5 ms·

> 2. Develop nuclear weapons. Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine had nuclear weapons but gave them up because Russia agreed not to invade them. https://en.m.wiki

• hef19898 5y ago
  That, along with North Korea, only shows you that it is, within the global game of influence, pretty stupid to give up a nuclear capability once you have it.
  • afterburner 5y ago
    Ukraine had no choice. They were Russian nukes, and not giving them back would have probably triggered a war immediately. But with Ukraine drowning in pro-Russian influence at the time, there is no chance they would have defied Russia.
    • grayfaced 5y ago
      They were soviet nukes. Ukraine was soviet land and soviet people too. Breakaways by definition take stuff with them. To claim Russia had a right to the nukes is no different then saying they had a right to the land and people. They had a choice, they just chose the one that didn't lead to war.
      • rand49an 5y ago
        They didn't have the codes to use the nukes though so it changes the balance of power somewhat.
        • hef19898 5y ago
          So, new launch control? The war heads would still work. Especially the old ones just needing the turn of a key.
    • hef19898 5y ago
      Ukraine was a Sobiet republic under the USSR, as was Russia. Ukraine also took other military stuff, the Black Sea Fleet was fiercly discussed issue as well. Economically and politically Ukraine didn't have much of a choice, sure. Legal ownership wasn't the propblem so.
  • octoberfranklin 5y ago
    This concept, broadened to include "acquisition at all costs" is what the book Eating Grass is about. The title comes from Pakistani leaders' declaration that they would acquire nuclear weapons capability even if it meant their citizens would have to eat grass. Every government with a viable nuclear weapons program that has abandoned it has come to regret that decision. The nuclear weapons states have utterly failed to make the NPT an attractive bargain for the non-nuclear weapons states, which has completely undermined the goal of non-proliferation.
• dtx1 5y ago
  And they now learned what a serious naive mistake that was. As a german I am ashamed that we did not accept frances offer of a shared nuclear arsenal when we could. We cowardly hide under the umbrella of french nuclear deterrence, yet chose not to get our hands dirty and take the responsibility on ourselves
  • hef19898 5y ago
    We do have US nukes stationed in Germany for that very reason. rather old tech nukes, but still. This gives Germany a seat at the NATO table about nuclear strategy. If push comes to shove, German Tornado fighter jets are going to carry those nukes into combat.
    • dtx1 5y ago
      Just another cowardly work around. If we want to live under the protection of weapons of mass destruction and the means of a global nuclear holocaust than we should take on that responsibility ourselves instead of delegating it to the US, Britain and France.
      • hutrdvnj 5y ago
        What do you suggest? ICBM launch silos in Germany and hypersonic missile launchers?
        • dtx1 5y ago
          Accepting Frances offer of shared custody of the french nuclear arsenal and a Bundeswehr (german armed forces) with enough technical and personal resources to facilitate that effectively. ICBM launch silos and hypersonic missiles would be icing on the cake.
          • hef19898 5y ago
            We have that model with the US. As did the Netherlands, past tense. And it is not very well liked. Trying to change it would start a public discussion, and end that model. This is a big issue around the Tornado replacement, US nukes mean US planes. Everybody is just tip-toeing around that topic, simply to avoid any attention on German nuclear participation. I cannot believe there actual proponents of nuclear armament and proliferation in 2022.
• ed_balls 5y ago
  I hope it's abundantly clear to anyone that Putin and buddies cannot be trusted. Whenever some politician suggest any deals with them, shut him/her down.
  • nopenopenopeno 5y ago
    …Iran Nuclear Deal? Putin is insane, but his record of recklessness and betrayal simply doesn’t come close to the mischief of the United States on the global stage.
• roenxi 5y ago
  The number of countries that have fallen for that line paints a depressing picture of political comprehension among politicians. How have they - of all the classes in the world - not cottoned on to how this works? It is a minor miracle when voters can get their own government to follow through on an inconvenient promise. Promises mean nothing when foreign armies are involved.
• kobalsky 5y ago
  and the US signed agreeing to provide assistance if they got attacked or threatened with nuclear weapons. you may say that the threats of nuclear aggression were thinly veiled but not technically apply because the word nuclear has not been used. but if you applied an honest interpretation of what is happening you would say that point 4 does apply. > 4. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used". nobody wants a nuclear war so it's better if the US stays out of it at this point, but just I'm pointing out that got screwed by more than one signer on that treaty.