Should Ukraine build the bomb? How would you feel if they did?
Trump has stated he will cut American aid to Ukraine, which makes a majority of total aid. Recently Zelensky stated that if Ukraine's only hope for sovereignty is its own nuclear arsenal, they will build it.
The irony is that Ukraine had "the bomb", but the US and its allies promised to protect them if they gave it up. Oops.
Since I see this claim constantly: where in the Budapest memorandum did they promise protection?
Looking at the Wikipedia summary nowhere does anyone give security assurances similar to NATO article 5 or the even stronger worded mutual defense clause article 42 TEU of the EU. The closest it comes to is in the fourth point, but that is only in the case of nuclear weapons being used. Which obviously hasn't happened yet. Beyond that it is just a promise not to attack, which Russia has broken, but every other singator has kept. And as far as I can see it does not contain anything that compells others to act on someone else's breach.
That's my understanding. Furthermore, they had the nuclear weapons of the soviet union. Even if they could maintain them at the time, without much of the infrastructure that the soviet Union had, I think legally they were Moscow's. Moscow held the metaphorical button, if not the physical one. Similar to US nuclear weapons in Germany aren't controlled by Berlin.
That being said, I think this whole war has lead to a situation where nuclear armament is very appealing, not just to Kyiv but to many of the similar states looking on. It is again, for world peace we need less nukes in the world, for Ukraine's sovereign safety, they need (more) nukes.
"A resolution passed by the Rada, the Ukrainian parliament, on Nov. 18, 1993, attached conditions to its ratification of START that Russia and the United States deemed unacceptable. Those stated that Ukraine would only dismantle 36 percent of its delivery vehicles and 42 percent of its warheads; all others would remain under Ukrainian custody. Moreover, the resolution made those reductions contingent upon assurances from Russia and the United States to never use nuclear weapons against Ukraine (referred to as “security assurances”), along with foreign aid to pay for dismantlement.
In response, the Clinton and Yeltsin administrations intensified negotiations with Kyiv, eventually producing the Trilateral Statement, which was signed on Jan. 14, 1994. This agreement placated Ukrainian concerns by allowing Ukraine to cooperate in the transfer of the weapons to Russia, which would take place over a maximum period of seven years. The agreement further called for the transferred warheads to be dismantled and the highly enriched uranium they contained to be downblended into low-enriched uranium. Some of that material would then be transferred back to Ukraine for use as nuclear reactor fuel. Meanwhile, the United States would give Ukraine economic and technical aid to cover its dismantlement costs. Finally, the United States and Russia responded to Ukraine’s security concerns by agreeing to provide security assurances upon its NPT accession.
In turn, the Rada ratified START, implicitly endorsing the Trilateral Statement. However, it did not submit its instrument of accession to the NPT until Dec. 5, 1994, when Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and the United States provided security assurances to Ukraine. That decision by the Rada met the final condition for Russia’s ratification of START and therefore subsequently brought that treaty into force.
For more information, see Ukraine, Nuclear Weapons and Security Assurances at a Glance."
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/lisbon-protocol-glance
:::
No protection, just non-agression. That was violated by russia.
From what I understand, it primarily stems from that first stipulation, specifically from points 1 and 4 of the Helsinki Accords
(1) Sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty (4) Territorial integrity of states
That said, it was very clearly done in a way that didn't actually guarantee that protection, and assuming that the Ukrainians thought otherwise is frankly an insult to their intelligence.
That's the lesson here... They gave up their nuclear weapons for nothing.
Zero benefit to the people
The US and Russia. Ya know, the Russia that’s murdering, raping, and torturing Ukrainians and claiming they shouldn’t exist like genocide
It was even the same fucker personally, who signed it and then rationalized the war, lavrov.
This is like saying that Germany has the right to keep the American nukes stationed on its soil if the US was to ever leaver Germany.
