Why Russia will Never Attack Poland

Actually Britain decided to support France when it was revealed to the Cabinet that the British Foreign Secretary had given assurances to the French of British support (unbeknownst until then to the Cabinet or Prime Minister).

The Cabinet still balked at British entry into the war, but when the French ambassador explained that they had left their Atlantic ports more or less undefended because they expected British assistance, they felt honor bound to protect the French.

In a nutshell, one man's secret deals cost Britain almost a million dead.

Yep, Pilsudski basically wanted to restore the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. (Pilsudski actually considered himself a “Polonized” Lithuanian).

In a nutshell, one man's secret deals cost Britain almost a million dead.

And a lot more damage across the entire continent, and the planting of the seeds that led to the next war.

Swiss way works for them because they live in the mountains.

Very true. Poland, aside from rivers, has no natural defensive terrain.

inability of Russia to attack Poland (short of nuclear weapons, and that would lead to consequences for Russia that are extinction level)

I'm interested in your thinking on this (although I think it's all purely theoretical).

Suppose Russia found it desirable to invade Poland (after reunification with Belarus). Further suppose Polish armed forces stopped a Russian advance and were inflicting casualties to an intolerable degree.

So, to clear lanes for armored columns, the Russians used tactical and small strategic nukes.

How on Earth would this lead to bad consequences (never mind "extinction-level" consequences) for Russia?

The first thing that would happen would be that Germany, France, and Italy would declare neutrality, and confine US forces to their bases in those countries.

The second thing that would happen is that a peace conference would be called by the EU (maybe even in Munich!).

By the time that all got underway, the Russians would be on the Oder.

They then could put together their offer to Germany at leisure.

I still believe that large army invasions are quickly becoming a thing of the past.

Poland would have significant warning of any large movement of Russian Armies. All of the major columns of equipment would be under attack in minutes after crossing the border. The shit storm of cruise missiles would destroy their armies quickly.

Insurgency is the way to go these days.

It would work for the Poles, too. But not quite as well. ;-)

Suppose Russia found it desirable to invade Poland (after reunification with Belarus). Further suppose Polish armed forces stopped a Russian advance and were inflicting casualties to an intolerable degree. So, to clear lanes for armored columns, the Russians used tactical and small strategic nukes. How on Earth would this lead to bad consequences (never mind "extinction-level" consequences) for Russia? The first thing that would happen would be that Germany, France, and Italy would declare neutrality, and confine US forces to their bases in those countries. The second thing that would happen is that a peace conference would be called by the EU (maybe even in Munich!). By the time that all got underway, the Russians would be on the Oder. They then could put together their offer to Germany at leisure.

Let me try and answer your question, with the only caveat being that it may be worth exactly what you paid for it.

Why do I think that it would lead to bad consequences?

Simple - at a very fundamental level (almost dogma), the use of nuclear weapons, even at the tactical level (especially at the tactical level), would be a major disaster for every single nuclear-armed country.

Let me explain.

While it is obvious that a strategic nuclear war would be 'The End,' as there would be absolutely no winners if the major nuclear powers started slinging off atomics, the use of small/tactical weapons would also be a major problem. Why? Well, because the moment one country used tacticals, then the Pandora's box of 'strategic use of tactical weapons' would be thrown wide open. This would mean that lesser nuclear powers like India and Pakistan - and Israel - could also use tactical weapons, especially since the major nuclear powers (in this case the US and Russia) had burned through the resistance barrier to their use.

This would be a major change in war strategy - the fact that there was an option of tactical nuclear weapons being employed if, say for example, Country A's conventional forces were being overrun by Country B's conventional forces (a good example being the last India-Pakistan war, where use of tactical nuclear weapons came close but, because there was no precedent, were not employed apart as a 'warning.')

Now, a clever FReeper might say that during the Cold War both NATO and the Warsaw Pact had plans that called for the use of tactical nuclear weapons (including nuclear mines that were kept warm using live chicken ...but that's another story). Israel currently has plans for the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Russia today has the use of tactical weapons as a real option should Siberia get overrun by the Chinese. The French have the first-use of tactical weapons as a part of their nuclear deterrence strategy, which is why they have one of the best air-launched nuclear-tipped cruise missiles (the ASMP-A)on their Rafales and Mirage-2000Ns (I know that many here mock the French, but there's no Western country, apart from Israel, that is as willing to use nuclear weapons than the French are. The only thing weak about those people is their politicians - everything else, from their military to their judges/prisons to their laws against terrorists, are almost Soviet).

So, there are all those factors - but YET no use of tactical weapons. Because the moment they are used then the barn doors are thrown wide open.

That is why it would lead to bad consequences. Suddenly their use, in a flash, would be open to all, and once that happens then the likelihood of a larger - more strategic - attack becomes very real.

Imagine Russia invades Poland (would never happen, as it would be very stupid and even when drunk the Russians have stayed away from stupid decisions since Yeltsin, and every act - be it Georgia or Crimea - was thought out from a cost/return perspective) - but let us assume, for discussion, that Russia invades Poland. The Poles fight back and decimate Russian positions, and (stupidly - again a major level of stupid that I am only applying simply for the purposes of discussion) the Russians use a nuclear tactical missile to liquidate the Polish forces. As a retaliation, the US/NATO uses a CONVENTIONAL weapon to take out the position that launched the tactical weapon, say a Russian Steregushchy class corvette that had launched a KH-37 nuclear-tipped Uran missile. The ship goes down with all hands on deck. At this critical point, the next step is whether there is retaliation for that, or the Russians will be okay with losing a ship in exchange of taking out a Polish position. Or maybe a Russian submarine takes out the American Burke that launched the missiles. A warm war gets hotter, and depending on how the chess pieces move you have a spectral range that spans from a repeat of the Turkish shooting down of a Russian SU-24 (nothing much) to the Russians taking out a small Polish city with a tactical nuclear weapon that invites a retaliation that quickly becomes strategic, especially considering that both NATO (e.g. the Turks) and Russia (there are many there who still want to 'prove points') both have people who may not be fully rational once the shooting starts.

Bottom line - the use of tactical nuclear weapons would move the nuclear dial so far as to make it irrelevant.