Let’s keep in mind that Ukraine has been a corrupt, dysfunctional dump for years … so it’s not as if a stable government would be in control of that nuclear arsenal. There would have been an alarming possibility that it would have ended up under the control of one or more warring factions within Ukraine.
See Post #51.
***I posted a response. Why not post from that subthread?
I don’t think the new government of Ukraine was in any position to deal with those weapons anyway.
***They were in a position, they gave UP that position for assurances which turned out to be hollow.
Let’s keep in mind that Ukraine has been a corrupt, dysfunctional dump for years …
***They are a sovereign nation who has been invaded by Russia, breaking a straightforward treaty that, when thrown out the window, opens up a yuge nuke path towards nuke war all because you think they’re corrupt. So are we. So is Russia.
so it’s not as if a stable government would be in control of that nuclear arsenal.
***We’ve seen that scenario play out in Pakistan. Nukes introduce a kind of stability that never worked in the past. The relinquishment of nukes — in Ukraine and in South Africa — led to loss of sovereignty. I think it would take them only about 2 months to design a crude nuke bomb, based upon how the A-Bomb kid did it himself in about that amount of time.
There would have been an alarming possibility that it would have ended up under the control of one or more warring factions within Ukraine.
***I agree that it woulda been quite alarming and the right thing to do was to dismantle those nukes in exchange for severeignty assurances. Since those assurances amount to piss in the wind, any restraints towards building nukes from their own nuke knowledge are effectively removed and there’s no incentive to go back to such a useless agreement.