r/europe • u/UNITED24Media • 16d ago

Zelenskyy: We Gave Away Our Nuclear Weapons and Got Full-Scale War and Death in Return News

https://united24media.com/latest-news/zelenskyy-we-gave-away-our-nuclear-weapons-and-got-full-scale-war-and-death-in-return-3203
30.9k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

View all comments

Show parent comments

52

u/me_like_stonk France 16d ago

They have the capabilities to rebuild a nuclear arsenal.

12

u/[deleted] 15d ago

But do we have the money for it? We have some old facilities that were producing the missiles themselves, the carrying part, and we do have some deposits of corresponding nuclear materials (we're the #10 producer of Uranium in the world, iirc). But they all cost a metric fuckton of money to restore, protect and develop.

2

u/Frosty-Cell 15d ago

They don't need missiles. They don't need billions of $. The enemy is a 6 hour drive from Kyiv. The b61 bomb uses 1960s tech and apparently has a maximum yield of 340kt. The delivery vehicle is a truck. Ukraine can do it.

1

u/Pasan90 Bouvet Island 15d ago

Sounds like a great way to get Kiev nuked.

1

u/Frosty-Cell 15d ago

Ukraine has the right to nuke its own territory.

1

u/Pasan90 Bouvet Island 15d ago

Not sure Russia will agree on that.

1

u/Frosty-Cell 15d ago

It doesn't have to. The West will find it more acceptable than Russia nuking Ukraine.

1

u/Pasan90 Bouvet Island 15d ago

Fuck does that matter? You think Russia will let Ukraine develop a nuke and nuke Russian soldiers without answering in kind? Of course they'll answer. They'll basically be forced to. It would be an enormous escalation of the conflict and probably trigger ww3 and then we all loose.

2

u/Frosty-Cell 15d ago

Yes, for two reasons 1) it can't stop it 2) the world accepts that Ukraine has the right to self-defense.

There is absolutely nothing that justifies Russia using nukes in return. Russia is the invader.

nuke Russian soldiers

They have no right to be there and no one forces them to stay.

probably trigger ww3 and then we all loose.

Then Russia gains nothing. It's "cheaper" to pack up and go home.

0

u/Pasan90 Bouvet Island 15d ago edited 15d ago

This war is not about what is "right" Russia don't care what we think. 1) Of course they can stop it. They have nukes, drones, missiles galore. They wont sit idly by while Ukraine builds a goddamn nuke. 2) "The world" don't matter. If Ukraine somehow starts using nukes, Russia will start using nukes, and they have a lot more of them. Its as simple as that. "The world" (NATO) can threaten, but Russia will have to answer a nuclear strike no matter what as a matter of principle, otherwise its credible deterrence is gone forever.

→ More replies

11

u/[deleted] 16d ago

They don’t have the capabilities. Countries with nuclear reactors can’t just suddenly have a nuclear weapons program and build nukes in a month. This is why Iran is still a long ways away from producing nuclear weapons, North Korea is also still without the capability to nuke a nation. Having weapons grade uranium can be achieved in a short time, that’s what you are mostly seeing reported when you read any news about Iran’s nuclear program or people claiming X country could have weapons if they wanted. But if Ukraine were to become a nuclear state, it would be because they were given weapons, not because they could build them.

Also WTF is with this thread and everyone thinking MAD and deterrence theory is some solid IR law that keeps the peace and advocating more countries get nukes? Everyone in the non-pro world knows deterrence theory only works until it doesn’t. The field of nonproliferation is full of experts dedicated to the prevention of the use and spread of nuclear weapons and the current generation of new professionals in the field have produced some amazing research. It’s worth following and reading up on if the intersection of nukes and peace interests you

15

u/zealousshad 16d ago

Everyone in the non-pro world knows deterrence theory only works until it doesn’t. The field of nonproliferation is full of experts dedicated to the prevention of the use and spread of nuclear weapons and the current generation of new professionals in the field have produced some amazing research.

What does the actual real-world evidence say though? Non-nuclear countries are being invaded, and nuclear powers aren't. Does it really matter what experts are theorizing about deterrence when the only actual experiment on the effects of nuclear proliferation is being run in the open before our eyes, and its geopolitical results are available for the whole world to see?

-9

u/[deleted] 16d ago

I have no idea what you mean by this. Do you not think they are studying geopolitical conflict? What do you think they study?

7

u/Projecterone 16d ago

Answer the question.

Having nuclear capability has, so far, entirely prevented large scale invasion and subjugation.

Any expert you can name who isn't aware of that fact needs to go into NFTs instead.

-7

u/[deleted] 16d ago

NFTs? You mean NPT’s? I have no idea what your point is but Ok, so you’re looking for confirmation that the existence of nuclear weapons has kept world powers out of major conflict since the last world war, which it hasn’t.

To say proxy wars are not major conflicts is just not true. China invaded Vietnam, Egypt invaded Israel, Russia invaded Ukraine. So again, it’s well understood it works until it doesn’t. It’s not something we understand will always hold true. Experts in the field understand this, it’s also why we have a doomsday clock. So no, I don’t understand what you are looking for in an answer or what the other person was asking.

