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

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.

"A resolution passed by the Rada, the Ukrainian parliament, on Nov. 18, 1993, attached conditions to its ratification of START that Russia and the United States deemed unacceptable. Those stated that Ukraine would only dismantle 36 percent of its delivery vehicles and 42 percent of its warheads; all others would remain under Ukrainian custody. Moreover, the resolution made those reductions contingent upon assurances from Russia and the United States to never use nuclear weapons against Ukraine (referred to as “security assurances”), along with foreign aid to pay for dismantlement.

In response, the Clinton and Yeltsin administrations intensified negotiations with Kyiv, eventually producing the Trilateral Statement, which was signed on Jan. 14, 1994. This agreement placated Ukrainian concerns by allowing Ukraine to cooperate in the transfer of the weapons to Russia, which would take place over a maximum period of seven years. The agreement further called for the transferred warheads to be dismantled and the highly enriched uranium they contained to be downblended into low-enriched uranium. Some of that material would then be transferred back to Ukraine for use as nuclear reactor fuel. Meanwhile, the United States would give Ukraine economic and technical aid to cover its dismantlement costs. Finally, the United States and Russia responded to Ukraine’s security concerns by agreeing to provide security assurances upon its NPT accession.

In turn, the Rada ratified START, implicitly endorsing the Trilateral Statement. However, it did not submit its instrument of accession to the NPT until Dec. 5, 1994, when Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and the United States provided security assurances to Ukraine. That decision by the Rada met the final condition for Russia’s ratification of START and therefore subsequently brought that treaty into force.

For more information, see Ukraine, Nuclear Weapons and Security Assurances at a Glance."

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/lisbon-protocol-glance

:::

No protection, just non-agression. That was violated by russia.

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.

And that was the issue of the memorandum - it should've included something akin to Article 5

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

Zero benefit to the people

It was even the same fucker personally, who signed it and then rationalized the war, lavrov.

Giving up nukes, and remaining neutral, is also the conditions for their liberation granted by USSR/Russia. Germany asking US to end its occupation is going to need the US to be allowed to take their weapons for them to agree peacefully.

Compared to Ukraine yes, and they have a lot more people to throw at the meat wave

c/UnexpectedFuturama

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.

It's all about that flux capacitor.

Go back in time and stop them from selling their original nuclear arsenal

Your analogy doesn’t work because Trump people hate latinos and it absolutely would make sense for a Trump/GOP controlled USA to go back on an agreement like that.

Hell they’d probably even start using PR for nuclear testing again if the fallout would blow over other Latin countries. After all, it’s just “an island full of garbage in the ocean.”

/s (I knew what you meant I just hate all of it)

Yup

He said they could make a bomb in a couple weeks if needed. No specifics on delivery or quality.

Edit: sounds like kyiv is denying the claim made by some insider. So guess this isn't likely true.

They have a lot of the Soviet weapons design bureaus. Not sure how many of the original designers are still around. The tricky bit will be refining enough uranium or plutonium in a war zone.

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.

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.

"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."

Way to show you have no understanding of the English language there buddy.

In English, "politics" is usually treated as a singular noun even though it ends in "s" since there is no singular 'politic'. We use singular verbs with it, so "politics was banned" is standard.

'Politics' is different from plurale tantum nouns that are plural by default because they have two parts in one e.g scissors, glasses, pants, etc. This is why we say "Politics is interesting" rather than "Politics are interesting".

So do some research before you try to correct the fucking police of grammar idiot.

why should some have nukes and others not?

Were they given divine mandate ? are they superior human beings ? explain !!

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!

There's no reason to exclude Hitler. Also no reason to declare that taking out Putin will have no effect on Russia's course. It certainly has more chance than leaving him in place. And even if it changes nothing, no loss - terrorist leaders deserve to be killed on principle alone.

Least islamaphobic liberal.

I was talking about the act of using it.

You must learn to distinguish between a threat and an act.