3 ms·
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_Ukra
by 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.