5 ms·
I wonder if Russia would have invaded if Ukraine had nuclear weapons.
by edmcnulty101 5y ago
I wonder if Russia would have invaded if Ukraine had nuclear weapons.
- nso95 5y agoThat's why it's called a nuclear deterrent
- spacemanmatt 5y agoOr more formally, mutually-assured destruction.
- edmcnulty101 5y agoMakes you wonder if every war with a nuclear power, will escalate to mutually assured destruction.
- philistine 5y agoIndia and Pakistan have shown what that looks like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War
- 37 5y agoFrom Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine Pavlo Rizanenko, a member of the Ukrainian parliament told USA Today that Ukraine may have to arm themselves with their own nuclear weapons if the United States and other world leaders do not hold up their end of the agreement. He said "We gave up nuclear weapons because of this agreement. Now, there's a strong sentiment in Ukraine that we made a big mistake." He also said that, "In the future, no matter how the situation is resolved in Crimea, we need a much stronger Ukraine. If you have nuclear weapons, people don't invade you."
- N19PEDL2 5y agoI would be curious to know what is the nuclear latency of Ukraine, i.e. the technological distance from having a complete working device. Ukraine operates 4 nuclear reactors and Soviet-era expertise on nuclear weapons is likely still present in the form of (retired) engineers and scientists, so they are likely able to develop it again. This said, building a credible nuclear deterrence also requires at least one element of the nuclear triad, i.e. the capability to "deliver the gadget". In practical terms, more expertise to gain and more investments to do.
- hyperman1 5y agoFor delivery, I've always wondered if it was possible to smuggle them in, say, by car. No need for a rocket or anything. Then hide them in the target country in some underground facility or whatever in a big city. If Ukraine did that 10 years ago with Moscow, they could trigger them the second their border was violated. This is probably laughably unpractical, I just don't know why. Radiation? Maintenance? Just the fact that you can only use them, not threaten with them?
- edmcnulty101 5y agoThis is interesting. Curious about this as well. Rent a warehouse or storage unit and just keep the nukes there.
- N19PEDL2 5y ago> you can only use them, not threaten with them IMO this. The real reason of existence of nuclear weapons is deterrence, not actual retaliation. If you reach the point of nuclear retaliation, then you only get MAD (mutual assured destruction) and no one wins. > For delivery, I've always wondered if it was possible to smuggle them in, say, by car. No need for a rocket or anything. If you're interested on this possibility, a good movie I can recommend is "The Sum of All Fears" (2002).
- justaj 5y agoWouldn't the nuclear signature of something like that be trivially detectable though?
- _fat_santa 5y agoProbably, even for something as severe as an invasion, I highly doubt that Ukraine would have used Nukes against Russia. Considering how close together all the countries are in that region, unless they pointed it way inside Russia, the collateral damage would have been insane.
- mstipetic 5y agoYou think a single nuke would damage several countries?
- kube-system 5y agoA single nuke may lead to more nukes.
- mstipetic 5y agoOf course, but them saying "unless they pointed it way inside Russia" has me thinking they think a single one would look like in a game of Civ
- evanb 5y agoUkraine, of all places, appreciates the staying power of radioactivity.
- colechristensen 5y agoThe fallout from air bursts really isn’t that bad. There were 65 above ground tests in Nevada before they went underground and then were stopped all together. The destruction on site is of course horrific, but far afield the concerns are fairly minimal, unless you’re actively trying to cause fallout.
- 988747 5y agoNuclear weapons come in all shapes and sizes. Hell, there was a bazooka with nuclear warhead once. Such things can come handy when you need to, for example, destroy few dozens of Russian tanks at once, and since they are not ballistic missiles you do not risk starting Armageddon with them.
- chernevik 5y agoNo way to know, of course, but the risks would have been much higher.
- bloak 5y agoMore information is required to answer that question, but I can imagine two countries that both have a policy of "no first use" could have a conventional war, including an invasion, without the conflict becoming nuclear. Losing a conventional war might be much better than "winning" a nuclear one.
- stjohnswarts 5y agoI don't think so, I would rather be dead than face what is probably coming to the Ukrainian people under Russian (Putin's) oppression.