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
:::
Thanks for adding another source with some more context
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.
And that was the issue of the memorandum - it should’ve included something akin to Article 5
Russia would have never signed on to that. Their whole argument about Ukraine is the constant advancement of NATO territories towards its border.
Yeah… and Ukraine clearly shouldn’t have signed without it
The issue is that as someone already mentioned i doubt something like that was ever truly on the table.
I think you can’t give assurances like that in a vacuum. If a nation e.g. the US would grant them, they’d only do so while simultaniously building up a physical presence in the territory and possibly also do deeper integrations military wise. You wouldn’t give such strong assurances while weakening your own ability to act on them.
For Russia that would have never been acceptable.
That’s the lesson here… They gave up their nuclear weapons for nothing.
Zero benefit to the people
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. 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.
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.
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
That too, but there was also a gag in an episode where they’re at a ski lodge where Fry says, “Thank god global warming never happened,” and Leela responds, “Actually it did, but thank god for nuclear winter.”
Ukraine is fighting two nuclear armed states… But nahh bro, Ukraine doesn’t need nukes 🤡
They literally had the bomb and got rid of them all.
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.
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 out 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.
Except that he wouldn’t. He is more afraid of losing his life than anything else, dictator personality goes with it.
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.”
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.
dumb ideas that could end the world.
Imagine if your neighbor 20 miles away decided they were going to build the world’s largest nuclear warhead.
They’re doing it in their home. It doesn’t impact you, right?
why should some have nukes and others not?
Were they given divine mandate ? are they superior human beings ? explain !!
OK now do Iran
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.
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.
Who’s going to supply them with uranium and parts? The French? lol
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!
That video taught me that Project Sundial should have gone ahead.
Ukraine needs to go away. They’re just as corrupt, if not more so, than Russia. The last thing they need is a nuke.
I though he quit comedy
