5 ms·

The world is lucky that Zelensky is the President of Ukraine and not somebody like me - given that Ukraine does have plutonium from its power plants, i'd be alr

by trhway 2y ago

The world is lucky that Zelensky is the President of Ukraine and not somebody like me - given that Ukraine does have plutonium from its power plants, i'd be already making the warheads (technological difficulties? they were solved 80 years ago and with the modern tech the 3 years is more than enough to produce something working). That is also notable in the context of Trump yelling at Zelensky that Zelensky is supposedly playing with WW3. If anything, by not making nukes Zelensky shows an, unreasonable at my opinion, restraint here.

libertine 2y ago
Hopefully this is already underway, and Ukraine has also the know how to build stuff that can deliver these payloads. They need to develop bunker busters though.
- trhway 2y ago
  I think the MAD would be enough. Russia has such a vast space (not possible to effectively cover with air defense), even if just European part, with so many legitimate targets without any need for bunker busters/etc., that just a test underground explosion showing that Ukraine got it would be enough for Russia to hit the brakes screeching. Btw, according to the Russian nuclear doctrine nukes can be used when the country is invaded even with just conventional weapons if the invasion presents severe threat to the country. Thus according to the Russian nuclear doctrine Ukraine is allowed to use nukes.
  - libertine 2y ago
    The bunker busters is more in line with the old "US doctrine" that was developed against terrorist leaders: a decapitation strike to the leader. Let's not forget these folks have their self preservation in first order, the population is just a means for their survival. That's why it's imperative for Ukraine to have bunker busters, like gravity bombs, because the first strike would need to be where the leadership is.
pjc50 2y ago
It's very, very expensive and (until last week) it was critical to keep the US on side, which would be jeopardized by breaking the nonproliferation treaty. The MAD argument still applies: Ukraine can't threaten to nuke Moscow without Russia obviously threatening to retaliate with nukes.
- ta20240528 2y ago
  That's why you need 5 - 6 bombs - 1 to nuke Moscow, the rest to nuke Berlin, Paris, London, Tel Aviv if they don't help you out before it gets to this.
- trhway 2y ago
  > It's very, very expensive May be you mean uranium enrichment? When plutonium is already available, like in Ukraine, it is completely different game - you just need to chemically separate plutonium from the spent fuel. That is the only noticeable expense - needs facility with safety protections, etc. Or just a few people willing to die for the Motherland. The rest is putting charges around the plutonium sphere and timing them correctly with electronics. That is basically all. Couple weeks really :)
  - ben_w 2y ago
    I hear that plutonium is a metallurgical nightmare to work with. Which is fortunate, because it's also quite easy to make plutonium by exposing (natural or depleted) uranium to neutrons…
- koonsolo 2y ago
  Just to illustrate how expensive: UK spends 2.3% of their GDP on their military. 1% is allocated to maintaining those nukes!
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > MAD argument still applies Ukraine isn’t in and probably never will be in a position to credibly threaten a MAD second strike to Russia. From number of warheads to strategic depth, it’s not a realistic option. Instead it would seek to credibly threaten limited nuclear war using tactical nukes. This would only make sense with European support. And at that point, it almost makes more sense for Europe to directly enter the fight. (Or give Kyiv the nuclear weapons.)

by trhway 2y ago

libertine 2y ago

Hopefully this is already underway, and Ukraine has also the know how to build stuff that can deliver these payloads. They need to develop bunker busters though.

trhway 2y ago
I think the MAD would be enough. Russia has such a vast space (not possible to effectively cover with air defense), even if just European part, with so many legitimate targets without any need for bunker busters/etc., that just a test underground explosion showing that Ukraine got it would be enough for Russia to hit the brakes screeching. Btw, according to the Russian nuclear doctrine nukes can be used when the country is invaded even with just conventional weapons if the invasion presents severe threat to the country. Thus according to the Russian nuclear doctrine Ukraine is allowed to use nukes.
- libertine 2y ago
  The bunker busters is more in line with the old "US doctrine" that was developed against terrorist leaders: a decapitation strike to the leader. Let's not forget these folks have their self preservation in first order, the population is just a means for their survival. That's why it's imperative for Ukraine to have bunker busters, like gravity bombs, because the first strike would need to be where the leadership is.

pjc50 2y ago

It's very, very expensive and (until last week) it was critical to keep the US on side, which would be jeopardized by breaking the nonproliferation treaty. The MAD argument still applies: Ukraine can't threaten to nuke Moscow without Russia obviously threatening to retaliate with nukes.

ta20240528 2y ago
That's why you need 5 - 6 bombs - 1 to nuke Moscow, the rest to nuke Berlin, Paris, London, Tel Aviv if they don't help you out before it gets to this.
trhway 2y ago
> It's very, very expensive May be you mean uranium enrichment? When plutonium is already available, like in Ukraine, it is completely different game - you just need to chemically separate plutonium from the spent fuel. That is the only noticeable expense - needs facility with safety protections, etc. Or just a few people willing to die for the Motherland. The rest is putting charges around the plutonium sphere and timing them correctly with electronics. That is basically all. Couple weeks really :)
- ben_w 2y ago
  I hear that plutonium is a metallurgical nightmare to work with. Which is fortunate, because it's also quite easy to make plutonium by exposing (natural or depleted) uranium to neutrons…
koonsolo 2y ago
Just to illustrate how expensive: UK spends 2.3% of their GDP on their military. 1% is allocated to maintaining those nukes!
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> MAD argument still applies Ukraine isn’t in and probably never will be in a position to credibly threaten a MAD second strike to Russia. From number of warheads to strategic depth, it’s not a realistic option. Instead it would seek to credibly threaten limited nuclear war using tactical nukes. This would only make sense with European support. And at that point, it almost makes more sense for Europe to directly enter the fight. (Or give Kyiv the nuclear weapons.)