4 ms·

Which ones are still operational and armed with nuclear weapons?

• Paradigma11 6y ago
  What would have prevented russia from moving the base 100-200km farther east? Sure, relocating is a hassle but annexing foreign territory seems somewhat disproportional a reaction.
  • fit2rule 6y ago
    The fact that they also had a navy base in the area to protect the nuclear weapons, maybe? Anyone who has lived in the area knows that it is a Russian stronghold, and has been for hundreds of years. Remind me again, when did America have a large population of its people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan? I mean, America absolutely demolished these states with its war fighting - by the same standard, shouldn't you be demanding that the world sanction the USA for its illegal invasions and criminal wars? The double-standards are astonishing!
• xyzzyz 6y ago
  Ukraine did not have any nuclear weapons after it relinquished them all in early 90s.
  • fit2rule 6y ago
    Russia certainly has a nuclear base in Sevastopol, Crimea. It is a base of the Russian Navy and the main base of the Black Sea Fleet. Would Americans be fine with annexing Rammstein if Germany went through a coup d'etat and the fascist leaders of the coup decided they wanted to gain access to the nuclear weapons stored there? I'm pretty sure they would. So why is it not acceptable for the Russians to protect their weapons of mass destruction from mis-use?
    • xyzzyz 6y ago
      They can protect them. In fact, they can just take them out of Sevastopol. They weapons aren't tied in any way to Sevastopol, the Russians can keep them somewhere else. Now, of course they want to have base and weapons there, but this is just back to "furthering geopolitical goals".