However, keep in mind the nature of the 'Big Five' permanent members of the UN Security Council: 'The permanent members were all Allies in World War II (and the victors of that war), and are the five states with the first and most nuclear weapons. All have the power of veto which enables any one of them to prevent the adoption of any "substantive" draft Council resolution, regardless of its level of international support.' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_members_of_the_Unite...)
Highly enriched uranium = nuclear weapons = POWER
Remember the ending of the movie Oppenheimer? Oppie, a scientist at the peak of his field, willingly handed over the most powerful weapon known to humanity to... a person with a less-than-stellar moral code: President Truman ("Don't let that crybaby back in here.")
That handover changed geopolitics forever, which was a major theme of the movie - and in real life too.
Remember also that Ukraine was comprehensively disarmed, by the Budapest Memorandum, and as part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_de...). And now look what a mess resulted from that: a world war has already quietly started in Europe...
(There is not enough made of the fact that Russia has involved Iran, North Korea, China, and a number of other countries in its effort to invade Ukraine. Russia has violated several articles of the UN Charter, even while it maintains an contentious seat on the Security Council, thus shredding the credibility and founding principles of the United Nations.)
I'm writing this to add a better perspective of this operation. It was a lot more than simply "truck[ing] [the uranium] to the Y-12 plant at Oak Ridge, Tennessee to be blended down."
Super-enriched Uranium, however _is_ super rare, expensive and desirable.
that cannot be true. It was really middle of the semi-desert with no people around
If this project hadn't worked out and the US hadn't purchased all of that _several hundred kilograms of weapons grade plutonium_ somebody else certainly would've.
It was promised the USA AND Russia would provide the Ukraine adequate defense in lieu of giving up their nukes.
Which gives the lie to “Russia invaded because of impending Ukrainian NATO membership” - the USA & Russia already promised to defend their 1994 borders AT THAT TIME.
The USA and Russia also agreed in 1994 to Ukrainian autonomy and sovereignty, e.g. the freedom to join NATO and the EU if they want.
It is Putin that has broken his pact with the Ukraine by invading.
“
As the United States mediated between Russia and Ukraine, the three countries signed the Trilateral Statement on January 14, 1994. Ukraine committed to full disarmament, including strategic weapons, in exchange for economic support and security assurances from the United States and Russia. “
If the USA cedes Ukrainian territory to Russia in a peace deal the USA will also have broken its 1994 agreement to defend the Ukraine’s 1994 borders and its autonomy ( to join NATO if it desires ).
As opposed to ...
- not handing it over? Prison, then they figure it out anyway.
- handing it to someone else during wartime? Prison or a firing squad, then they figure it out anyway.
Obviously, in reality, it would have required much more planning and preparation, but that's essentially a statement of the balance of power at that moment in history.
The Soviets were clawing at the door to get this new superweapon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_spies), and even the UK - which was a partner in the bomb's development - was locked out of the technology (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28866320-test-of-greatne...).
Let's just say that consensus in Ukrainian polity has shifted back to the original idea that exporting war is a more sustainable policy when you live on the undefencible plain with no committed allies to rely on.
I'd rephrase it as "Europe has already quietly started a (world) war". The EU started to try to incorporate Ukraine. It's highly unlikely Putin would have attacked had there not been preparative talks for Ukraine to join the EU.
And it's no coincidence that there are now heavyweights on the worldstage now saying: "The only solution to this conflict is an independent Ukraine". By that they don't mean "Ukraine not annexed by Russia". They mean "Ukraine not annexed by the EU".
The EU wans to annex Ukraine and a war was started because of that.
Apparently you would, even though there's absolutely no reason to believe the line of causality ("Europe did X, which started the war") that you're implying.
Starting a war from scratch like this (as Putin did) requires agency, and it's very obvious what the source of agency was in this case.
"Ukraine not annexed by the EU".
That's just hyperbole and nonsense.
It was never being "annexed" by anyone (until Russia started invading in 2014).
“ As the United States mediated between Russia and Ukraine, the three countries signed the Trilateral Statement on January 14, 1994. Ukraine committed to full disarmament, including strategic weapons, in exchange for economic support and security assurances from the United States and Russia.”
