Why Poland is in need of unconventional weapons?


Prelude into the genesis of  the threat

The defense of our state is first and foremost based on the power of our own conventional military forces and only secondly on the guarantees of our NATO allies. In practice it means, that in a case of of an outside(or inside terror) threat, at the beginning stages we have to launch our defense first,  then, if after the assault, we have succeed to retain the territorial  and structural integrity of the state, then and only then can we expect a military support from our NATO allies. The nearest allies that could help us out would be Germany and the Czech Republic, NATO states that have external borders do not come into consideration, because in a case of a serious conflict, if they declare neutrality, and it will be honored by the aggressor, thus it would be beneficial for us, however the defense of territory of Lithuania without considerable military force would be impossible.

Our geographic location and existing political situation point towards two possible directions from which the threat may possibly come. Prior, until the XVII century there were three, but since Sweden become a civilized country and stopped assaulting it’s neighbors, the two were remaining only, namely  eastern and western.

There are two expected directions from which a potential threat could come

For future discourse, we can assume that the western direction poses no threat any more, thanks to political and economic ties with and a functional transformation that our western neighbor went through. However the eastern direction still poses a real threat and everything points to it, that this would be a long term situation.

The Russian Federation in it’s far western region of Kaliningrad has an enclave that is heavily militarized, where justifiably are stationed considerable conventional military forces,  capable to engage at any moment on the territory of Poland or Lithuania.

Belarus in any event would naturally side with it’s eastern ally and protector. Times when Belarus could serve as a buffer are over now and a history, at the  same time  as the reelection of the old-new leader of the Empire. Ukraine is a challenge for itself at the moment, and additional headache if it was to integrate with the eastern Empire.

There is no chance that we could overcome this country in a case of a military conflict or get out of it unharmed, if an outright civil war broke out there. Our conventional military power and the ability to mobilize are insufficient to win with the Ukrainians. We  can only hope that they would not violate our border, but in a case if any of the Ukrainian troops wanted to take refuge  by us, on our territory, then we could not prevent that, because we are too weak.  They have simply more tanks, canons and troops, even in an event of being in a civil war, they would prevail and in a good position to dictate political concessions  or trigger involvement of NATO into the conflict to support us. Lithuania is in the same situation as Belgium during the last two world conflicts. Without deployment of considerable conventional forces there would be no chance to retain territorial integrity, because Russian power is overwhelming.

The terrorist threat

A different kind of a threat is an internal threat created by a group or terrorist organization inside the country. Because of our own involvement in invasive and occupational war conflicts all over the place we have to expect some retaliation sooner or later for that involvement from the extremists. There are many sources of threats ranging from religious, group or state ones. We should be also able to respond to these challenges, unfortunately are not which was exemplified when our citizen was beheaded in Pakistan or thew murder of known journalist in Iraq. We do not have in our arsenal any means and possibilities to react on the international stage. This means that we are unable to respond to states  that support, shelter and aid in other ways terrorist groups. In this regard we would have to count on the assistance of our allies points out to our vulnerability, and being a target of an attack and a leverage in potential negotiations if it ever came to that.  We should be able to call the shots for our own political and national benefit, and be able to make good use of NATO.

Lesson in history

Because of historical reasons and experiences of WW2 to which we fell a victim, and because of our  material and human losses  which we feel still to this day, this experience shaped and restricted our development over the last 70 years and in the near future too.  We can not ever forget about our existential threat, because according to the plans of our western neighbor we were supposed to wiped out of the face of the earth, with small exception of  some individuals left to be a forced labor located away from the borders of the Pangerman  Reich. We can never forget this painful and costly historic lesson.

We are unable to protect our own territory with the military forces we have

Because of the shape and size of our territory the protection of it poses a huge challenge,especially in a case of a massive assault and following swift invasion, the enemy could make easy territorial and strategic gains in short period of time, and it would be extremely hard to stop such a course. The only opposing force would be the civil population which would be throwing themselves under the rolling tanks and armored vehicles  moving along those newly build highways.

There should be however absolutely no doubt  that we are unable to support financially the existence of an army that would be capable alone to oppose any real military threat coming at us. Currently we can not even properly equip the 100.000 troops that we have now, not to mention other military  mobilization plans.  Thus the situation looks bleak in a case of any conflict and we may be faced with loss of territory and or liberty.   We  can not even exclude the possibility of the occupation of part or a whole territory because of our weakness.  Most probably is the variant in which the north-eastern part of the country would be occupied.   Warsaw after a lengthy fight would be subjugated to the enemy, and the human masses would move to the western side of the country occupied by NATO forces mostly the German ones.

In practice such a scenario could mean a total loss of our sovereignty , because there is no guarantee, that the Germans would behave like allies, and the West could traditionally betray us, knowing full well that it  can get away with that.

Scenarios ABC,BC, and C

In the context of the above projection, we have to posses in our arsenal potential that would deter our enemy , make them think twice before they decide to attack us.  Because of our financial constraints , we have to take into consideration the scenario of equipping the polish army  in unconventional weapons in spit of the international restrictions, there are other scenarios.

