12 ms·

According to ([1]), the nuke warheads were safely transferred to Russia: "Kazakhstan formerly had 1,410 Soviet strategic nuclear warheads placed on its territo

by krasin 5y ago

According to ([1]), the nuke warheads were safely transferred to Russia: "Kazakhstan formerly had 1,410 Soviet strategic nuclear warheads placed on its territory and an undisclosed number of tactical nuclear weapons. ... Kazakhstan transferred all of its Soviet-era nuclear weapons to the Russian Federation by April 1995." 1. https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/kazakhstan-nuclear-disarmament/ https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/kazakhstan-nuclear-dis...

kingcharles 5y ago
I'm sure, like Ukraine, they are now regretting that decision.
- krasin 5y ago
  Probably. On the other hand, Ukraine had the pool of engineers and scientists to maintain / develop it, while Kazakhstan might have not: it's a smaller, mostly rural country. For example, in 1991, Ukraine had 15 nuclear reactors (~27% of the total electrical generational capacity) across 4 plants, while Kazakzhstan had a single reactor closed in 1999 ([2]). 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Ukraine 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Kazakhstan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Kazakhstan
- dotancohen 5y ago
  After seeing what happened to Libya when they gave up their nuclear ambitions, and what happened to Ukraine when they gave up their nuclear ambitions, how can anything think that the Iranians would give up their nuclear ambitions? I live in the state most threatened by a nuclear Iran. But Iran has watched its neighbour to the west be invaded by NATO forces, Iran has watched its neighbour to the east be invaded by NATO forces, and has seen how NATO cowers in front of Russia at the hint of nuclear confrontation. If I were in their shoes, I would not give up the nation's only proven viable deterrent.
  - 2Gkashmiri 5y ago
    the crazy part is, just like the proverbial "iraq WMDs" the whole "iran threat" is mostly propaganda. sure they are "enriching uranium" but you have thousands of ALREADY READY nuclear weapons so why would they try to use their currently non-existing weapons against someone who does? i have read on HN that "many countries opposed the US when it invaded iraq, afghanistan, yada yada" but the fact is, they way russia is being sidelined and singled out, no one has had the balls to do that with USA even when they managed to destroy sovereign nations in the interests of "free democracy" and other shenanigans.
    - dotancohen 5y ago
      > the crazy part is, just like the proverbial "iraq WMDs" the whole "iran threat" is mostly propaganda. Here we disagree. Iran is a real threat, they are major backering force behind both Hamas and Hezbollah. The Islamic Republic (distinct from the Persian people) is ideologically driven and regularly chants Death to America and Death to Israel. I could definitely see the friction with Iran going hot.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - 2Gkashmiri 5y ago
        go on and disagree. "regularly chants Death to America" does this really affect you to a point that you and your government are scared of threats and want to preemptively want to remove the threat? " Death to Israel." why do you care about israel as an american? are you a citizen of that country also that you feel a sense of insecurity towards that? " Iran is a real threat, they are major backering force behind both Hamas and Hezbollah". cool so america can destroy IRAQ, afghanistan, libya, syria, vietnam among others but irans threat are a concern for you. good.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        5y ago
- thriftwy 5y ago
  Nobody in the world wants a nuclear-armed Kazakhstan. On the other hand, Kazakhstan is much more stable politically, not permanently bankrupt or begging, and actually has good relations with both Russia and the West - all of that compared to Ukraine. Not sure they really want a nuclear survivor adventure instead.
  - actionfromafar 5y ago
    Kazakhstan is stable politically in much the same way as North Korea is stable politically. (Just in case someone thought of democracy when they read "stable".)
    - thriftwy 5y ago
      Democracy is shrinking around the world, so as much as we like the concept theoretically, we should probably remove it from the definition of "stable". China seems quite stable too. And Kazakhstan is not quite locked down like North Korea. You were thinking Turkmenistan, or just projecting your prejudice towards all Central Asia. It is not without problems, of course.
  - BayAreaEscapee 5y ago
    Ukraine had stable relations with Russia until they decided they wanted to align with the west and adopt democracy when there was a color revolution in 2014. If they had remained a vassal state of Russia, their relationship would still be stable. Similarly, the situation in Kazakhstan is stable because they are a vassal state of Russia. Watch what happened when there was the beginning of a color revolution there earlier this year: Russian quickly sent troops to assist the Kazakh government in violently putting it down. If a successful color revolution was to happen in Kazakhstan (unlikely), Russia would be playing the same military games with them that they are now doing with Ukraine.
    - thriftwy 5y ago
      But Kazakhstan is already very well aligned with the West. In many areas its policies are more westernized than these of Ukraine. It also has the economy to apply these policies to. It's just realistic about needing to be reasonably polite with Russia, its largest neighbour and biggest trade partner, while minding its own business. Is there an example of a "successful" color revolution which brougt democracy and prosperity, instead of bringing Russian tanks and more coups de etat? You are exactly right - if one of these happens in Kazakhstan, RIP Kazakhstan. It's too complex of a country already.
- SiempreViernes 5y ago
  The reality was that these were Russian warheads on Kazakh and Ukrainian soil, so it wasn't so much "giving up nukes" as "getting rid of foreign nuclear armed forces". The units actually holding the genocide weapons were loyal to Moscow, so becoming the de-facto owners would have involved fighting with Russian nuclear armed military units. YOLO indeed.
  - drran 5y ago
    They were Soviet warheads. Soviet Union (officialy) was created by RF, Ukraine, and Belarus. Also, Ukraine and Belarus are members of UN.
  - baybal2 5y ago
actionfromafar 5y ago
Damn, that's four years after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Pretty late. I remember what I was doing in 1995. Nukes getting transferred to the Russian Federation would definitely have surprised me, had I known.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  I think the Russians had agreed to destroy them all.

