3 ms·

I don't think Russia would have invaded Ukraine if it still had nuclear weapons.

krisoft 2y ago
Today it wouldn't. Because it would have invaded them sooner as they tried to acquire those nuclear weapons.
hollerith 2y ago
I tend to agree (without having thought about the question much) but I hope you don't think that contradicts or supports anything I wrote.
zerkten 2y ago
This episode of Arms Control Wonk is worth a listen if you think this true: https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1215097/deterrence-in-ukraine/ https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1215097/deterrence-i....
- etangent 2y ago
  The episode starts with a strawman (that Ukraine never had nukes) and proceeds to beat it up. It's a strawman for reasons I will not go into for long, but ones that should be obvious to a fourth grader: physical possession of an object as well as of factories used to make it (which Ukraine also had) are far more important than electronic systems of control. This now classic 1993 paper by Mearsheimer is a much more clear-eyed take, his recent positions notwithstanding. https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Mearsheimer-Case-for-Ukrainian-Nuclear-Deterrent.pdf https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Mears... Aside from either, how many nuclear states have been invaded in the past 80 years? Apart from Ukraine's incursion into Russia's Kursk oblast last summer, the answer is a big fat zero. Finally (and this also applies to my post), social media is the worst place for any foreign policy discussion because it offers asymmetric returns to a foreign actor attempting to subvert a country's policy who happens to speak the country's language, and English is a very popular international language spoken by many people abroad at this point in history.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    How many nuclear states have been invaded in the past 80 years? Aside from Ukraine invading Russia's Kursk oblast last summer, the answer is a big fat zero. The answer is Israel was subject to a full-scale invasion in 1973, despite having nuclear weapons since 1966. There have been regular border skirmishes between India and Pakistan since long after they both went nuclear. We also have Argentina's seizure of the Falkland Islands in 1982.
    - jjk166 2y ago
      Israel didn't, and still hasn't, claimed to possess nuclear weapons. While it now is widely believed they do, that is far less of a deterrent. It's also worth noting that the US, one of Israel's closest allies and possessing arguably the best intelligence apparatus in the world, was not aware that Israel had the bomb until 1975, it's extremely doubtful the surrounding arab states knew earlier. None of the conflicts between India and Pakistan since either of the powers got Nuclear weapons (1974 and 1998, respectively) could be reasonably characterized as invasions. The Falkland islands are a British overseas territory. They are self governing, but the UK is responsible for their defense and foreing affairs. Classic protectorate. Obviously invading the Falklands is very different from invading the UK.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - talldayo 2y ago
        There has not been much of a question surrounding Israel's nuclear capability since the Apollo Affair: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_affair I guess you could look at their non-admission as evidence to the contrary, but it's not like they're selling enriched uranium as a souvenir to tourists at Ben Gurion international.
        jjk166 2y ago
        The apollo affair was reported in 1976. Further, while it was widely suspected Israel had a nuclear weapons program, that's a very different thing than having a bomb. Iran is believed to have had a nuclear weapons program. So have many countries.

Today it wouldn't. Because it would have invaded them sooner as they tried to acquire those nuclear weapons.

I tend to agree (without having thought about the question much) but I hope you don't think that contradicts or supports anything I wrote.

zerkten 2y ago

This episode of Arms Control Wonk is worth a listen if you think this true: https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1215097/deterrence-in-ukraine/ https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1215097/deterrence-i....

etangent 2y ago
The episode starts with a strawman (that Ukraine never had nukes) and proceeds to beat it up. It's a strawman for reasons I will not go into for long, but ones that should be obvious to a fourth grader: physical possession of an object as well as of factories used to make it (which Ukraine also had) are far more important than electronic systems of control. This now classic 1993 paper by Mearsheimer is a much more clear-eyed take, his recent positions notwithstanding. https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Mearsheimer-Case-for-Ukrainian-Nuclear-Deterrent.pdf https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Mears... Aside from either, how many nuclear states have been invaded in the past 80 years? Apart from Ukraine's incursion into Russia's Kursk oblast last summer, the answer is a big fat zero. Finally (and this also applies to my post), social media is the worst place for any foreign policy discussion because it offers asymmetric returns to a foreign actor attempting to subvert a country's policy who happens to speak the country's language, and English is a very popular international language spoken by many people abroad at this point in history.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  How many nuclear states have been invaded in the past 80 years? Aside from Ukraine invading Russia's Kursk oblast last summer, the answer is a big fat zero. The answer is Israel was subject to a full-scale invasion in 1973, despite having nuclear weapons since 1966. There have been regular border skirmishes between India and Pakistan since long after they both went nuclear. We also have Argentina's seizure of the Falkland Islands in 1982.
  - jjk166 2y ago
    Israel didn't, and still hasn't, claimed to possess nuclear weapons. While it now is widely believed they do, that is far less of a deterrent. It's also worth noting that the US, one of Israel's closest allies and possessing arguably the best intelligence apparatus in the world, was not aware that Israel had the bomb until 1975, it's extremely doubtful the surrounding arab states knew earlier. None of the conflicts between India and Pakistan since either of the powers got Nuclear weapons (1974 and 1998, respectively) could be reasonably characterized as invasions. The Falkland islands are a British overseas territory. They are self governing, but the UK is responsible for their defense and foreing affairs. Classic protectorate. Obviously invading the Falklands is very different from invading the UK.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - talldayo 2y ago
      There has not been much of a question surrounding Israel's nuclear capability since the Apollo Affair: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_affair I guess you could look at their non-admission as evidence to the contrary, but it's not like they're selling enriched uranium as a souvenir to tourists at Ben Gurion international.
      - jjk166 2y ago
        The apollo affair was reported in 1976. Further, while it was widely suspected Israel had a nuclear weapons program, that's a very different thing than having a bomb. Iran is believed to have had a nuclear weapons program. So have many countries.