I mean WHO, happened.
You can't rely on other countries.
Be good if Europe could produce a shared deterrent, under article 5-like auspices; the more independent actors you have with nuclear capabilities, the more likely they are to be used.
Bad and good as defined by the aggression they express towards neighbors and their own populations.
Time to invest in companies that produce uranium? What are the ingredients that will be needed for all this re-proliferation, and which companies are in the supply chain?
> The prime minister said his government was also "carefully examining" France's proposal to include Europe under its nuclear umbrella.
> "I would like to know first of all in detail what it means in terms of the authority over these weapons," he said.
> Tusk pointed out Ukraine was invaded after it got rid of its own nuclear arsenal, adding Warsaw would like to acquire its own nuclear weapons, however remote a possibility that may be.
> "Today, it is clear that we would be safer if we had our own nuclear arsenal, that is beyond doubt. In any case the road to that would be very long and there would have to be a consensus too," he said.
also, fuck trump and fuck anyone who thought letting him wreck the modern world was a good idea because it'd make them richer or make it easier to harm groups they don't like.
Clearly, a lot of things are stopping them from leaving the treaty.