Posted on 04/12/2022 9:19:19 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
When he arrived at Christ the Savior Cathedral to pay his respects to the ultra-nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who had died of COVID-19, Russian President Vladimir Putin carried a clutch of red roses.
The man beside him was carrying a briefcase.
That briefcase appeared to be Russia's version of the "football" that is carried by a military aide to U.S. presidents and contains the codes for launching strategic nuclear weapons.
French King Louis XIV had stamped upon his cannon the inscription, "Ultima Ratio Regum" -- The Last Argument of Kings.
In our era, nuclear weapons are the ultima ratio of nation-states. And what Putin was saying with his briefcase-carrying aide beside him was that, rather than accept defeat and humiliation in the Ukraine war, he may resort to the use of tactical atomic weapons.
And Putin is not the only one reminding us of the utility of having nuclear weapons and the folly of giving them up.
In 1991, when the Soviet Union dissolved into 15 nations, a newly independent Ukraine controlled its own large arsenal of nuclear weapons.
At the behest of the United States and in return for U.S. security guarantees, Kyiv gave them up and sent them all back to Russia.
Ukraine is living today with the consequences of that decision.
It is a victim of aggression by Russia, while the U.S. is inhibited in what it will do to assist Kyiv by an awareness that Russia has hundreds of tactical nuclear weapons, which Putin has signaled that, in the event of a true "existential" crisis, he may use.
Ukraine is in its present crisis because Moscow has the world's largest nuclear arsenal, while Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in the 1990s.
The world is surely taking note of this fact.
South Korea relies on U.S. nuclear weapons to deter a nuclear-armed North Korea. Seoul also relies on the U.S. to retaliate against the North for any first use of nukes against the South.
And the issue is not an academic one.
Last week, Pyongyang warned that in the event of a clash with the South, its nuclear weapons would be used "at the outset of war."
Seoul must today be observing Ukraine with some intensity. For there the U.S. is carefully calibrating whether the weapons they send to help Ukraine fight for its national existence violate a Moscow red line.
Could South Korea expect similar U.S. caution as to what weapons it would use in defending the country from a nuclear-armed North?
According to one U.S. poll, 71% of all South Koreans support the acquisition of their own arsenal of nuclear weapons.
China, too, has been observing how the United States has been inhibited by Russia's nuclear arsenal in deciding which weapons to send, and which not to send, to Ukraine.
In Beijing, this question is surely being debated:
If the Americans, who have no treaty commitment to defend Ukraine, are inhibited by the threat of war with a nuclear-armed Russia into limiting their military aid to Ukraine, will the Americans be similarly intimidated by a nuclear-armed China -- from going to war for Taiwan?
China may soon be testing U.S. resolve in the Taiwan Strait. For, like Ukraine, Taiwan has no treaty alliance obligating the United States to defend it.
In East Asia, the nations most hostile to us and our allies -- Russia, China, North Korea -- all have nuclear weapons. But none of our friends and allies in East Asia -- Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, Australia -- have nuclear weapons. All rely on us for nuclear deterrence.
Observing the restrictions we have put on military aid to Ukraine, what must they be thinking now?
Consider the Middle East.
Iran is currently renegotiating a return to the nuclear arms deal of 2015. Under that agreement, Iran was granted relief from sanctions and a return to the world economy. In return, Tehran pledged not to test or acquire nuclear weapons and to open its nuclear facilities to inspection to show it was complying with the treaty.
Why has Iran, which has the ability to enrich uranium to weapons-grade but has never done so, forgone the testing and the building of nuclear weapons?
Iran appears to have concluded that its security would be more imperiled than enhanced if it sought to test a nuclear device preparatory to building a bomb.
A nuclear weapons test, if successful, would bring to Iran the possibility of war with a nuclear-armed Israel, as well as the potential destruction of all of its nuclear sites by the United States.
If Iran built a bomb, the Turks and Saudis might soon follow, and the ayatollah's Iran would be less secure than it is today. Iran's Persians, after all, are a minority in an Arab-dominated Middle East, and Iran's Shia are but a fraction of the numbers of the Sunni Arab population.
What the Ukraine war has demonstrated is the vulnerability of not having nukes.
Taiwan and South Korea, especially, should take note.
The world saw what that got him and Libya.
Conquest, death, torture and civil war. (Thanks to Hillary and Obama)
Yup, he nailed it this time. Sometimes Pat is off in the weeds but not on this policy.
Nukes are sovereignty. All the world is taking notice.
And if we don’t get nuke nonproliferation right, within one generation every shiitehole country will have them.
