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.
this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
48 points (87.5% liked)
Ask Lemmy
26707 readers
1409 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics.
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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
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.
And that was the issue of the memorandum - it should've included something akin to Article 5
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.
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.
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.
There’s a really easy way for them to get hydrogen bombs, actually: we give them some B61s.
And no, that’s not a joke.
-
Steal it from the Libyans
-
Build Delorean
-
???
-
~~Profit?~~ Win War?
It's all about that flux capacitor.
Go back in time and stop them from selling their original nuclear arsenal
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.
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.
Lets pretend this is a sandbox game
Stop all childish talk. It is dead serious.
Fighting global warming with... nuclear winter.
🤔
c/UnexpectedFuturama
I thought futurama fought it by pushing the earth into a more distant orbit by means of robot ass blasting
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 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.
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."
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:
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenit_(rocket_family)
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnepr_(rocket)
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.
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?
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!
Thanks. This is the only reasonable reply in here.
People are such fucking military industrial complex tech bro lemmings on world.
Who's going to supply them with uranium and parts? The French? lol
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.
Check put M A.D doctrine.
Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.
The problem is that when the other side is a madman who would rather end civilization than lose an ounce of power, you're fucked.
I though he quit comedy
Only Usamericans can think that nuclear weapons are a serious option to use.
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 know 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.
Russia and North Korea.
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.
I was talking about the act of using it.
You must learn to distinguish between a threat and an act.
MAD doctrine. And it works it seems.