You're viewing a single thread.
Why, why Mr. Zelensky, don't you develop nuclear weapons like other nations: in silence?
No development required, I think they can open a drawer somewhere and pick one of several soviet designs. If they want a nuke, they can build one right away.
It would cost them the support of their allies, however, and they cannot afford that.
It's saber rattling.
The support may be dropping away anyway.
Imagine a right wing US/EU election sweep from Zelensky's point of view. They're going to force Ukraine to capitulate, and in a very lopsided manner that cripples Ukraine forever, hence this could be an actual option/last resort more than a threat.
Would a right wing US government force a capitulation? I was under the impression that support from the US was bipartisan.
One party has completely been taken over by Russian assets, guess which.
The Trumpest of the the Trump.... The big Trumpest... 😃
Its this exact kind of baseless nonsense that makes it so damn difficult for a foreigner to try and understand US politics.
It's not that hard to understand, you are proto-Hungary with nukes and guns.
No, I don't think I am.
Neither did Hungary. And look where they are.
Trump is extremely pro-russian, and has managed to push most of the republican base that way.
The leadership is pro-ukraine, but their power is limited under a trump presidency.
Are you kidding? Trump hates Zelensky with a burning passion, because he personally wronged him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Ukraine_scandal
The Trump–Ukraine scandal was a political scandal that arose primarily from the discovery of U.S. President Donald Trump's attempts to coerce Ukraine into investigating his political rival Joe Biden and thus potentially damage Biden's campaign for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination.
He's going to screw Ukraine and offer Russia a favorable capitulation the absolute first second he can. And probably offer Russia Zelensky if he can manage it.
The Republicans are increasingly turning anti-NATO as well.
Oldschool Republicans lawmakers 100% support Ukraine, maybe even stronger than Democrats do. Some are still hanging around the Senate, but most are gone or retiring soon (like Mitch Mcconnell), and they're already gone from the U.S. House and Trump's cabinet.
edit: Now that I think about it, Mike Johnson (The US House speaker) did make a suprise decision in support of Ukraine and in defiance of his own party, but his position as speaker is extremely precarious. I don't think that will happen again.
Not kidding, just a foreigner. I assumed it was bipartisan given America's hatred for Russia over the past few decades. Didn't realize Trump was so bully for em. I knew about the whole "he's a Russian not" conspiracy but given that seemed to be false I assumed it was more accepted by both sides that Ukraine should have aid.
We didn't hate Russia.
We didn't care.
Do you hate a rat you saw once 5 years ago?
At best we held them in quiet contempt until Crimea, then 2022 pulled the contempt to the surface.
Personally I think we need to set an example, dresden comes to mind.
Aplogies for being rude.
Yeah, Trump's fascination with strongmen is more of a personality quirk than policy, but the attitude of the Republic party has abruptly shifted from "anti Russia/China" to more universally protectionist and isolationist. If you watch Tucker Carlson (for instance), you'll hear a lot of questioning like "why should we have to pay for all this madness overseas?" and accusations its feeding the US military industrial complex... and there's a nugget of truth there. The oldschool Republicans have been steadily losing power, and this is kinda the tipping point.
If Trump wins, expect to see a lot of noise about withdrawing from NATO, pulling out of large trade agreements, "abruptly" settling disputes, tarrifs. Things like that, basically the exact opposite of the old neoliberal paradigm.
He also holds vicious grudges, something he did before he even got into politics, so that may color some foreign policy as well. If he's acting strange towards some person in particular on the news, search for "Trump (X) controversy," and something from before 2020 will probably come up.
The right wing has been making loads of pro-Russia noise, but do also try not to alienate their popular support too much before they're in power.
Realistically, Trump will sell out Ukraine to Russia if he's offered a good deal, but there's no point publicly destroying his ability to welch on supporting Russia before he's paid to support them (if you can't afford to walk away, you can't afford to negotiate), and there's no point in Russia paying him before he's actually in power and able to make the US govt cave in the first place.
Building a nuke is not difficult. Refining the necessary amount of uranium 235, or acquiring plutonium 239 however...
Khajiit has wares, if you have coin
Considering how the world's biggest uranium producer by far is Kazakhstan and Russia seems to be actively determined to tank Russian-Kazakh relations, I'm pretty sure they could acquire some
He's stated they have the material and could have a nuke within weeks I believe.they have reactors so the material isn't hard to come by really
The engineering for plutonium nuke is not trivial. A U235 one is dead simple, but they probably have Plutonium from reactors, not U235 from centrifuges.
And yeah, they undoubtedly have Soviet blueprints under a matress somewhere.
Who do you think designed the Soviet nukes?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharkiv_Institute_of_Physics_and_Technology
The Ukrainian Institute of Physics and Technology was the "Laboratory no. 1" for nuclear physics, and was responsible for the first conceptual development of a nuclear bomb in the USSR.[3]: 4
Russians are inbred drunk morons, which is why everything they tried since the fall has been disastrous, and why we haven't seen su-57s and t-14s in actual combat while the semhat exploded on the pad and their own bombs rained on their soil.
If the war goes on expect them to nuke Moscow by mistake.
Maybe the support is not worth losing the war. In "The King and I", the King of Siam has a verse "...If allies are weak, am I not best alone? ...If allies are strong with power to protect me, might they not protect me out of all I own?"
It can’t be saber rattling at this stage, it’s a promise.
Maybe one that cannot be kept, but I seriously doubt the allies could stop it if the fronts retract and troops from nato countries are not sent?
Looking at Israel, the “don’t ask permission, ask forgiveness” strategy really works with the US (a good example is also Kursk attack, Nord Stream 2 or Kerch bridge sabotage). They should just be doing crazy shit, forcing escalation on Russian side, and thus in response by the US/NATO. Of course this is a delicate balance, but a few nukes on paper I think would still be okay.
These could guarantee the existence of their nation in the future, and unless they use them on a Russian city, no repercussions would happen beyond verbal saber rattling just for having it. Russia would definitely shit themselves and dial back on the agression.
I'm pretty sure escalating the conflict to nuclear levels is not something they want to do. Not to mention development and manufacturing takes time and physical facilities. You can't easily make nuclear bomb grade materials and not draw attention.
nuclear is neither about having, nor using the weapons … it’s about the fear of future use of weapons
silence isn’t helpful in that endeavour