▲ | epolanski 9 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
You seem to completely misunderstand why the entire world wanted Ukraine to get rid of their ICBMs. 1) They could not operate them. It isn't just about authorization sequence, it's about having all of the required electronics. You need satellites that point and guide the ICBMs. All of those were in Moscow hands. Even if Ukraine could ignite them, it could not launch them or set their paths, etc. 2) They did not have the budget to guard them, let alone maintain them, even less reverse engineer. The biggest risk was that rough states with deep pockets would buy those rockets on the black market (and Ukraine notably sold out most of their soviet arsenal). 3) Thus, the only real asset was the nuclear material itself. An asset that was more likely going to end up on the black market than do anything useful for Ukraine's defense. | |||||||||||||||||
▲ | varjag 8 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. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
▲ | kevin_thibedeau 7 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 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Don't forget, but keeping nukes in Ukraine, would mean that Russia would get less of them. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
▲ | Braxton1980 8 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 9 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. |