The soviet bombs were built, operated and guarded by a Russian department of the Russian Republic member of the Soviet union. what Ukraine signed on was a smooth repatriation of those nukes back to Russian. there is no real way Ukraine could have confiscated them even if they tried.
Giving up nukes, and remaining neutral, is also the conditions for their liberation granted by USSR/Russia. Germany asking US to end its occupation is going to need the US to be allowed to take their weapons for them to agree peacefully.
YES
The US and Russia promised to defend Ukraine if it surrendered its nukes. Russia is currently destroying Ukraine, and trump will let them so it’s time since that agreement was now worthless
I think nuclear deterant is the only thing that has a chance of working for countries that aren't military super powers, and even military super powers have them for a reason. And a country having to rely on benevolence of other countries leaves too many things to chance for nations that wish to be sovereign.
Are you implying that russia is a military super power? Their performance in ukraine has shown they are a paper tiger with a few nukes up their sleeve from back when the soviet union was actually a major player.
Compared to Ukraine yes, and they have a lot more people to throw at the meat wave
My sympathy for Ukraine says they should.
My survival instincts as an American would say they shouldn't because then Russia get big mad and nuke us. I don't enjoy radiation, so my survival brain is saying they shouldn't.
But my suicidal brain after seeing the result of the US presidential election says: Fuck it, let them do whatever, hell we can even gift some to them. Climate is fucked anyways. Lets pretend this is a sandbox game and see what happens. What's the worst that can happen, die? Hehe I've been dying inside and November 5 just cut off my life support.
So it depends which alter ego you ask. Ye know, like the angel and demon on your shoulders.
Edit: holy shit its 2AM and I'm wasting time on Lemmy. that just shows how dead on the inside i am... cant sleep, fucking election anxiety.
Yes. Yes. Yes. DO IT NOW! Buy the equipment and technology from whoever they can. Even if they do it illegally. Countries that do not have nukes are subjects to those that do.
Buy the technology? They built the nukes of the past. Pretty sure they can just dust off some old plans.
There's really no question that any nation that wants actual security should have a nuclear weapon. It's one of the only things that keeps you safe. This has been proven time and time again. Treaties are all just paper that can be ripped up at a moment's notice and disregarded as is needed. Nuclear weapons are the only thing that actually protects sovereignty.
I think that's enough internet for today
Ukraine is fighting two nuclear armed states... But nahh bro, Ukraine doesn't need nukes 🤡
Everyone in this thread is talking like they could. Even if the country wasn't mired in a war of attrition, the process of building it takes time, expertise, money, and materials. They only have some of those. And not any money.
It would take them only a few months. Ukraine is filled with Soviet nuclear technology and Soviet nuclear engineers. They have nuclear reactors. Ukraine is richer than North Korea, and they have their own uranium mines. North Korea spent a couple billion on their nukes, but Ukraine's military budget is $82B a year, so they could easily surpass North Korea.
Geopolitics experts agree that Ukraine could build a nuke if they wanted to. The issue is that the west definitely would not want to see a world where countries threatened by Russia turn to nuclear proliferation.
Here's a video from a Danish military analyst talking about the decisions that have to be made on how to secure Ukraine after the war:
It's important to note, Ukraine is willing to freeze the front line now in return for security guarantees. But If the US or the EU don't step up to end the war soon, Ukrainian nuclear engineers will.
That was an interesting watch, but he doesn't put a clear timeline on how long it would take. I found this article that notes that:
The Prydniprovsky Chemical Plant in the city of Kamianske in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast processed uranium ore for the Soviet nuclear program, preparing yellowcake, an intermediate step in the processing of uranium ore.
It goes on to interview a couple of engineer about what they could be expected to produce, by when, and with what level of discresion:
Robert Kelley, an engineer with over 35 years of experience in the U.S. Department of Energy's nuclear weapons complex, said that it would be possible for Ukraine to create a primitive uranium fission bomb within five years.
