4 ms·

Ukraine is a really cautionary tale to always have nuclear weapons and never give them up. Russia would never have tried this if Ukraine still had the capabilit

Ukraine is a really cautionary tale to always have nuclear weapons and never give them up. Russia would never have tried this if Ukraine still had the capability to demolish a city with a button press Look at how cautious the rest of the world is in helping Ukraine.

golergka 3y ago
Ukraine had some parts of the nuclear weapon system, but it didn’t have the system as a whole. There’s all kinds of very specialised plants and tech the country has to develop and maintain, and USSR made a point to distribute all industries (not only nuclear or even military) and supply chains among the republics. To be able to demolish a city in 2023, Ukraine would have not only not given the weapons away, but also invest tens (or hundreds) of billions of dollars over the years, developing some components completely from scratch.
- mhog_hn 3y ago
  North Korea managed.
  - ffgjgf1 3y ago
    So what? That’s not particularly relevant
    - photonbeam 3y ago
      It is, it shows how little a country needs to maintain/develop nukes
      - ffgjgf1 3y ago
        They dedicated massive amounts of resources to this over very long periods of time. This wouldn’t be possible at all even in somewhat less restrictive authoritarian states let alone somewhat democratic ones like Ukraine. There is no way any government in Ukraine during economic turmoil of the 90s that decided to spend billions on developing nukes would’ve stayed in power. So I still don’t see how is that in anyway relevant?
- Aeolun 3y ago
  I think the point is that Russia would have been worried Ukraine had done exactly that. Publicly giving up all your nuclear stockpile is the complete opposite.
  - ffgjgf1 3y ago
    Until quite recently (and there is still a massive and extremely hard road ahead) Ukraine was basically a failed state and/or a Russian puppet. So I doubt Russia would’ve had to worry about something like that at all.
    - golergka 3y ago
      Ukraine had a functioning public health and transportation systems, universities that attracted students from other countries, a music industry that had outcompeted Russia in its own language, and tech sector with senior dev salaries routinely going up to $60-100k - and that’s just the things I have had first hand experience with. For all it’s problems, it definitely wasn’t a failed state.
      - ffgjgf1 3y ago
        For some people living there it wasn’t. On average however it was, there is no way around it extreme corrupt/poverty, GDP per capita on the same level as 3rd world countries. It started off more or less on the same level as the Baltics, Bulgaria, Romania and not that far from Poland. But economically it permanently remained in the 90s. Unfortunately it's an extremely poor country by European (both Eastern and Western) standards > dev salaries routinely going up to $60-100k - and that’s just the things I have had first hand experience with IIRC those developers paid(pay?) approximately no taxes which would partially explain the below subsistence level retirement pensions?
        golergka 3y ago
        > Unfortunately it's an extremely poor country by European (both Eastern and Western) standards Yes. Which is still pretty far from "failed state". Somali, Afghanistan and Venezuela are failed states. A lot of countries around the world are just poor. But in case of countries like Argentina or Ukraine, you have to keep in mind that they can at the same time be very cheap — and thus offer a much higher standard of living to their citizens that you would imagine just by looking at dollar figures. > IIRC those developers paid(pay?) approximately no taxes which would partially explain the below subsistence level retirement pensions? It also explains suspiciously low official GDP stats in Russia, Ukraine and other countries in the region. A lot of economic activity is completely invisible to the government and, therefore, statistics.

golergka 3y ago

Ukraine had some parts of the nuclear weapon system, but it didn’t have the system as a whole. There’s all kinds of very specialised plants and tech the country has to develop and maintain, and USSR made a point to distribute all industries (not only nuclear or even military) and supply chains among the republics. To be able to demolish a city in 2023, Ukraine would have not only not given the weapons away, but also invest tens (or hundreds) of billions of dollars over the years, developing some components completely from scratch.

mhog_hn 3y ago
North Korea managed.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  So what? That’s not particularly relevant
  - photonbeam 3y ago
    It is, it shows how little a country needs to maintain/develop nukes
    - ffgjgf1 3y ago
      They dedicated massive amounts of resources to this over very long periods of time. This wouldn’t be possible at all even in somewhat less restrictive authoritarian states let alone somewhat democratic ones like Ukraine. There is no way any government in Ukraine during economic turmoil of the 90s that decided to spend billions on developing nukes would’ve stayed in power. So I still don’t see how is that in anyway relevant?
Aeolun 3y ago
I think the point is that Russia would have been worried Ukraine had done exactly that. Publicly giving up all your nuclear stockpile is the complete opposite.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  Until quite recently (and there is still a massive and extremely hard road ahead) Ukraine was basically a failed state and/or a Russian puppet. So I doubt Russia would’ve had to worry about something like that at all.
  - golergka 3y ago
    Ukraine had a functioning public health and transportation systems, universities that attracted students from other countries, a music industry that had outcompeted Russia in its own language, and tech sector with senior dev salaries routinely going up to $60-100k - and that’s just the things I have had first hand experience with. For all it’s problems, it definitely wasn’t a failed state.
    - ffgjgf1 3y ago
      For some people living there it wasn’t. On average however it was, there is no way around it extreme corrupt/poverty, GDP per capita on the same level as 3rd world countries. It started off more or less on the same level as the Baltics, Bulgaria, Romania and not that far from Poland. But economically it permanently remained in the 90s. Unfortunately it's an extremely poor country by European (both Eastern and Western) standards > dev salaries routinely going up to $60-100k - and that’s just the things I have had first hand experience with IIRC those developers paid(pay?) approximately no taxes which would partially explain the below subsistence level retirement pensions?
      - golergka 3y ago
        > Unfortunately it's an extremely poor country by European (both Eastern and Western) standards Yes. Which is still pretty far from "failed state". Somali, Afghanistan and Venezuela are failed states. A lot of countries around the world are just poor. But in case of countries like Argentina or Ukraine, you have to keep in mind that they can at the same time be very cheap — and thus offer a much higher standard of living to their citizens that you would imagine just by looking at dollar figures. > IIRC those developers paid(pay?) approximately no taxes which would partially explain the below subsistence level retirement pensions? It also explains suspiciously low official GDP stats in Russia, Ukraine and other countries in the region. A lot of economic activity is completely invisible to the government and, therefore, statistics.