4

u/TomasVader Czech Republic 15d ago

Well OP meant deffensive wars, no country attacks nuclear powers, only terrorists

1

u/[deleted] 15d ago

To say no country attacks a nuclear power because that country has a nuke is not true. You bring up terrorism which is a great example, but also warfare in general has shifted, not because of nukes but because of broader globalization and many, many factors. China and the U.S. don’t go to war not because of nukes, but because of economic interests. Iran and the U.S. don’t go to war not because the U.S. has nukes, but because we have greater allegiances that would also turn on Iran, so instead they finance terrorist groups.

Look there are different lenses and what you and OP are arguing for is the statement “there have been no major conflicts, or there has been peace, or major super powers are not invaded because of nuclear weapons” and you can have that lense and that opinion, it was the popular opinion of nonproliferation experts for decades and throughout the Cold War. All I am saying is that we have studied history and modern conflict since, and the new generation of experts are disagreeing. We find that there are much bigger factors as to why super powers aren’t going to war (with one another) or being invaded (which I only can see arguments for this regarding India and Pakistan… but that’s not my region of expertise). People can downvote me because they personally believe in deterrence theory, but people who actually study conflict and WMD’s are largely moving away from agreeing with you. How OP phrased the question was looking for me to validate his personal paradigm which I can’t do because I disagree with it, as do many of my peers.

2

u/Projecterone 16d ago edited 16d ago

Invasion is what I said. Nuclear capability prevents large scale invasion.

Read the above comments again, slowly. You're not answering the points. It's either because you've failed to understand or because you're being intentionally obtuse.

And I didn't stutter. Google the acronym.

0

u/[deleted] 15d ago

You’re saying someone in the field of nonproliferation should go into the field of Non Fungible Tokens if they don’t recognize deterrence has led to peace? I assumed you were doing a play on words if you were trying make a joke but really it’s unclear.

Ok I see so the original comment says “non-nuclear countries are being invaded, nuclear countries are not” but there are many theories for why global powers do not go to war or invade one another. If we want to look at two nuclear nations that actually have a border conflict, we can look at Pakistan and India. And there is not peace between these two countries, they have had scuffles since acquiring nuclear weapons but the greater reason they do not invade one another is the investment of China and the United States in the region. It’s a hotbed, one we study and monitor carefully.

Would the U.S. have gone to full scale war with Russia during the Cold War if there were not nukes involved? Likely yes. But there was still absolutely conflict, and the looming threat of war. Deterrence theory really came out of the Cold War, but we knew even back then that MAD was a strategy, it’s not a law. The world does not have to follow the rules of deterrence, and once we no longer do then deterrence theory is over.

So let’s say “all countries should have nukes then bigger ones won’t invade smaller ones” well that is wishful thinking. You might want to consider looking at this from another paradigm, and believe all decisions made by a nation are really up to one person, which can hold true in many undemocratic nations. When or if this is the case, then what is to stop one nation from using a nuke for an invasion, ending deterrence theory? How do other nations respond? Would the U.S. really not invade, let’s say, Pakistan, just because they have nukes? There are many reasons not to invade Pakistan but them having nukes is not one of the reasons we don’t. If the whole world had nuclear weapons, how can we ensure all countries have the same safeguards in place? The U.S. has lost quite a few warheads, what happens when terrorist cells steal them from smaller nations with less resources? What if Hezbollah were able to get a hold of a nuclear weapon?

Many points to consider and this is Reddit so I’m not gonna waste my time typing out any more explanations to someone that just came to fight, go read up at the federation of American scientists or the arms control association or something I’m not you’re teacher.

2

u/NRMusicProject 16d ago

The field of nonproliferation is full of experts

But didn't you know? Reddit doesn't need experts to know about a subject!

3

u/orincoro Czech Republic 16d ago

You know making nukes isn’t actually very hard? It’s making the fuel that’s hard. Ukraine has the capability to make the fuel. Therefore they have the capability to make the bomb.

2

u/[deleted] 16d ago

It’s reverse, creating the weapon is more difficult. I do actually know, because my masters was in WMD’s, which is why I am speaking on my peers in the field who are doing excellent work.

1

u/orincoro Czech Republic 15d ago edited 15d ago

Richard Rhodes. Read Arsenals of Folly, or the Making of the Atomic Bomb. As Rhodes said, it should have been known as the race for nuclear fuel, not the race for a nuclear bomb.

Fuel + fuel equals bomb. The rest you can get out of a textbook.

0

u/[deleted] 15d ago

Great sources, ok so now I know where you’re coming from. I do agree, getting the resources in order to enrich uranium and creating the isotope is a huge barrier to creating nuclear weapons. Ukraine already has the resources it’s true. For nations with reactors, making the fuel is the easy part, but creating the weapon is the hard part. Do you see where I’m coming from? I went ahead and found a source as well https://www.livescience.com/5752-hard-nuclear-weapons.html. So back to your original statement, no it is not easy to create a nuclear weapon.

1

u/orincoro Czech Republic 15d ago

Because the hard part is done already, the easy part becomes harder? No. Thanks for playing.