"It's a fairly simple thing to do in the 21st century," he told the Kyiv Independent.
It would be much more difficult for Ukraine to build a plutonium fission bomb, and it would be harder to hide, Kelley argued. It would take five to 10 years to build a plutonium reactor, he added.
In contrast with a fission bomb, a "hydrogen bomb would be incredibly complicated," Kelley said. "No way in the world would (Ukraine) be able to create it," he added.
Kelley also said that Ukraine might be able to create a crude nucleardevice without assistance from other countries. For a more complex nuclear weapon, it would have to buy technology abroad, he added.
A Russian nuclear expert and a Ukrainian nuclear expert both confirmed to the Kyiv Independent that Ukraine is capable of producing a nuclear bomb, adding that it would likely take years. The Russian expert was speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals, and the Ukrainian expert was not authorized to talk to the press about the issue.
"Ukraine would certainly have the knowhow and resources to become a nuclear weapons state if it made the political decision to do so," Lavikainen said. "The technology required is not out of reach for many countries, and certainly not for Ukraine since it housed crucial elements of the Soviet nuclear weapons complex when it was still part of the USSR."
"Ukraine could develop both nuclear warheads and carrier vehicles since it possesses the necessary military industry, uranium deposits, and nuclearenergy sector," Lavikainen continued.
Nikolai Sokov, a senior fellow at the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, was more cautious, saying that creating a nuclear bomb "is not impossible" for Ukraine. But, it "will take years, a lot of money, and most likely external support, at least on the equipment side."
"Ukraine does not have the industrial capacity to manufacture and maintain a nuclear arsenal; it does not have fissile materials, enrichment capacity, plutonium production, most of the elements that go into a nuclear weapon capability," he added.
Liviu Horovitz, a nuclear deterrence specialist at theGerman Institute for International and Security Affairs, also said that Ukraine faces challenges if it decides to create a nuclear bomb.
"Ukraine surely has the scientific prerequisites for a nuclear weapons program," but "acquiring the necessary fissile materials is neither cheap nor fast nor very easy to do in secret," he added.
The nuclear weapons expert who spoke on condition of anonymity said that the most primitive nuclear bomb program focused on uranium centrifuges could cost around $100 million. A plutonium bomb program would cost around $1 billion, he added.
It's all about that flux capacitor.
Go back in time and stop them from selling their original nuclear arsenal
They literally had the bomb and got rid of them all.
I think you are missing something important. Oh yeah, they gave their nuclear arms back to Russia for peace. Who would have thought their brothers and sisters would betray them, after all they are practically the same people.
This is what makes the whole thing just fucking crazy. It would be like if Puerto Rico voted to be an independent nation and signed a peace treaty with the US. Then less then a couple decades goes by and the US starts attacking them when there are more Puerto Rican's in the US than in Puerto Rico. It does not make any sense.
Yup
Your analogy doesn’t work because Trump people hate latinos and it absolutely would make sense for a Trump/GOP controlled USA to go back on an agreement like that.
Hell they’d probably even start using PR for nuclear testing again if the fallout would blow over other Latin countries. After all, it’s just “an island full of garbage in the ocean.”
/s (I knew what you meant I just hate all of it)
They likely would have needed to redesign all the controls and figure out the initiation sequences out again from scratch. The weapons in question were fitted with encrypted detonation controls developed with US assistance.
It will surely help significantly preventing a tactical nuclear strike from russia, though it won't end the war. It is an absolute last resort trigger. Ukraine will be annihilated after they use it (Russia has way more nuklear weapons).
So somewhat good for them and OK to do so, though no solution and no substitution for western military aid.
The reluctance to authorize long range missile strikes into Russia is based on the fear of nuclear strikes on the US/authorizers. The war was always meant to keep oil prices high and trickle through weapon sales until the last Ukrainian.
Yep.
The US won’t be there for them anymore once trump takes the reins.
Ukraine, and potentially anyone in NATO as well, will have to fend for themselves.
