| They don't announce their secret nuclear weapons programs before they are complete (though they are sometimes discovered), but some countries have violated international law and developed them, precisely to protect their sovereignty: - North Korea
- Israel
- India
- Pakistan
All retain their sovereignty, though I can't prove any causal effect and certainly nuclear weapons isn't the only cause.Others have pursued them, includng Libya, South Africa, etc. Libya agreed to surrender their program, and then their government was deposed with Western help. Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons (left over from being occupied by the USSR) in exchange for peace from Russia, and you can see what happened. That doesn't encourage the next person to give up theirs. |
| |
| ▲ | ericmay a day ago | parent | next [-] | | India and Pakistan both rushed their programs back in the 40s/50s ( or maybe later I can't recall off the top of my head). Libya and South Africa were negotiated away. That leaves Israel probably from the, what, 70s or 80s? And North Korea was supported by Russia and China. I'm not sure you could consider any of those countries to be "pursuing nuclear weapons" today. Plus by that logic you'd have to throw in the US, UK, China, Soviets, and France too. So when you sort of set aside countries from prior to, idk, 1980s ish you don't really have anyone at least publicly (to your point) pursuing nuclear weapons. However it's not just the enrichment of uranium which is tightly controlled it's also the missile technology to deliver the weapons. Keeping a nuclear program secret these days I think is quite a bit more difficult than in the past. So when you look around today you've got Iran that we know of pursuing a nuclear program. I'm not sure anyone else is by virtue of how difficult (I think?) it would be to do so undetected. Though there are countries (Japan and Korea come to mind) who we think have the ability to scale up a program very quickly. | | |
| ▲ | drTobiasFunke a day ago | parent | next [-] | | India and Pakistan were late 90s. Japan and South Korea literally have 100s of American military bases on their territory. You really think they are sovereign nations who can pursue an independent nuclear program? | | |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | ericmay a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > You really think they are sovereign nations who can pursue an independent nuclear program? Yes? Are you really sitting here telling South Korea, Japan, Germany, and more that they’re not sovereign nations because they choose to have American military bases on their home soil? > India and Pakistan were late 90s. Source please |
| |
| ▲ | mmooss a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > India and Pakistan both rushed their programs back in the 40s/50s India worked on them on and off for decades and first tested one in 1998, and IIRC Pakistan matched them soon after. North Korea was in the 2000s. > So when you sort of set aside countries from prior to, idk, 1980s ish you don't really have anyone at least publicly (to your point) pursuing nuclear weapons. I'm not going through the comment correcting all of it. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay a day ago | parent [-] | | > I'm not going through the comment correcting all of it. Yea, why bother when you're peddling misinformation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smiling_Buddha > North Korea was in the 2000s. Yes supported by Russia and China they got the keys they needed for the delivery mechanism (ballistic missiles). But the problem with North Korea is they threatened to kill hundreds of thousands of people in South Korea if anyone stopped them from building their bomb. South Korea didn't want that to happen and China would have fought against American forces had we tried anything in North Korea. Not much we can do. | | |
| ▲ | mmooss a day ago | parent [-] | | These are well-known, non-controversial facts. For anyone unfamiliar with the topic, I encourage them to lookup when India, Pakistan, and North Korea developed nuclear weapons - you will find the answers in an instant. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay a day ago | parent [-] | | > These are well-known, non-controversial facts. Yes, like India successfully tested their first nuclear weapon in 1974, not 1998 like you are asserting. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | riffraff a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I believe Israel also didn't announce they have nukes, it's just mostly assumed they do. | |
| ▲ | nwellnhof a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons Ukraine never had nuclear weapons. Russia is the sole legal successor of the USSR and these were all Russian nukes on Ukrainian territory. > in exchange for peace from Russia There isn't a single mention of nuclear weapons in the Budapest Memorandum. | | |
| ▲ | badc0ffee a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > Ukraine never had nuclear weapons. Russia is the sole legal successor of the USSR and these were all Russian nukes on Ukrainian territory. Structuring the breakup so that the nukes are Russia's is not really different than Ukraine giving up the nukes on its territory. Where did they draw the line? Obviously not all USSR assets are now Russian assets, as Ukraine still has (or had) its own stockpile of Soviet era weapons, and other things like Soviet era airfields. | |
| ▲ | qlte a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is over simplified to the point of being misleading/wrong. Russia was the legal successor of the USSR for purposes of diplomatic continuity, but the other Soviet successor states divided portions of the Soviet military/equipment, split Soviet debt obligations, etc on a case by case basis. | | |
| ▲ | chokolad a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > split Soviet debt obligations, etc on a case by case basis. What split of Soviet debt obligations? Russia took over all Soviet foreign debt, as well as all the foreign assets | |
| ▲ | ericmay a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Nuclear weapons are a special case though. Plus Ukraine didn't have the ability to use them anyway without launch codes as far as I'm aware. | | |
| ▲ | m4rtink a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Oh, those magical "Nuclear launch codes" - that turned out to be set to 0000 in the US or used a bike key in the Brtisih case ? Turns out being able to actually use the weapon in an emergency tops the codes not working. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay a day ago | parent [-] | | Ok sure, I am not super aware of the intricacies here. But what does it matter? | | |
| ▲ | m4rtink an hour ago | parent [-] | | That in the end it depends on the crew launching the nuclear weapon & the chain of command instructing them to do so. Having some codes is not sufficient - a whole complex process with many safeguards has to run to the end for things to happen. |
|
| |
| ▲ | goatlover a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Electronic components can be swapped out. The nuclear material is what really matters. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay a day ago | parent [-] | | The ability to fire the weapon matters too. You need a delivery mechanism. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | saxonww a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > There isn't a single mention of nuclear weapons in the Budapest Memorandum. https://web.archive.org/web/20170312052208/http://www.cfr.or... Points 4 and 5 mention and are about use of nuclear weapons. I think the memorandum was intended to be a security guarantee to Ukraine after they (and Belarus, and Kazakhstan) joined the NPT and transferred formerly-Soviet nuclear weapons to the Russian Federation. I don't know why anyone would suggest otherwise. | |
| ▲ | goatlover a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Since the USSR no longer existed and Ukraine became a sovereign nation again, Ukraine had possession of them. |
|
|
