5 ms·

Ukraine is an excellent example of this. They voluntarily relinquished their nuclear weapons, and now Russian troops have invaded the eastern part of the countr

Ukraine is an excellent example of this. They voluntarily relinquished their nuclear weapons, and now Russian troops have invaded the eastern part of the country.

dragandj 6y ago
I’m not so sure that nuclear weapons would help in these kinds of regional conflicts against Russia. It’s not that Russia officially invaded Ukraine (although in practice it did), but it stirred up local population (of largely Russian ethnicity) and then gave them logistical support and protection. So, if Ukraine had nuclear weapons, what would it do with it? Strike Russia, who has many more nuclear warheads, and stronger anti-nuclear protection? Nuclear weapons are for USA, China, Russia, and maybe France/Europe, because they are not going to use it. Maybe Israel, whic is so tiny and surrounded by rrivals, that it has no choice but to have something to scare the neighbors with. Maybe India, because it’s big enough. For everyone else, nuclear weapons are a liability, because if they ever use it, they are going to be wiped out by the big boys for not obeying...
- seppin 6y ago
  Good points. It maybe would have deterred Russia from invading at all, but that's debatable.
  - dragandj 6y ago
    On the opposite note, Russia (USSR) was "invaded" (sort of, from the point of view of many Russians) by the "West" 30 years ago, and USSR was butchered out, despite USSR having thousands of warheads. Which were completely useless...
    - seppin 6y ago
      That's a funny way of saying the Soviet Union could no longer imprison have of Europe, and their subjects were set free.
      - dragandj 6y ago
        I agree with your statement, but I am not sure official Russia shares that view.
- iguy 6y ago
  I agree that Ukraine couldn't have usefully threatened Russia over Crimea. Likewise nukes are no use for minor conflict in Kashmir. But the game the Pakistanis imagine is different. Their concern (as I understand it) has always been that an existential war for them could be a small, regional, thing for India. Nuclear weapons are a way to change that. I believe the same fear explains a lot of their meddling in Afghanistan. Having some chaos on their border is one thing, but having a serious independent country which could one day choose to ally with India is regarded as a mortal risk.
- baybal2 6y ago
  > Strike Russia, who has many more nuclear warheads, and stronger anti-nuclear protection? Yes, what's use of a superweapon if you can't make use of it? From my childhood experience, some times you need to commit without reservations to completely hopeless, no chance fights, as the only hope for a way out. Strong adversaries often don't expect the weak to even attempt to fight back.
  - schoen 6y ago
    There is a whole major plot in one of the Three-Body Problem books about this issue. It arises in maybe a kind of contrived way, but then it's explicitly posed in more or less the way you said.
  - dragandj 6y ago
    The point is that the results of using it would be: - would the weapons be neutralized in most or all cases by Russia before it reaches the targets? Perhaps yes? I don't know much about that sort of thing. - it would give a carte blanche to Russia to wipe out Ukraine, which it has the means to do if it comes to total war. That's why I'm skeptical that nuclear weapons bring more benefits than trouble for smaller players.
    - pvaldes 6y ago
      > it would give a carte blanche to Russia to wipe out Ukraine But the final result would be the same as Russia deliberately bombing themselves and amputating a big chunk of their own country forever. The radioactivity would not stop in the Ukranian frontier. All nuclear weapons are boomerangs

Ukraine is an excellent example of this. They voluntarily relinquished their nuclear weapons, and now Russian troops have invaded the eastern part of the country.

dragandj 6y ago

I’m not so sure that nuclear weapons would help in these kinds of regional conflicts against Russia. It’s not that Russia officially invaded Ukraine (although in practice it did), but it stirred up local population (of largely Russian ethnicity) and then gave them logistical support and protection. So, if Ukraine had nuclear weapons, what would it do with it? Strike Russia, who has many more nuclear warheads, and stronger anti-nuclear protection? Nuclear weapons are for USA, China, Russia, and maybe France/Europe, because they are not going to use it. Maybe Israel, whic is so tiny and surrounded by rrivals, that it has no choice but to have something to scare the neighbors with. Maybe India, because it’s big enough. For everyone else, nuclear weapons are a liability, because if they ever use it, they are going to be wiped out by the big boys for not obeying...

seppin 6y ago
Good points. It maybe would have deterred Russia from invading at all, but that's debatable.
- dragandj 6y ago
  On the opposite note, Russia (USSR) was "invaded" (sort of, from the point of view of many Russians) by the "West" 30 years ago, and USSR was butchered out, despite USSR having thousands of warheads. Which were completely useless...
  - seppin 6y ago
    That's a funny way of saying the Soviet Union could no longer imprison have of Europe, and their subjects were set free.
    - dragandj 6y ago
      I agree with your statement, but I am not sure official Russia shares that view.
iguy 6y ago
I agree that Ukraine couldn't have usefully threatened Russia over Crimea. Likewise nukes are no use for minor conflict in Kashmir. But the game the Pakistanis imagine is different. Their concern (as I understand it) has always been that an existential war for them could be a small, regional, thing for India. Nuclear weapons are a way to change that. I believe the same fear explains a lot of their meddling in Afghanistan. Having some chaos on their border is one thing, but having a serious independent country which could one day choose to ally with India is regarded as a mortal risk.
baybal2 6y ago
> Strike Russia, who has many more nuclear warheads, and stronger anti-nuclear protection? Yes, what's use of a superweapon if you can't make use of it? From my childhood experience, some times you need to commit without reservations to completely hopeless, no chance fights, as the only hope for a way out. Strong adversaries often don't expect the weak to even attempt to fight back.
- schoen 6y ago
  There is a whole major plot in one of the Three-Body Problem books about this issue. It arises in maybe a kind of contrived way, but then it's explicitly posed in more or less the way you said.
- dragandj 6y ago
  The point is that the results of using it would be: - would the weapons be neutralized in most or all cases by Russia before it reaches the targets? Perhaps yes? I don't know much about that sort of thing. - it would give a carte blanche to Russia to wipe out Ukraine, which it has the means to do if it comes to total war. That's why I'm skeptical that nuclear weapons bring more benefits than trouble for smaller players.
  - pvaldes 6y ago
    > it would give a carte blanche to Russia to wipe out Ukraine But the final result would be the same as Russia deliberately bombing themselves and amputating a big chunk of their own country forever. The radioactivity would not stop in the Ukranian frontier. All nuclear weapons are boomerangs