Nuclear programs need a lot more leadtime than that, that's why if Biden had balls he'd give them some of ours before it's too late
Fuck yeah, and I hope they've been doing it in secret for a while now.
Idk how easy it easy to just build a nuke... I feel like the long range missile is the hard part, right? The actual nuclear part isn't quite so complex. Maybe I'm wrong.
They have a lot of the Soviet weapons design bureaus. Not sure how many of the original designers are still around. The tricky bit will be refining enough uranium or plutonium in a war zone.
He said they could make a bomb in a couple weeks if needed. No specifics on delivery or quality.
Edit: sounds like kyiv is denying the claim made by some insider. So guess this isn't likely true.
Do it. Promises from super powers are worthless. Only power itself matters. And all the other countries are aware of it too now.
Yeah, countries will prioritize self preservation and will gladly let even their allies get destroyed to survive. Can't trust anyone but themselves. Everyone else is just posturing when it is convenient for them.
wow Putin's bitch stopping aid to Ukraine? never could've seen this coming.
no kidding though, it took a while but Russia finally did it. they are the superpower now. good news, Europe!
If they’re allowed to do it, so will others who have signed NPT, like Iran. To be fair, Russia seems to have violated the Budapest Memorandum so Ukraine should at least be allowed to have nuclear weapons, by maybe not develop their own.
So if they do, should we put boots on the ground?
I mean it's the ultimate protection so I'm for it if we, as the west, fails to stand up to putin.
Sadly, they don't have enough time to build a defense. Trump is going to put them out for slaughter.
Numerous other entities are at high risk in the immediate future, eg: Palestinians, Taiwan, Japanese islands... etc.
Trump and Repugnants are not just the end of the U.S., but, also the World as we know it.
I wish y'all the best and I apologize for the ensuing insanity.
You’re absolutely correct and I hate it. Good luck with the horrors ahead.
If they build it, they have to be ready to use it. And they'd have to use it pretty close to home. Against an adversary with equal capabilities.
Either it would have no effect at all on the conflict, or it would result in annihilation. Doesn't really seem worth it.
Though maybe to play devils advocate, creating a DMZ wasteland with tactical nukes might not be the worst outcome. Pretty terrible thought though.
Obviously, yes. That’s the only guarantee that nations have not to be fucked with.
Russia's side of Ukraine owning them was broken
???
"In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer these weapons to Russia and became a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in exchange for assurances from Russia, the United States and United Kingdom to respect the Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders."
I thought politics was banned
US politics is temporarily not allowed as a topic. This question appears to be about Ukrainian nuclear defense capabilities, which would not qualify as US politics.
Who's going to supply them with uranium and parts? The French? lol
Even if they have the ability to build one, and do so without Russia turning the facility where they're building it into rubble with hypersonic missiles, they would need dozens to have full MAD type protection.
Does Ukraine even have a missile system capable of carrying that kind of payload as far as Moscow?
Maybe not anymore, but they had a few orbital rockets:
They definitely had the talent to do so, but realistically they couldn't build one today :(
I know nothing about the subject but doesn't it require a massive infrastructure investment and time that Ukraine can't afford right now? I mean even Zaporizhzhia is controlled by the invaders, though I'm not sure if it's there where they would produce fissile materials. Furthermore, Ukraine's remaining allies are staunch anti-nuclear proliferation.
If they get used it is obviously really going to be a bad time for all but one thing in their favour is that the prevailing wind goes from west to east.
I don't think it would serve any purpose unless they plan to use it, in which case no they should not. They're going to have enough on their hands just keeping the orcs at bay until somebody takes out Putin.
To me this is the same philosophy adopted by Israel when they kill Hamas leaders. This isn’t chess, folks. Killing the king does not end the game.
Name one time since Hitler that the death of a world leader has resulted in the end of an armed international conflict.
