6 ms·

Ironically this could all be happening because a lack of nukes. Ukraine gave theirs away and have been left essentially naked and defenceless since. Would Putin

Ironically this could all be happening because a lack of nukes. Ukraine gave theirs away and have been left essentially naked and defenceless since. Would Putin have thought twice if they had a nuclear arsenal? Who knows.

machiaweliczny 4y ago
I know, yes.
spywaregorilla 4y ago
Ukraine didn't have the codes to use them.
- bombcar 4y ago
  A nation-state reverse engineering the codes/ignition module is easier than collecting everything from scratch. But the general thought is that NATO would have had to protect them (I don't buy it, but that's the theory).
  - lesuorac 4y ago
    Why would NATO protect Ukraine? Nato isn't a signatory of the Budapest Memo [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
    - bombcar 4y ago
      If Ukraine had nukes and NATO didn't want them to use them or risk losing them, they may have acted. Again, I think it's unlikely and the "Russia wouldn't have invited Ukraine if they had kept their nukes" doesn't actually fly (and probably would just have been another reason for Russia to invade: 'they're right there and they have nukes!'
- lesuorac 4y ago
  I mean Ukrainians aren't idiots, I'm sure they could've either cracked any necessary codes or worked around their need in the ~31 years since 1991 (Ukraine's independence). I suspect it would be easiest to just take the nuclear material out of the unusable missiles and construct a different weapon using it. Russia is adjacent to them so any sort of nuclear weapon launch-able from an artillery or plane still sounds useful.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    It would have been an act of war. Ukraine would have had to fight the Russian army protecting the nukes in Ukraine. Despite the breakup of the USSR, I don't think Russia would have let that happen. For comparison, How do you think that the USA would react if Turkey tried to size control of US nukes housed there?
    - type0 4y ago
      > It would have been an act of war. No it wouldn't. They were pressured by the US to give up Soviet nukes. Codes are easy to fix, but nukes need service and are expensive to keep so it was as much of sparing measure than anything.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I think you are missing my point. The Nukes were built by the soviets, but after the breakup, Russia had control of them in Ukraine. In order for Ukraine to take full possession of the nukes in their country, they would have to fight through Russians at military bases.
        type0 4y ago
        USSR had one army though, but after that it was controlled by Commonwealth of Independent States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_de... If Ukrainians wanted they could have prevented this at the time of Soviet Union dissolution, but they didn't so there's not much to discuss.
- mongol 4y ago
  As long as they could have taken the warheads apart, they could have built new weapons out of them. Or for that matter, just starting from already enriched fissile material would be plenty.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    ....and the USA would have just sat there and accepted that? The US did not want another nuclear power and was very interested in making sure Ukraine never became one
  - rchaud 4y ago
    ...and Russia would just have sat there and accepted it? We'd be on the cusp of a much bigger and earlier war. For that reason, the international community wouldn't have accepted it either, because it would open the door for everyone else to start developing them. Kazakhstan had nukes and voluntarily disarmed for this reason.
blub 4y ago
They didn’t give them away, they were convinced by Russia and the US to do so.

machiaweliczny 4y ago

I know, yes.

spywaregorilla 4y ago

Ukraine didn't have the codes to use them.

bombcar 4y ago
A nation-state reverse engineering the codes/ignition module is easier than collecting everything from scratch. But the general thought is that NATO would have had to protect them (I don't buy it, but that's the theory).
- lesuorac 4y ago
  Why would NATO protect Ukraine? Nato isn't a signatory of the Budapest Memo [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
  - bombcar 4y ago
    If Ukraine had nukes and NATO didn't want them to use them or risk losing them, they may have acted. Again, I think it's unlikely and the "Russia wouldn't have invited Ukraine if they had kept their nukes" doesn't actually fly (and probably would just have been another reason for Russia to invade: 'they're right there and they have nukes!'
lesuorac 4y ago
I mean Ukrainians aren't idiots, I'm sure they could've either cracked any necessary codes or worked around their need in the ~31 years since 1991 (Ukraine's independence). I suspect it would be easiest to just take the nuclear material out of the unusable missiles and construct a different weapon using it. Russia is adjacent to them so any sort of nuclear weapon launch-able from an artillery or plane still sounds useful.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  It would have been an act of war. Ukraine would have had to fight the Russian army protecting the nukes in Ukraine. Despite the breakup of the USSR, I don't think Russia would have let that happen. For comparison, How do you think that the USA would react if Turkey tried to size control of US nukes housed there?
  - type0 4y ago
    > It would have been an act of war. No it wouldn't. They were pressured by the US to give up Soviet nukes. Codes are easy to fix, but nukes need service and are expensive to keep so it was as much of sparing measure than anything.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      I think you are missing my point. The Nukes were built by the soviets, but after the breakup, Russia had control of them in Ukraine. In order for Ukraine to take full possession of the nukes in their country, they would have to fight through Russians at military bases.
      - type0 4y ago
        USSR had one army though, but after that it was controlled by Commonwealth of Independent States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_de... If Ukrainians wanted they could have prevented this at the time of Soviet Union dissolution, but they didn't so there's not much to discuss.
mongol 4y ago
As long as they could have taken the warheads apart, they could have built new weapons out of them. Or for that matter, just starting from already enriched fissile material would be plenty.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  ....and the USA would have just sat there and accepted that? The US did not want another nuclear power and was very interested in making sure Ukraine never became one
- rchaud 4y ago
  ...and Russia would just have sat there and accepted it? We'd be on the cusp of a much bigger and earlier war. For that reason, the international community wouldn't have accepted it either, because it would open the door for everyone else to start developing them. Kazakhstan had nukes and voluntarily disarmed for this reason.

blub 4y ago

They didn’t give them away, they were convinced by Russia and the US to do so.