by krasin 5y ago

kingcharles 5y ago

I'm sure, like Ukraine, they are now regretting that decision.

krasin 5y ago
Probably. On the other hand, Ukraine had the pool of engineers and scientists to maintain / develop it, while Kazakhstan might have not: it's a smaller, mostly rural country. For example, in 1991, Ukraine had 15 nuclear reactors (~27% of the total electrical generational capacity) across 4 plants, while Kazakzhstan had a single reactor closed in 1999 ([2]). 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Ukraine 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Kazakhstan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Kazakhstan
dotancohen 5y ago
After seeing what happened to Libya when they gave up their nuclear ambitions, and what happened to Ukraine when they gave up their nuclear ambitions, how can anything think that the Iranians would give up their nuclear ambitions? I live in the state most threatened by a nuclear Iran. But Iran has watched its neighbour to the west be invaded by NATO forces, Iran has watched its neighbour to the east be invaded by NATO forces, and has seen how NATO cowers in front of Russia at the hint of nuclear confrontation. If I were in their shoes, I would not give up the nation's only proven viable deterrent.
- 2Gkashmiri 5y ago
  the crazy part is, just like the proverbial "iraq WMDs" the whole "iran threat" is mostly propaganda. sure they are "enriching uranium" but you have thousands of ALREADY READY nuclear weapons so why would they try to use their currently non-existing weapons against someone who does? i have read on HN that "many countries opposed the US when it invaded iraq, afghanistan, yada yada" but the fact is, they way russia is being sidelined and singled out, no one has had the balls to do that with USA even when they managed to destroy sovereign nations in the interests of "free democracy" and other shenanigans.
  - dotancohen 5y ago
    > the crazy part is, just like the proverbial "iraq WMDs" the whole "iran threat" is mostly propaganda. Here we disagree. Iran is a real threat, they are major backering force behind both Hamas and Hezbollah. The Islamic Republic (distinct from the Persian people) is ideologically driven and regularly chants Death to America and Death to Israel. I could definitely see the friction with Iran going hot.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - 2Gkashmiri 5y ago
      go on and disagree. "regularly chants Death to America" does this really affect you to a point that you and your government are scared of threats and want to preemptively want to remove the threat? " Death to Israel." why do you care about israel as an american? are you a citizen of that country also that you feel a sense of insecurity towards that? " Iran is a real threat, they are major backering force behind both Hamas and Hezbollah". cool so america can destroy IRAQ, afghanistan, libya, syria, vietnam among others but irans threat are a concern for you. good.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - 5y ago
thriftwy 5y ago
Nobody in the world wants a nuclear-armed Kazakhstan. On the other hand, Kazakhstan is much more stable politically, not permanently bankrupt or begging, and actually has good relations with both Russia and the West - all of that compared to Ukraine. Not sure they really want a nuclear survivor adventure instead.
- actionfromafar 5y ago
  Kazakhstan is stable politically in much the same way as North Korea is stable politically. (Just in case someone thought of democracy when they read "stable".)
  - thriftwy 5y ago
    Democracy is shrinking around the world, so as much as we like the concept theoretically, we should probably remove it from the definition of "stable". China seems quite stable too. And Kazakhstan is not quite locked down like North Korea. You were thinking Turkmenistan, or just projecting your prejudice towards all Central Asia. It is not without problems, of course.
- BayAreaEscapee 5y ago
  Ukraine had stable relations with Russia until they decided they wanted to align with the west and adopt democracy when there was a color revolution in 2014. If they had remained a vassal state of Russia, their relationship would still be stable. Similarly, the situation in Kazakhstan is stable because they are a vassal state of Russia. Watch what happened when there was the beginning of a color revolution there earlier this year: Russian quickly sent troops to assist the Kazakh government in violently putting it down. If a successful color revolution was to happen in Kazakhstan (unlikely), Russia would be playing the same military games with them that they are now doing with Ukraine.
  - thriftwy 5y ago
    But Kazakhstan is already very well aligned with the West. In many areas its policies are more westernized than these of Ukraine. It also has the economy to apply these policies to. It's just realistic about needing to be reasonably polite with Russia, its largest neighbour and biggest trade partner, while minding its own business. Is there an example of a "successful" color revolution which brougt democracy and prosperity, instead of bringing Russian tanks and more coups de etat? You are exactly right - if one of these happens in Kazakhstan, RIP Kazakhstan. It's too complex of a country already.
SiempreViernes 5y ago
The reality was that these were Russian warheads on Kazakh and Ukrainian soil, so it wasn't so much "giving up nukes" as "getting rid of foreign nuclear armed forces". The units actually holding the genocide weapons were loyal to Moscow, so becoming the de-facto owners would have involved fighting with Russian nuclear armed military units. YOLO indeed.
- drran 5y ago
  They were Soviet warheads. Soviet Union (officialy) was created by RF, Ukraine, and Belarus. Also, Ukraine and Belarus are members of UN.
- baybal2 5y ago

actionfromafar 5y ago

Damn, that's four years after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Pretty late. I remember what I was doing in 1995. Nukes getting transferred to the Russian Federation would definitely have surprised me, had I known.

ncmncm 5y ago
I think the Russians had agreed to destroy them all.