Thread: The Ukraine Situation

Originally Posted by BobH

Yes, of course nukes work in war. The US proved that in WWII when only one country had them. The immediate and long term effects of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki gave a lot of people globally pause to think that their use again in war would be insanity to contemplate as more and more countries became nuclear capable. Luckily we have avoided their use in war till now.

The real spectre of facing a nuclear war has reared it's ugly head again with the invasion of Ukraine and Putin putting Russia's nuclear deterrent force on high alert. It's anyone's guess if he is bluffing or not about the use of nukes. The question then becomes whether or not anyone wants to become involved in chucking nuclear warheads around. If that does happen there is a very good likelihood that that would inevitably escalate from a local conflict to a global one. I'd hate to see what the winner of such a conflict would look like never mind the loser.

No contradiction of premise there. Just stating what the absolute worst case scenario might be. Once you start down that path it will be difficult to impossible to turn back.

Bob

You just made the point that if Ukraine kept it's Nukes, the EXACT same principal applies for deterrence, thank you


ps: Not sure if it really matters what kills you as a Ukrainian, a Russian FAE, or a Russian Nuke, Dead is Dead
The difference comes in the fact Ukraine had nukes at one time, they don't have FAE's or the ability to hit a Russian city with one..

Lesson:

Don't give up your weapons on the promise of protection from a Politician

I'm 100% sure Putin would not have set foot in Ukraine if they had their Nukes as a deterrent, just remember the Cuban missile crisis, the Russians soon turn around and headed home when the Americans told them what was at risk, that's what a nuclear deterrent can do save lives as well as take them.

Originally Posted by BobH

The question then becomes whether or not anyone wants to become involved in chucking nuclear warheads around. If that does happen there is a very good likelihood that that would inevitably escalate from a local conflict to a global one. I'd hate to see what the winner of such a conflict would look like never mind the loser.

Bob

As soon as one side fires Nukes (Global Nukes), the other side knows it and fires their's in return. The destruction of the world, or at least the people is just about guaranteed. There won't be any winners.

Forget duck and cover, forget fallout shelters unless you qualify for the Govt ones.

Nuclear winter would stop anything growing and result in the next ice age. I'm not talking crops not growing because they would be inedible due to radiation fallout, I'm talking the trees that make oxygen for us to breathe.

I attended a lot of lectures and did a lot of NBC training, there is no way I want to survive a global nuclear exchange.
It is a moot point anyway because unless your fallout shelter has air scrubbers like the space station your not going to live and radiation sickness is not nice, plus it will kill you without a doubt.

Coincidentally, Glen suggested a book to me not so long ago. The Last Ship, it illustrated the aftermath of a global nuclear strike very well, definitely worth a read. It's pretty heavy going because the author is very wordy but a good story line , accurate and certainly worth adding to your reading list.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

You just made the point that if Ukraine kept it's Nukes, the EXACT same principal applies for deterrence, thank you


ps: Not sure if it really matters what kills you as a Ukrainian, a Russian FAE or a Russian Nuke Dead is Dead
The difference comes in the fact Ukraine had nukes at one time, they don't have FAE's or the ability to hit a Russian city with one..

Lesson:

Don't give up your weapons on the promise of protection from a Politician

My point was that Ukraine has no nukes and it would take outside countries to employ nukes to assist Ukraine. Also, at the time Ukraine gave up it's nukes their ICBMs would only be able to hit Russia's far east. Not exactly ideal for hitting Moscow and the like. Their cruise missiles had been disabled prior to the breakup of the USSR and it was questionable if they could even be repaired for use. In light of that it may be questionable if they gave up anything that could be of practical use today.

If they had of kept their nukes they may have been able to develop newer nukes more suitable for use in the current conflict should either side decide to employ nukes. The end result if only Ukraine and Russia indulged in nuclear confrontation, would likely end in the Ukraine being worse off and so losing in the process anyway. Nuclear deterrence only works between two relatively equal nuclear capable adversaries. I don't know under that circumstance if Ukraine has anything to regret in giving up it's nukes.

Bob

Regarding nuclear weapons, I am trying to remember a case in human history where a new, stronger weapon was invented but never used, and I cannot remember anything. If technology develops a new super weapon, sooner or later it will be used.
The only case that I can think of is the biological weapons, which were used in WWI but not in WWII, maybe due to the fact that it was impossible to limit the casualties to the enemy lines only.

What's this nonsense talk about Ukraine Nukes? Ukraine never had Nukes ever. They were Russian and totally controlled by Russia. Russia just installed them there for tactical reasons. When the USSR broke up the Nukes went back to Russia.

There was no issue of them keeping them. They had no choice.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

What's this nonsense talk about Ukraine Nukes? Ukraine never had Nukes ever. They were Russian and totally controlled by Russia. Russia just installed them there for tactical reasons. When the USSR broke up the Nukes went back to Russia.

There was no issue of them keeping them. They had no choice.

You may be right but that was never the impression I had, long before this happened.

Ukraine was never part of the "Nuclear Club". They don't and never had capability to produce weapons like that.

Perhaps the Russians could nuke Chernobyl -- minimal casualties (if any), solves the problem of what to do with that damned reactor, so it would be an acceptable "proof of concept".

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Ukraine was never part of the "Nuclear Club". They don't and never had capability to produce weapons like that.

Prior to 1991, Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union and had Soviet nuclear weapons in its territory.

On December 1, 1991, Ukraine, the second most powerful republic in the Soviet Union (USSR), voted overwhelmingly for independence, which ended any realistic chance of the Soviet Union staying together even on a limited scale.[1] More than 90% of the electorate expressed their support for Ukraine's declaration of independence, and they elected the chairman of the parliament, Leonid Kravchuk as the first president of the country. At the meetings in Brest, Belarus on December 8, and in Alma Ata on December 21, the leaders of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine formally dissolved the Soviet Union and formed the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine held about one-third of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, the third-largest in the world at the time, as well as significant means of its design and production.[2] 130 UR-100N intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) with six warheads each, 46 RT-23 Molodets ICBMs with ten warheads apiece, as well as 33 heavy bombers, totalling approximately 1,700 warheads remained on Ukrainian territory.[3] Formally, these weapons were controlled by the Commonwealth of Independent States.[4] In 1994 Ukraine agreed to destroy the weapons and to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).