4 ms·

"Only one country (South Africa) has been known to ever dismantle an indigenously developed nuclear arsenal completely." 3 other countries have given up their

"Only one country (South Africa) has been known to ever dismantle an indigenously developed nuclear arsenal completely." 3 other countries have given up their Soviet nuclear weapons: Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine

throw1234651234 3y ago
Definitely led to peace in Ukraine! "The memoranda, signed in Patria Hall at the Budapest Convention Center with US Ambassador Donald M. Blinken amongst others in attendance,[3] prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.[4][5]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
- ajross 3y ago
  To be fair: the geopolitical goal wasn't "peace" in the abstract, it was to prevent nuclear weapons from being abused or lost by a failed state. Russia wasn't "trusted" per se, but they were felt to be a safer stability bet on the whole than a tiny breakaway state with minimal history of self-rule. In hindsight, that was wrong of course. But the logic seemed clear and everyone agreed at the time.
  - throw1234651234 3y ago
    Ukraine wasn't a "tiny breakway state" - it had some of the heaviest USSR industry, crop production, education facilities / educated populace, and most combat capable military units due to being on the border of Europe. It has since sold off a lot of this due to corruption. However, just a couple of nukes could have avoided this whole fiasco. There are modern, deprecated (read: late 80s) launch facilities, even one of which could have prevented the war (possibly).
    - ajross 3y ago
      > However, just a couple of nukes could have avoided this whole fiasco. Yes. Or it could have resulted in Ukraine using the same weapons to blackmail its neighbors in the same way Russia is doing now. The point to the decision was risk management. There were zero "good" options for what to do with the USSR nuclear arsenal. But leaving it all under the unitary control of a giant established military bureaucracy that had managed not to blow up the world for 50 years seemed "less bad" than just handing them out like candy to all the follow-on bootstrapped governments.
mrweasel 3y ago
I think the key in the original sentence is: "indigenously developed". Though given the talent for engineering we're currently seeing from Ukraine, I'm not sure that Russias nuclear weapons where not developed by Ukrainians. Anyway, the point is that those three countries gave up weapons develop and produced by the Soviet Union, not internally in those countries solely.
- flkiwi 3y ago
  They also never had sole custody and control over the weapons themselves or the tools to enable them. The weapons were in, say, Ukraine, but they were never Ukraine's.
  - runeofdoom 3y ago
    Much like the US had weapons in Turkey (for many years, IDK if they still are), but those weapons were under US control. (Although if the combination on the safeties is still all 0s, that may be less than completely accurate.)
    - jjk166 3y ago
      The difference is that all those now-independent countries were parts of the Soviet Union when the weapons were placed there. So it's more like the US stationing weapons in North Dakota, and then North Dakota breaking away.
    - sillywalk 3y ago
      The nukes are still in Turkey at Incirlik Air Base. Estimates are between 20-50. Other NATO countries that still have U.S. nukes under custody: Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, and Belgium. Canada had nukes under a similar arrangement until 1984. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing
- martopix 3y ago
  Also "dismantled". Presumably those countries gave their arsenals to Russia.
tokai 3y ago
Belarus got some of them back this summer.
- thefounder 3y ago
  Did they? I thought there are just russian troops(with nukes)stationed there.
golergka 3y ago
> 3 other countries have given up their Soviet nuclear weapons: Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine That's not entirely true. AFAIK, nuclear weapons in these countries were tied to control structures in Moscow and required other resources like maintenance and new materials which were placed in other parts of Soviet Union. So when these countries became independent, they couldn't realistically maintain or even use the weapons without a very significant investment.
- justsomehnguy 3y ago
  > they couldn't realistically maintain or even use the weapons without a very significant investment All those who cry about nuclear weapons in the one former Soviet state clearly doesn't know what happened to the parts of the Black Sea fleet what was transferred to the one former Soviet state.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
M95D 3y ago
I'm sure Ukraine regrets it.
- nirav72 3y ago
  Yeah, probably. But it's not as if they had a lot of good options during those years. They had to jumpstart their post-soviet economy. The west did a great job dangling the right amount of carrots in exchange. Then there were the technical challenges of reverse engineering and removing Russian command and control system to be able to utilize those nukes.