There's no reason to exclude Hitler. Also no reason to declare that taking out Putin will have no effect on Russia's course. It certainly has more chance than leaving him in place. And even if it changes nothing, no loss - terrorist leaders deserve to be killed on principle alone.
No. Nuclear weapons should not exist.
Kurzgesagt recently made a video on the nuclear arms race. The end of the race was when the guy who invented the hydrogen bomb invented a bomb that could destroy the entire planet. The bomb wouldn't even need to be dropped onto your enemy. It could be built inside your own country and detonated any time at all to end humanity. He thought of it as the biggest deterrent to war. Nobody else did. Politicians and military leaders threw out the idea entirely. Why would anyone detonate a nuclear bomb inside their own country??
The size of that bomb pales in comparison to the size of all nuclear weapons in existence today. We built that bomb. It's just not one giant bomb, but split into 12,000 parts and spread over the world. Is it any different? If you cannot justify building a nuclear weapon that would destroy your own country to destroy another, how can you justify building any nuclear weapons at all?
Thanks. This is the only reasonable reply in here.
People are such fucking military industrial complex tech bro lemmings on world.
In theory, I agree. Nuclear weaponry should never exist. The power to erase millions of people with a single push of a button is absolute insanity.
In practice, the world isn't going to suddenly decide to de-arm itself and dismantle every nuke. So if they aren't giving up theirs, refusing to make my own over that just leaves me another corpse on the moral high road.
Sometimes I wonder if the world would be a better place had the Manhattan project been sabotaged by the scientists and nuclear weapons were deemed unfeasible. I'd like to think so.
It's the same outcome either way. You don't have nukes and another country decides to nuke you? Your country doesn't exist anymore! You do have nukes and another country decides to nukes you? Your country doesn't exist anymore! What changes?
People say deterrence, but what is the deterrence? You built something that you'll never use? What's the point?? Oh you will use it? Great! You've decided there's some event that is so bad you'd end the world if it happened. I'm not sure what event that is. Maybe you have one in mind? China attacks India? The world should surely be destroyed then! No? Too bad! You don't get a say! China and India decide if humanity gets to continue! They definitely wouldn't do that though.
They built their nukes to never use them. Which is the same as not having nukes, but having nukes is required so that nobody uses them, which is the same as never building them, but they need to be built so they won't be used!
That video taught me that Project Sundial should have gone ahead.
Every country should have the freedom to build their own nukes while we are at it.
The only country who dared used their bombs, and twice, is the US, and did it while there was no need for it. so I don't see how some countries are taking the moral high ground about who should and shouldn't have nukes, it is mostly about about who should and should impose their imperialism with the help of nukes.
OK now do Iran
No Islamic country should ever have WMDs.
Least islamaphobic liberal.
I don't think they have much of a choice at this point. And yes, I'd support it. They clearly should've never agreed to the Budapest Memorandum with its half hearted security guarantees.
I though he quit comedy
Only Usamericans can think that nuclear weapons are a serious option to use.
Russia and North Korea.
Depends what you mean by "use".
The Americans are the only ones to have used them in terms of destroying enemy assets (and sadly in that case it was used against civilians). But as a deterrent it's been used by a LOT of countries all around the world and is still being used for that purpose right now.
An argument could be made the Cold War could have been an all out world war if it weren't for nukes, with the short peace after WW2 be considered just a break and not the end.
I hope nukes won't be used, but Ukraine is in trouble and if they are backed into a corner and facing destruction who knows what they will do. Same could apply to Iran before long, if they have the ability to get nukes somehow, it might be their only hope. Just please let it be as a deterrent and not actual nuclear war.
He's giving better nukes to NK in exchange for support, and there's Intel he's giving some to Iran as well.
He won't stop until he is stopped, we should have learned that by now.
MAD doctrine. And it works it seems.
Ukraine needs to go away. They're just as corrupt, if not more so, than Russia. The last thing they need is a nuke.
Piss off.