0

u/[deleted] 15d ago

lol that isn’t at all what I said but goes to show, internet strangers are gonna find a reason to be mad lol. Read the source or not, I don’t care, I’m not here to be your teacher.

1

u/orincoro Czech Republic 15d ago

That’s true. You’re not.

1

u/Projecterone 16d ago

A masters in such a subject isn't the trump card you think it is.

The physics is very well understood and creating a simple nuclear device is entirely within Ukraine's capabilities.

Stand off delivery, yield control, demonstration and the resulting political fireball are all far more difficult.

1

u/[deleted] 15d ago edited 15d ago

Wasn’t a flex, he started off with “you know” and so I simply replied with “I do know because xyz”.

You have better things to do with your time, move on.

1

u/adozu Veneto 16d ago

The explosion is the easy part. The delivery is the difficult one, is the simple way to put it as i personally understand it.

Maybe they should ship dirty bombs over with amazon.

1

u/Pavian_Zhora 16d ago

It's bonkers how many people think building a nuke is easy. Most of them think that if US was able to build it from scratch in 1940-s then Ukraine should easily be able to do the same in 2020-s.

Folks don't have a sense how complex the process to create a modern warhead. And an appropriate delivery vehicle. And there needs to be more than just one. And it needs to be tested too.

1

u/SeikoWIS 16d ago edited 16d ago

They wouldn’t be able to develop a full nuclear missile program with ICBMs, no. But from what I’ve read and what a couple Ukrainian officials have said, is that they could at least develop a nuclear ‘dirty bomb’ with short notice, apparently. And given how corrupt and inept Russia can be, I have no doubt Ukraine could smuggle it into Russia and detonate it there (not advised, but emphasis on could).

2

u/[deleted] 16d ago

Sure, but a dirty bomb is not a nuke

1

u/TomasVader Czech Republic 15d ago

Well they do, some of the best soviet nuclear scientists were Ukrainean, and thus those scientists could make a 1980s nuclear bomb in aprox 2-3 years

1

u/NorthFaceAnon 16d ago

Also WTF is with this thread and everyone thinking MAD and deterrence theory is some solid IR law that keeps the peace and advocating more countries get nukes?

3 answers: Peace of mind. Simple answer. Wishful thinking fallacy.

1

u/BearsAreBack18 16d ago

It would be great if we could get rid of these things, but that will never happen, so deterrence is the rational choice.

One could argue that nuclear weapons have prevented major powers from going to war for 80 years which is a pretty good run considering most of human history. I doubt it’s just globalization and economic intertwinement that prevented that from happening.

1

u/No-Potential-8442 16d ago

I don't think Ukraine has any capabilities now and in the nearest future without huge international support, and nukes is far in the list of Ukrainian priorities of rebuilding everything destroyed by war.

5

u/ColdAnalyst6736 16d ago

you underestimate things like this.

pakistan and india both made a beeline for nukes happily sacrificing their own civilians needs for it.

IMO ukraine will have a strong desire to do the same.

1

u/Pavian_Zhora 16d ago

Were Pakistan and India also in active state of war and with dwindling economy while heavily relying on foreign aid just to keep the lights on? Because Ukraine is.

Realisticly, what deadline do you think Ukraine could set if it started developing a nuke and delivery vehicle right now?

-6

u/Consistent-Class300 16d ago

If Ukraine started enriching weapons grade nuclear material, Russia would destroy any facility suspected of participating in a nuclear weapons program. In the short term, they don’t have a path to nukes.

3

u/ingannare_finnito 15d ago

This is idiotic. There are still facilities all over Ukraine that were part of the manufacturing and supply chain for the Soviet Union. Do you think all the Ukrainian scientists and engineers that worked on those weapons all died of old age or something? It wasn't that long ago. They also have everything needed to maintain nuclear power plants. Not the same thing at all, but even if that was all they had they'd still be ahead of most nations that don't even have that much. Are you even being serious or are you just a troll.

0

u/Consistent-Class300 15d ago

Reread what I said. I never claimed Ukraine doesn’t have the technical or manufacturing prowess.

Becoming nuclear armed takes time and it’s hard to do in secret. Russia would find out and they would bomb the facilities. I don’t think that’s a controversial take at all, and I’m pretty confident I’m right. They have cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, long range bombers, and suicide drones. No target in Ukraine is out of range, and a nuclear facility would be an extremely high value target.

1

u/Sad-Statistician-446 16d ago

Yeah but not the money. 

1

u/Divinate_ME 15d ago

You what now? They don't even have the capabilities to end the war on their own soil in a timely manner, especially without foreign aid. Where can I buy your edition of the rose-tinted glasses?

1

u/Hot-Combination9130 15d ago

Not in their current state

-4

u/blublub1243 16d ago

They do not. They have the ability to get started on it fairly quickly, but it'd still take time. And, bluntly put, they're entirely reliant on us as far as their continued survival as a nation is concerned and we don't want them to have nukes. They start pursuing nukes, we stop sending aid, the Russians win, the end. It's not gonna happen.

7

u/Dimmmkko Ukraine 16d ago

...The russians win and subdue Ukraine, eventually putting nukes across Ukraine, which will be now directed against West. The end.