Scenario A,B,C

The first scenario, the development of parallel arsenal ABC namely nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to be applied as mass production. Technological aspects should not be an obstacle and in case of required financial investment the goal should be achievable to develop and produce the weapons.  The nuclear weapons would be most challenging and costly, but most prestigious at the same time.  Nuclear weapons are under strict international limitations as far as development , production and proliferation is concerned, ( for example Israel still to this day does not admit  the possession of nuclear weapons).  There would be problems with testing, on the polish territory it would be impossible, ans else where equally so. Moreover possession  of nuclear weapons requires means to deliver. otherwise it is useless. Unfortunately we could not afford this, the best we could think of  would be a dirty bomb as a cheaper option. but still effective as a significant deterrent. As a means of delivery we could use our F-16 planes, or other newly purchased twin engine machines or better yet modern undetectable  drones.

Scenario B,C

Scenario B,C  seems way more possible, but more risky because of political ramifications.  The basic rule of deterrence of unconventional weapons is the principle of double or triple  deterrence, which would ensure that an enemy would be absolutely certain that we possess such a weapon and are determined to use it. Development of such weapon can be a bi-product  of the development of the nanotechnology and other programs like life-sciences and modern chemistry.

It only would require the creation of proper mechanisms and the oversight of right state agencies  of private  institutions in charge of the project, and financial support of education and research. The results could be surprising and even could help to cover the costs of military research thanks to double  use of the technologies( civil and military application).

The implementation could be achieved over the next 10 to 15 years time and would give us an arsenal that would play a significant role.  What is needed now to get there, is to make the decision of investing time afford and to bring it to fruition. The most significant problem arising from possessing such weapons would be the issue of international ostracism directed towards us a state that possesses weapons that are hard to control. It would be a challenge for our PR, however  a possession of such weapons would be compensation enough. and worth the expense, because it would afford us the safety and security that we need to avoid disasters like in the past.

Scenario C

The third scenario, weapon C, the cheapest and easiest to implement and least controversial, but at the same time offering the weakest deterrence. In this scenario offers the possibility to develop an arsenal of humanitarian non-lethal  weapon  but one that can temporarily disable the enemy. The technology is there, after short period of research and development it would be additional production in polish chemical factories. There are no obstacles on the road to implement this scenario, especially given that it would be relatively cheap and immediately effective.

Optimal scenario B,C with elements A – creation of a dirty bomb

Poland should go ahead and build weapon B,C, first C, as  it is easier and cheaper and finally weapon B which is more complex. Thus in some 20 years time we could become a country with advanced technologies in number of fields.

Next we should launch a campaign to let the international community, especially our potential enemies that we have an arsenal that is capable to secure our own safety, and  that we have become an international military player. It is a pressing issue and we should take it seriously and secure our safety now. In 10 to 20 years time  technologies B  as well as A will be so easily accessible as C today.  We can not stay behind, lack of assault possibilities drops us down to 2nd or 3rd league on the international stage.

Goals and elements of the program

  • Development of national technologies in fields of life-science and chemistry.
  • Creation of modern viruses  and antidotes.
  • Creation of advanced bacteria and antidotes.
  • Creation of methods to advance existing  viral diseases  and ways to fight them.
  • Creation of  highly advanced chemical weapons , capable to work on a very limited territory, like (chemical mines).
  • Creation of a doctrine of usage.
  • Implementation of delivery.
  • Creation of  PR  program.

Political and general risk

Realizing that the polish state is incredibly week and highly dependent on international cooperation we would have to keep the program secret in order not to loose the  possibility to cooperate with our current partners. Most probably we would loose our EU financing , we would have to take into consideration being internationally ostracized, and maybe a conventional military conflict like the one in Iraq 2003. The implementation of soft power would be considerably increased on our leadership and the public opinion, in order to discredit launched programs, pointing out to their high costs and needs. One could also expect some sort of a provocation like bacterial leak in the vicinity of the factories.

Therefore  absolut  discretion would be necessary, but quite doable. 


Not that high as it may seem, estimated at around 2 -5 billion euro a year over the duration of the program. Additional cost would have to born for the means of deliver of the weapons like for example creation of drones, rockets, mines  shells, and possibly military satellites  etc. Bearing in mind that money spent would   contribute to the domestic economy, it would be great  and real program to create new technologies, that could even be covered by the funds from EU, plus the income from Fracking. To keep things under the wrap outsourcing could be pursued.


The above presented scenario is necessary for our own security, if we are indeed serious about the safety of our state. Its implementation  would mean increased national safety and the survival of the Polish state now and in the future.

Knowing that we would be facing some turbulence in the international relations and also knowing that we are defenseless it is wise to think the situation over and take the necessary steps, to do the right thing for our country’s defense.

All of the above described is possible to achieve.

Poland is still alive!

Written by Krakauer  Translated by Kanadier.

Tekst polski [tutaj].

Tekst hiszpański (spanish) [link].

2 myśli na temat “Why Poland is in need of unconventional weapons?

  • 8 października 2017 o 07:49

    Wspaniały tekst, kiedyś go czytałem od tego się OP zaczął. Dobrze, że to przetłumaczyliście. Tak, potrzebujemy broni masowego rażenia, bez tego nas pozabijają.

  • 8 października 2017 o 13:45

    Świetny tekst, przeczytałem polską wersję i angielską – doskonałe tłumaczenie, hiszpańskiej nie znam.


Dodaj komentarz

Twój adres email nie zostanie opublikowany.