3 ms·
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 sur
by 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 agoThey 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 agoMuch 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 agoThe 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 agoThe 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 agoAlso "dismantled". Presumably those countries gave their arsenals to Russia.