5 ms·

I've heard an opinion that this was illusion of choice - Ukraine would have had the nukes taken from them anyway - and this was just to save face.

inglor_cz 5y ago
More likely, the very maintenance cost would prove infeasible. Ukrainian HDP is slightly larger than Slovakia's, and maintaining nukes for decades ain't easy. You need to control the complete supply chain for some very exotic spare parts.
- Darmody 5y ago
  Back when the USSR fell they barely could maintain their own stock. I read somewhere that the US even gave them money to keep the nukes safe.
- 1024core 5y ago
  You don't need to maintain _all_ the 1800 nukes; you can just maintain a credible deterrent. See, for example, Pakistan, which has > 100 nukes.
  - julienfr112 5y ago
    You could also sell a few of them every year to petromonarchy to finance the support.
    - juancampa 5y ago
      As a Venezuelan, let's not do that.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    32 or so would have been plenty
- KptMarchewa 5y ago
  North Korea can afford not only maintanence, but also development of their own nukes. >You need to control the complete supply chain for some very exotic spare parts. ...if you want 100% guarantees of their success, sure. But not everything has to be maintained to the US Air Force standards. At the very least, dirty bombs are successful too.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    NK is also a totalitarian regime that does not ask for anyone's consent. Ukrainian politicians would have to explain the cost of maintaining nukes to their population for the entire time since 1992 to 2022. There were plenty of times when peace seemed eternal. My own country isn't willing to spend 2 per cent of its GDP for defense, even though it should.
awb 5y ago
That’s pretty close to what Wikipedia says: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine > The United States would also not have made Ukraine an exception when it came to the denuclearization of other post-Soviet states such as Belarus and Kazakhstan.[9] The deterrent value of the nuclear weapons in Ukraine was also questionable, as Ukraine would have had to spend 12 to 18 months to establish full operational control over the nuclear arsenal left by the Russians.[9] The ICBMs also had a range of 5,000–10,000 km (initially targeting the United States), which meant that they could only have been re-targeted to hit Russia's far east.[9] The air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs) left by the Russians had been disabled by the Russians during the collapse of the Soviet Union, but even if they had been reconfigured and made to work by the Ukrainians, it is unlikely that they would have had a deterrent effect.[9] Had Ukraine decided to establish full operational control of the nuclear weapons, it would have faced sanctions by the West and perhaps even a withdrawal of diplomatic recognition by the United States and other NATO allies.[9] Ukraine would also likely have faced retaliatory action by Russia.[9] Ukraine would also have struggled with replacing the nuclear weapons once their service life expired, as Ukraine did not have a nuclear weapons program.
- harambae 5y ago
  >The ICBMs also had a range of 5,000–10,000 km (initially targeting the United States), which meant that they could only have been re-targeted to hit Russia's far east.[9] I never knew ICBMs had a minimum range as well as a maximum. Interesting.
calyth2018 5y ago
Both Russia and Ukraine at that point needed humanitarian help to stave off famine. Ukraine itself does not have the expertise to maintain the nukes, according to Sarotte's book. https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300259933/not-one-inch https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300259933/not-one-inch
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  They could have hired on some Russians for 2-3x the pay, and maintain a much smaller number of nukes. Just enough to take out all the major cities in Russia would have been plenty.
  - calyth2018 5y ago
    Oh, that was a possibility if they were willing to spend money on that in the face of famine and unrest, given a lot of the expertise there find themselves out of a job. I don't think their chances of surviving external pressures from both Russia and US would have been high.

inglor_cz 5y ago

More likely, the very maintenance cost would prove infeasible. Ukrainian HDP is slightly larger than Slovakia's, and maintaining nukes for decades ain't easy. You need to control the complete supply chain for some very exotic spare parts.

Darmody 5y ago
Back when the USSR fell they barely could maintain their own stock. I read somewhere that the US even gave them money to keep the nukes safe.
1024core 5y ago
You don't need to maintain _all_ the 1800 nukes; you can just maintain a credible deterrent. See, for example, Pakistan, which has > 100 nukes.
- julienfr112 5y ago
  You could also sell a few of them every year to petromonarchy to finance the support.
  - juancampa 5y ago
    As a Venezuelan, let's not do that.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  32 or so would have been plenty
KptMarchewa 5y ago
North Korea can afford not only maintanence, but also development of their own nukes. >You need to control the complete supply chain for some very exotic spare parts. ...if you want 100% guarantees of their success, sure. But not everything has to be maintained to the US Air Force standards. At the very least, dirty bombs are successful too.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  NK is also a totalitarian regime that does not ask for anyone's consent. Ukrainian politicians would have to explain the cost of maintaining nukes to their population for the entire time since 1992 to 2022. There were plenty of times when peace seemed eternal. My own country isn't willing to spend 2 per cent of its GDP for defense, even though it should.

awb 5y ago

That’s pretty close to what Wikipedia says: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine > The United States would also not have made Ukraine an exception when it came to the denuclearization of other post-Soviet states such as Belarus and Kazakhstan.[9] The deterrent value of the nuclear weapons in Ukraine was also questionable, as Ukraine would have had to spend 12 to 18 months to establish full operational control over the nuclear arsenal left by the Russians.[9] The ICBMs also had a range of 5,000–10,000 km (initially targeting the United States), which meant that they could only have been re-targeted to hit Russia's far east.[9] The air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs) left by the Russians had been disabled by the Russians during the collapse of the Soviet Union, but even if they had been reconfigured and made to work by the Ukrainians, it is unlikely that they would have had a deterrent effect.[9] Had Ukraine decided to establish full operational control of the nuclear weapons, it would have faced sanctions by the West and perhaps even a withdrawal of diplomatic recognition by the United States and other NATO allies.[9] Ukraine would also likely have faced retaliatory action by Russia.[9] Ukraine would also have struggled with replacing the nuclear weapons once their service life expired, as Ukraine did not have a nuclear weapons program.

harambae 5y ago
>The ICBMs also had a range of 5,000–10,000 km (initially targeting the United States), which meant that they could only have been re-targeted to hit Russia's far east.[9] I never knew ICBMs had a minimum range as well as a maximum. Interesting.

calyth2018 5y ago

Both Russia and Ukraine at that point needed humanitarian help to stave off famine. Ukraine itself does not have the expertise to maintain the nukes, according to Sarotte's book. https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300259933/not-one-inch https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300259933/not-one-inch

stjohnswarts 5y ago
They could have hired on some Russians for 2-3x the pay, and maintain a much smaller number of nukes. Just enough to take out all the major cities in Russia would have been plenty.
- calyth2018 5y ago
  Oh, that was a possibility if they were willing to spend money on that in the face of famine and unrest, given a lot of the expertise there find themselves out of a job. I don't think their chances of surviving external pressures from both Russia and US would have been high.