3 ms·
Your arguing is a bit odd. You say that Ukraine had no abilities to use Russian nukes, but then in the 2nd paragraph you say -- hypothetically assuming that Ukr
by zekrioca 5y ago
Your arguing is a bit odd. You say that Ukraine had no abilities to use Russian nukes, but then in the 2nd paragraph you say -- hypothetically assuming that Ukraine would end up in a dictatorship -- that "we" (probably the western portion of the world?) "do not need yet more dictators-with-nukes".
But Ukrainians could not use these Russian nukes in the first place, so it would probably be better to let them keep these because they would end up not being able to use them anyway. I guess there is something missing :)
- KMag 5y agoI think the GP is implying an "even if" between their two lines of argument. On a side note, given enough time, they presumably could reverse-engineer plenty of bomb design secrets even if the permissive action links couldn't be circumvented. Permissive action links are insurance against maniac generals, rogue commanders, wealthy terrorists, etc., not against a decade or two of nation-state-funded reverse-engineering. My understanding is that some of the PALs for two-point nuclear weapons will result in the wrong timing of the two initiations if the wrong code is used... resulting in a small dirty bomb instead of a thermonuclear blast. I presume reverse-engineering the correct timings for the two detonators is significantly easier than designing the weapon in the first place.