16 ms·
They never really had them. They were in Ukraine but Moscow had control.
by lIl-IIIl 1y ago
They never really had them. They were in Ukraine but Moscow had control.
- cromka 1y agoThen why would they need a full Budapest memorandum with co-signees if Moscow could just take them back? This sounds ridiculous.
- dlahoda 1y agobecause rockets to be transported to russkies back. if they would not sign, some bad things could happened along the way.
- varjag 1y agoIt was indeed because there was no legal foundation for Russian ownership of all Soviet nuclear assets, no matter how every other nuclear power wanted it at the time.
- epolanski 1y agoBy the way a "memorandum" is a document that forms no legal foundation at all.
- TiredOfLife 1y agoAnd Ukraine built them.
- renerick 1y agoThat's not true. All nuclear weapons in USSR were built inside modern Russian territory, there was no production in any other republic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_atomic_bomb_project#Logistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_atomic_bomb_project#Log...
- varispeed 1y agoHe probably meant Ukrainian engineers. One of the reasons Moscow is so laser focused and grabbing Ukraine as it used to be Soviet's Union brain.
- franktankbank 1y agoIs this real? Why would Ukraine be such a concentration of brain power compared to other regions? I'm not super skeptical given the few Ukrainians I've met but still humans are generally equal...
- justsomehnguy 1y ago> Is this real? You can see the link in GP comment by yourself.
- lIl-IIIl 1y agoI don't see where in the link it says that.
- nine_k 1y agoThe rockets, not the nukes (warheads).
- varjag 1y agoThis is a minor distinction. In they end they all set off by pyrotechnic charges. Authorization sequence is nothing an industrial power can't get around.
- epolanski 1y agoYou seem to completely misunderstand why the entire world wanted Ukraine to get rid of their ICBMs. 1) They could not operate them. It isn't just about authorization sequence, it's about having all of the required electronics. You need satellites that point and guide the ICBMs. All of those were in Moscow hands. Even if Ukraine could ignite them, it could not launch them or set their paths, etc. 2) They did not have the budget to guard them, let alone maintain them, even less reverse engineer. The biggest risk was that rough states with deep pockets would buy those rockets on the black market (and Ukraine notably sold out most of their soviet arsenal). 3) Thus, the only real asset was the nuclear material itself. An asset that was more likely going to end up on the black market than do anything useful for Ukraine's defense.
- varispeed 1y agoReally? 1) Nukes were built mostly by Ukrainian engineers. They would do just fine. They could also build and launch satellites if needed. 2) So Ukraine couldn't launch them because they needed electronics and satellites, but some rogue state with deep pocket could? Okay. 3) Of course! Comrade, that is Russian propaganda you are disseminating here.
- krzyk 1y agoDon't forget, but keeping nukes in Ukraine, would mean that Russia would get less of them.
- cmcaleer 1y agoIt wasn't really particularly material whether Russia had 30,000 nukes or 32,000 nukes in 1994. It was material if other states got the components that were in those 2,000 nukes.
- libertine 1y agoThat's a recurring Russian propaganda point, which is easily verifiable as a lie. Even basic logic - Ukraine had the technical know-how to do whatever they wanted with the nukes. Moscow didn't have control, at best on paper - if they had control, there was no need for the Budapest Memorandum. I keep debunking this propaganda point over and over again lol