Ukraine Gave Up a Giant Nuclear Arsenal 30 Years Ago. Today There Are Regrets.

[dalton99a]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/05/science/ukraine-nuclear-weapons.html

Ukraine Gave Up a Giant Nuclear Arsenal 30 Years Ago. Today There Are Regrets.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, Ukraine turned over thousands of atomic weapons in exchange for security guarantees from Russia, the United States and other countries.
By William J. Broad
Feb. 5, 2022 Updated 7:42 a.m. ET

At the end of the Cold War, the third largest nuclear power on earth was not Britain, France or China. It was Ukraine. The Soviet collapse, a slow-motion downfall that culminated in December 1991, resulted in the newly independent Ukraine inheriting roughly 5,000 nuclear arms that Moscow had stationed on its soil. Underground silos on its military bases held long-range missiles that carried up to 10 thermonuclear warheads, each far stronger than the bomb that leveled Hiroshima. Only Russia and the United States had more weapons.

The removal of this arsenal often gets hailed as a triumph of arms control. Diplomats and peace activists cast Ukraine as a model citizen in a world of would-be nuclear powers.

But history shows the denuclearization to have been a chaotic upheaval that shook with infighting, reversals and discord among the country’s government and military. At the time, both Ukrainian and American experts questioned the wisdom of atomic disarmament. The deadly weapons, some argued, were the only reliable means of deterring Russian aggression.

Today Ukraine has no easy path to producing or acquiring the materials to build a bomb. Even so, the nuclear genie is once again stirring as Russian troops encircle the nation and wage a shadow war in its easternmost provinces.

“We gave away the capability for nothing,” said Andriy Zahorodniuk, a former defense minister of Ukraine. Referring to the security assurances Ukraine won in exchange for its nuclear arms, he added: “Now, every time somebody offers us to sign a strip of paper, the response is, ‘Thank you very much. We already had one of those some time ago.’”

[walkingman]

1. IF WE CAN RISK NUCLEAR WAR - WE CAN RISK DISARMAMENT

[ruet]

2. Paywalled So I Can Read the Entire Thing But;

did they mention that Ukraine had no means to actually use the arsenal? They may have been able to strike a better deal on giving them back but it was the correct move. Typical, short memory, move by the West. We need to back Ukraine 100% even if it means Western powers taking part in combat operations. The days of expanding territory by force is a relic that must be stamped out at any cost. Let Russia be the example.

[dwayneb]

3. Learned something new today

Had no idea that so many nukes were in Ukraine at one time, nor that they had given them up.

One day nukes have to potential to destroy us all. In the meantime, they have kept wars like WWI and WWII from erupting simply because of the fear of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Hard to say whether those nukes would have kept Russia from attacking Ukraine. It's possible. But if as the poster above me states they could not have deployed them - probably not.

[EX500rider]

4. "Hard to say whether those nukes would have kept Russia from attacking Ukraine"

Most likely, Russia has to worry if the Ukraine starts to lose bad they have the option to nuke Moscow on the way down.

[moondust]

5. Chernobyl may have influenced some.

Having the worst nuclear disaster in history both in cost and casualties on your soil could discourage some from wanting to take any more chances on nuclear technology.