throw1234651234 3y ago

Definitely led to peace in Ukraine! "The memoranda, signed in Patria Hall at the Budapest Convention Center with US Ambassador Donald M. Blinken amongst others in attendance,[3] prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.[4][5]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

ajross 3y ago
To be fair: the geopolitical goal wasn't "peace" in the abstract, it was to prevent nuclear weapons from being abused or lost by a failed state. Russia wasn't "trusted" per se, but they were felt to be a safer stability bet on the whole than a tiny breakaway state with minimal history of self-rule. In hindsight, that was wrong of course. But the logic seemed clear and everyone agreed at the time.
- throw1234651234 3y ago
  Ukraine wasn't a "tiny breakway state" - it had some of the heaviest USSR industry, crop production, education facilities / educated populace, and most combat capable military units due to being on the border of Europe. It has since sold off a lot of this due to corruption. However, just a couple of nukes could have avoided this whole fiasco. There are modern, deprecated (read: late 80s) launch facilities, even one of which could have prevented the war (possibly).
  - ajross 3y ago
    > However, just a couple of nukes could have avoided this whole fiasco. Yes. Or it could have resulted in Ukraine using the same weapons to blackmail its neighbors in the same way Russia is doing now. The point to the decision was risk management. There were zero "good" options for what to do with the USSR nuclear arsenal. But leaving it all under the unitary control of a giant established military bureaucracy that had managed not to blow up the world for 50 years seemed "less bad" than just handing them out like candy to all the follow-on bootstrapped governments.

mrweasel 3y ago

I think the key in the original sentence is: "indigenously developed". Though given the talent for engineering we're currently seeing from Ukraine, I'm not sure that Russias nuclear weapons where not developed by Ukrainians. Anyway, the point is that those three countries gave up weapons develop and produced by the Soviet Union, not internally in those countries solely.

flkiwi 3y ago
They also never had sole custody and control over the weapons themselves or the tools to enable them. The weapons were in, say, Ukraine, but they were never Ukraine's.
- runeofdoom 3y ago
  Much like the US had weapons in Turkey (for many years, IDK if they still are), but those weapons were under US control. (Although if the combination on the safeties is still all 0s, that may be less than completely accurate.)
  - jjk166 3y ago
    The difference is that all those now-independent countries were parts of the Soviet Union when the weapons were placed there. So it's more like the US stationing weapons in North Dakota, and then North Dakota breaking away.
  - sillywalk 3y ago
    The nukes are still in Turkey at Incirlik Air Base. Estimates are between 20-50. Other NATO countries that still have U.S. nukes under custody: Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, and Belgium. Canada had nukes under a similar arrangement until 1984. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing
martopix 3y ago
Also "dismantled". Presumably those countries gave their arsenals to Russia.

tokai 3y ago

Belarus got some of them back this summer.

thefounder 3y ago
Did they? I thought there are just russian troops(with nukes)stationed there.

golergka 3y ago

> 3 other countries have given up their Soviet nuclear weapons: Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine That's not entirely true. AFAIK, nuclear weapons in these countries were tied to control structures in Moscow and required other resources like maintenance and new materials which were placed in other parts of Soviet Union. So when these countries became independent, they couldn't realistically maintain or even use the weapons without a very significant investment.

justsomehnguy 3y ago
> they couldn't realistically maintain or even use the weapons without a very significant investment All those who cry about nuclear weapons in the one former Soviet state clearly doesn't know what happened to the parts of the Black Sea fleet what was transferred to the one former Soviet state.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

M95D 3y ago

I'm sure Ukraine regrets it.

nirav72 3y ago
Yeah, probably. But it's not as if they had a lot of good options during those years. They had to jumpstart their post-soviet economy. The west did a great job dangling the right amount of carrots in exchange. Then there were the technical challenges of reverse engineering and removing Russian command and control system to be able to utilize those nukes.