If the USA doesn’t defend them adequately the USA will have broken their 1994 agreement - with all the trust implications for future agreements.
By invading the Ukraine, Russia broke its 1994 deal.
The USA and Russia also agreed in 1994 to Ukrainian autonomy and sovereignty, e.g. the freedom to join NATO and the EU if they want - which gives the lie to NATO membership as a cause !
Russia agreed in 1994 that the Ukraine had the right to join NATO or anything else it wanted to do - that is the the definition of autonomy and sovereignty.
Thus implicitly, in fact, Russia agreed to defend the Ukraine’s right to join NATO.
Russia has broken treaties to invade many of it neighbours recently, this needs to be questioned not apologised for.
If the West defends Ukraine from a nuclear armed nation, then we can convincingly tell the rest of the world "You don't need nukes, so don't build them".
It's even less likely that putin would have done all that if he weren't alive, or had he simply minded his own business, yet I don't see you advocating for either of those paths to resolution.
Instead, you advocate for an independent country of tens of millions of people to lose their independence, to lose their agency, to lose their sovereignty, to lose their identity, to lose their lives, simply because russia wants them to.
Curious.
Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons, and as a result hundreds of thousands of people have died.
I am not aware of any significant casualties from the possession of nuclear weapons by any nation that has had operational nukes for more than 2 years.
It seems that if we want to reduce casualties, then we want everyone to keep their nukes.
Please tell me if I am wrong.
What risk of global catastrophe is worth it to reduce or end conventional war? One in a million per year? One in a thousand per year?
The actual risk of nuclear war is extremely hard to estimate. My reading of Cold War history is that it’s closer to one in a hundred per year than one in a million. Having a multitude of nuclear-armed states makes it worse. I don’t find this tradeoff to be even remotely worthwhile.
To your first question, I wonder what the outcome would have been if Ukraine had nuclear weapons? Ukraine and Russia just unloading on each other? This question isn't rhetorical or sarcastic, I don't know.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternateHistory/comments/15mjkut/w...
More guns meaning more safety is very logical idea, it makes total sense until the next school shooting happens and reminds everybody that people in general aren't consistently reasonable and well-meaning.
As cheeky as it sounds we might need "greener" and "safer" alternatives to nukes but retaining the power for immediate devastation :D
Pakistan already has nukes and it hasn't happened yet tho?
Having nukes you cant use is worse than no nukes. You are a target for terrorists trying to lay their hands on materials, you are a threat to the entire planet (especially your new large neighbor) it was a losing proposition.
Among that majority of the Iranian population who now dislikes the regime, it is a common belief that the regime is really only interested in preserving its wealth and power; it is no longer sincere religious fanaticism like back in Khomeini’s day.
"Breaking the nuclear taboo" is a problem because the only advantage nukes have is deterrent. They are very good at killing civilians and terrorizing states into surrender[1]. But throwing a nuke at a line of incoming Russian tanks would be utterly stupid. They're just too damned big. And the more you normalize the use of nuclear weapons, the less that deterrent effect matters, even outside of the usual "mutually assured destruction" scenario of a superpower vs. superpower nuclear exchange.
The significant casualties you're ignoring are as follows:
- Wasted taxpayer money from maintaining very expensive missiles and nuclear material that don't actually stop invading forces
- Low, but not non-zero probability of a nuclear accident caused by mishandling the nuclear material in the weapon (e.g. that one time we almost nuked North Carolina[2])
- Extremely low, but still not non-zero, probability of escalation to superpower conflicts that would result in the destruction of major population centers in a matter of hours[3].
[0] Remember, Putin is dumb, he thought he'd crush Ukraine in a matter of hours. Do you really think nukes will stop him?
[1] e.g. how we got Japan to go from conditional to unconditional surrender by flattening two cities
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash
[3] Yes, this is potentially survivable, if you happen to be in a concrete basement, aren't in the fireball radius, follow proper decontamination procedure, have uncontaminated food and water for several days, etc. You still don't want this.