Disarmament of Libya
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Libyan disarmament issue was peacefully resolved in December 2003 when Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi agreed to eliminate his country’s weapons of mass destruction program, including a decades-old nuclear weapons program.[1] Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Libya’s nuclear program was “in the very initial stages of development” at the time.[2]
In 1968, Libya signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), ratified the treaty in 1975, and concluded a safeguards agreement in 1980. Despite its commitment to NPT, there are reports indicating that Muammar Gaddafi of Libya either made unsuccessful attempts to build or entered in an agreement to purchase a nuclear weapon from nuclear-armed nations. In the 1970s–80s, Gaddafi made numerous attempts to accelerate and push forward his ambitions for an active nuclear weapons program, using the nuclear black market sources. However, after the end of the Cold War in 1991, Gaddafi sought to resolve its nuclear crises with the United States aiming to uplift the sanctions against Libya, finally agreeing to authorize rolling back Libya’s weapons of mass destruction program on 19 December 2003.
....
Libya’s decision was praised by many in the West but criticized by many in the Arab world.[6] In 2004, Paula DeSutter, the-then United States Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance stated that “we want to have lessons learned from [Libya’s disarmament] because we want Libya to be a model for other countries.”[6] Some prominent politicians and diplomats hoped that Iran, North Korea, and Syria would decide to follow the Libyan model of disarmament.[6] Gaddafi stated that the West asked him on several occasions to advise Iran and North Korea to give up their nuclear weapons programs.[6]
....
Eventually Gaddafi grew disillusioned with the things that the West offered Libya.[6] He considered it too small of a reward for Libya for giving up its nuclear weapons program.[6] Gaddafi was also dissatisfied at the United States’ slowness in normalizing relations with Libya and in pressuring Israel to denuclearize.[6] According to Gaddafi’s son Saif, this was one of the main reasons why Gaddafi temporarily suspended shipping Libya’s enriched uranium abroad in 2009 like he promised he would in 2003.[6] Gaddafi wanted to use the remains of his nuclear weapons program to gain more leverage.[6]
....
It was speculated in the media (especially in the Middle Eastern media) that NATO’s 2011 intervention in Libya (which led to Gaddafi’s overthrow and killing at the hands of the Libyan rebels) would make Iran, North Korea, and possibly other countries more reluctant to give up their nuclear programs and/or nuclear weapons due to the risk of being weakened and/or double-crossed as a result.[6][14]
On 22 September 2011, near Sabha, Libya, toward the end of the Libyan Civil War, anti-Gaddafi forces discovered two warehouses containing thousands of blue barrels marked with tape reading “radioactive” and plastic bags of yellow powder sealed with the same tape.[15][16] The IAEA stated, “We can confirm that there is yellowcake stored in drums at a site near Sabha ... which Libya previously declared to the IAEA. [...] The IAEA has tentatively scheduled safeguards activities at this location once the situation in the country stabilises.”[17]
The world saw what that got him and Libya. Conquest, death, torture and civil war.
***And Bill Clinton signed the NonProliferation Treaty “accession” that we call the Budapest Agreement. Getting rid of Uke nukes cost the Ukes 2 invasions, tens of thousands of lives and an existential war.
Registration Number 52241
Title Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb
Biden is weak, and not sending MIGS was stupid as is trying to differentiate between defensive weapons vs offensive.
Biden is weak and staying out of this conflict is what he should have done.
Had Ukraine kept the nukes it had instead of sending them to Russia do you think Puttie pooh would have attacked them?
If you Ukraine had kept the nukes, Russia would have never sat by while the government was unconstitutionally overthrown in 2014 and a replacement government chosen by Victoria Nuland. There would still be a pro-russian government there today
“Putin is an insane, unreasonable madman!”
also
“The threat of nukes would make him behave!”
also
“Nukes are the best detergent, but we need a regime change because Putin will invade Alaska next!”
The Ukrainian government never had operational control of them.
It was a chaotic situation; making sure the Russians kept them was the best bet.
So what happens if Zelensky claims possession of a suitcase nuke and threatens Moscow with an already placed operative?
I think that Clinton and the Russians made the Ukrainians an offer that they could not refuse.
Twenty five (or so) years following, they are totally screwed.
Indeed....
“Suitcase nukes” never really fit into a suitcase except on TV. The smaller you make your device the more likely you’ll end up with a fizzle.
Too small and they don’t work. Too big and they can’t be moved.
That said the only way Ukraine gets a nuke is if they capture one from Russia. Which is entirely plausible.
“So what happens if Zelensky claims possession of a suitcase nuke and threatens Moscow with an already placed operative?”
It would be unwise to follow Saddam Hussein’s strategy; making people believe you have WMD is a losing tactic against a much stronger power.
This is the black widow spider phenomenon — you’ll get crushed at the first opportunity.
(Also, Zelenskyy doesn’t want to risk losing the public support in the West that he’s relying on.)
“if we don’t get nuke nonproliferation right”
That shipped has sailed... into a reef and is already sinking.
I think you’re right. Sad to watch.
We’re certainly encouraging Russia to come to the table.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.