|
| ▲ | varjag 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| There's so much wrong you crammed into just three points am at loss to even where should I start. The value of nuclear weapons is in the warheads not delivery vehicles. Even then Ukraine absolutely could maintain a trimmed down nuclear arsenal with the missiles/engines serviced by Yuzhmash. After all bare ass Russia did it in the 1990s somehow. All the American financing of nuclear security to Russia would have been proportionally redirected to Ukraine. Then, Ukraine possessed a stockpile of highly enriched uranium all way until 2011. It was indeed sold off under Yanukovich to a rogue state though: Russia. There is one huge drawback to not signing the memorandum: Lukashenka's Belarus (another signatory) would have also kept the nukes. This is however never brought up by the memorandum fans and non-proliferation enjoyers on the Internet precisely because it's not something they would have minded. |
| |
| ▲ | epolanski 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > There's so much wrong you crammed into just three points am at loss to even where should I start. There's nothing wrong, what I wrote literally comes from official declassified documents and reports, you can read what insiders had to say. Ukrainians didn't want them, feared their meltdown and their inability to even just maintain them. The rest of the world knew they were bound to end up in a rogue's actor hands very soon. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/2024-01/slate.... https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/ukraine-illuminated... | | |
| ▲ | varjag 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ukraine was presented a carrot large enough to go along with it. This has nothing to do with its technical ability, as it remained a spacefaring nation throughout the recession years. Either way you seem to contradict yourself. On one hand Ukraine, then a major owner of former Soviet military industrial complex could not maintain or use the weapons. On the other you insist unspecified rogue actors would be skilled enough to maintain and use them. Make up your mind. So the rest of the world did not know anything, as the perfect safety record of enriched nuclear fuel in Ukraine illustrates. They did want for the nukes to end up in Russia for the proliferation fears and convenience of negotiating with one power. The decision turned out ultimately misguided, contributing to the unraveling of the postwar world order we see today (ironically including the proliferation of nuclear technology to the rogue states). Bill Clinton, about as insider as it gets have expressed his regrets about it last year. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | kevin_thibedeau 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > You need satellites that point and guide the ICBMs. No you don't. Cold war ICBMs all used intertial guidance. The most advanced in the form of the MX had a max CEP of 90 m. |
|
| ▲ | krzyk 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Don't forget, but keeping nukes in Ukraine, would mean that Russia would get less of them. |
| |
| ▲ | cmcaleer 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | It wasn't really particularly material whether Russia had 30,000 nukes or 32,000 nukes in 1994. It was material if other states got the components that were in those 2,000 nukes. |
|
|
| ▲ | Braxton1980 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Could they have jerryrigged them?
For example load one into a truck (similar to the recent drone incident), drive it to the Kremlim, and then force a detonation? |
|
| ▲ | varispeed 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Really? 1) Nukes were built mostly by Ukrainian engineers. They would do just fine. They could also build and launch satellites if needed. 2) So Ukraine couldn't launch them because they needed electronics and satellites, but some rogue state with deep pocket could? Okay. 3) Of course! Comrade, that is Russian propaganda you are disseminating here. |
