> Similarly, planes operating in the middle of Poland can attack targets in Kaliningrad - another crucial strategic ability for Polish defense.

If that happens, i.e. a NATO country directly attacking Russia, then a nuclear war starts. I'd put China in the same basket, also Pakistan if it gets attacked by India or vice-versa. Proxy-wars (to use your example Poland attacking Belarus) are of course more complicated.

I assume the Polish attack on Russian or Belarusian forces would come in reaction to a Russian or Belarusian attack, in which case NATO should already have come to the aid of Poland. Things can get muddled in the light of the alternative ways of "waging war" which Belarus seems to be engaged in - e.g. inviting thousands of migrants with promises of an easy passage into the EU, providing them with simple armaments [1] and positioning them on the Polish border with no way of retreat back in to Belarus - which has led to both NATO as well as Russian forces to converge on the scene [2], a situation in which the question of "who fired the first shot" is hard to answer.

[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/11/16/belarus-ar...

[2] https://www.itv.com/news/2021-11-12/russia-sends-paratrooper...

In theory, sure.

But Ukraine is right on the border of Poland. And what we saw in Ukraine is by the time Paris, London and Berlin notice something is amiss, Russia has already achieved their goals. And the fear-of-triggering-WW3 goes both ways.

I can believe Poland would want to be well equipped, so they can hold out for a few days so their allies have time to mobilise.

NATO is a defense alliance. If RF will directly attack a NATO country, then a nuclear war will begin. When a NATO country attacks another country, NATO will not be involved.

EDIT: I'm wrong about Afghanistan.

>For example: USA war against Afghanistan.

The US successfully invoked NATO article 5 after 9/11 requiring all NATO members to assist militarily.

This is either satire or the worst possible example, since the war in Afghanistan is the only time in history article 5 has been used.

In case of a shooting war all those F-35 would get destroyed by cruise missiles before they could take off. The only reason for Poland getting F-35 is trying to please the US and to participate in NATO missions.

In case of a shooting war all those F-35 would get destroyed by cruise missiles before they could take off. Possibly, but aircraft in their sealed revetments are a difficult target.

Also, an attack of that nature would would certainly trigger Section 5 of the Collective Defense, and then US resupply. I suspect most NATO members who buy the very expensive F-35 do so in the belief (or hope) that the US will replace these aircraft immediately, from US squadrons, if necessary.

Exactly, the main threat model is the Russian aggression via hybrid warfare (anything below the classic war, which would trigger article 5) or full fledge offence. In both cases F-35 sucks, Poland is too close to Russia. I'd be much better to spend the money on drones, satellites.

I'll bite... how long can an F-35 maneuver unnoticed near the border? And if they have weapons that can hit Kaliningrad usefully from the middle of Poland, what benefit do these weapons derive from the F-35?

TLDR: I think you meant to say "US military" instead of "US army".

Read on if you are interested why it matters.

The US Army is a branch of the USA military. The US Army is not a costumer of the F-35. The F-35 is a joint project between the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. That's 3 other branches.

Now one can say that this is a silly interjection and I should just see "US military" every time I see the word "US army" in the GP comment.

But, in the case when we are trying to understand the F-35 project understanding the crazy force structure of the US military is a must. Why? Because that structure left an indelible mark on the airplane!

Very roughly: The Air Force is the folks with the airplanes, the Navy is the one with the ships and the Marine Corps are the troops on the ship. But turns out in modern warfare you can't do naval warfare without having proper air cover, so the US Navy also got airplanes. And historically the marines were left in the lurch one too many times so they insist on having their own transportation, so they have ships, and also airplanes. (Very rough explanation, bear with me.)

You can see that the branches are somewhat converging, will we end up with 3 carbon copies of the same thing? The legislators asked the same question and put in the law limits on each branch. There are experts on what the particular limits are and etc etc, what matters to us in terms of F-35 that the Marine Corps can't have ships bigger than X. So they can't just buy a conventional aircraft carrier. Therefore the marine's airplanes have to take off vertically.

This means that when this 3 branches joined forces to build an airplane together the airplane had to be designed such that it can serve all 3 of them. So the F-35 has to have a variant which can take off vertically. And many says that capability made the whole thing waay too complicated and the boondoggle it is. And it's not a real physical "we need otherwise we cannot fight" thing. It's a legal loophole.

What started out as a comment seemingly focusing on pedantry became a very insightful comment about the (very interesting and frustrating) history of the three F-35 variants. Glad to have read, thank you!

How come the US military branches are so bad at working together?

Was curious the F35 design is like the PakFa where it's stealth from the front but the exhaust is not like an F22. I don't know offhand if the F22 design is for thermal reasons more than thrust vectoring.

B2 I think is definitely thermal since it's inside/above the wing.