Should Ukraine build the bomb? How would you feel if they did?

weeeeum@lemmy.world to Ask Lemmy@lemmy.world – 81 points –

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.

61

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.

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.

That's the lesson here... They gave up their nuclear weapons for nothing.

Zero benefit to the people

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.

The US and Russia. Ya know, the Russia that’s murdering, raping, and torturing Ukrainians and claiming they shouldn’t exist like genocide

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.

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.

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.

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:

https://youtu.be/aTiunvocl5c

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.

Good detail in that article. With regard to plutonium, Sweden had a plutonium breeding reactor disguised as a civilian power plant called Ågestaverket. I think that Ukraine would be able to use an existing reactor for this, or retrofit it. But yeah, any Ukrainian nuclear program would obviously become a huge target by the Russian military, and potentially other nuclear states. Ideally these installations would be underground like Ågestaverket was. Even more ideal would be military guarantees from NATO.

CANDU-like or RBMK-like design could work for this purpose, but i have doubts about VVERs that they have

Ukraine is fighting two nuclear armed states... But nahh bro, Ukraine doesn't need nukes 🤡

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.

If Iran starts making nuclear weapons? We’ve done other things like sanctions in the past that seemingly worked. If they just keep doing it then that’s bigger than a U.S. problem.

Iran? You mean the pro-democratic country that got invaded?

It's not really the same discussion IMO.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 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.