#Ukraine #Putin #nuclearweapons #war #conflict #internationalrelations
If Ukraine had nukes, would Putin still have attacked it? 🤔 This is a question that has been on the minds of many people, especially in the wake of the recent conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The idea of a nuclear-armed Ukraine is certainly a provocative one, and it raises some interesting questions about the nature of international relations and the use of military force. Let’s explore this topic further and consider the potential implications of such a scenario.
The Current Situation
Before we delve into the hypothetical scenario of a nuclear-armed Ukraine, let’s first understand the current context. As mentioned, Ukraine has historically been against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. In fact, the country has actively participated in United Nations votes against countries having and testing nukes, demonstrating its commitment to nuclear non-proliferation.
However, in the face of ongoing Russian aggression and the annexation of Crimea, there has been a debate within Ukraine about the possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons as a deterrent against further Russian incursions. This debate has intensified in light of the failure of international efforts to provide Ukraine with adequate security guarantees.
The Hypothetical Scenario: Ukraine with Nuclear Weapons
If Ukraine were to have nuclear weapons, it would undoubtedly change the dynamics of the conflict with Russia. Here are some key points to consider:
1. Deterrence: The primary purpose of nuclear weapons is deterrence, and their possession would likely give Ukraine a significant advantage in deterring further Russian aggression. The threat of a nuclear response would undoubtedly give Putin pause before considering any further military action against Ukraine.
2. International Response: The international community’s response to a nuclear-armed Ukraine would be critical. While some countries might view this development with concern, others might see it as a necessary step for Ukraine’s security and stability. The geopolitical implications of such a scenario would be far-reaching.
3. Escalation and Risk: On the flip side, the presence of nuclear weapons in the region could also increase the risk of a catastrophic escalation in the conflict. The potential for miscalculations and unintended consequences would be significantly higher in a nuclear-armed standoff.
Would Putin Still Have Attacked?
Now, the big question remains: Would Putin still have attacked Ukraine if it had nuclear weapons? This is a complex and speculative question, but it’s worth exploring from different angles:
1. Calculated Risk: Putin’s decision-making is often seen as calculated and strategic. In the face of a nuclear-armed Ukraine, he would have to carefully weigh the potential costs and risks of any further aggression. The calculus of a conflict involving nuclear powers is vastly different from conventional warfare.
2. Strategic Aims: Putin’s aims in the conflict with Ukraine are multi-faceted, including asserting Russian influence in the region and preventing Ukraine from leaning towards the West. The presence of nuclear weapons would likely complicate these aims and could potentially lead to a reevaluation of his approach.
3. International Backlash: A nuclear-armed conflict in Europe would undoubtedly trigger a severe international backlash, both politically and economically. The repercussions of such a scenario would be immense and could significantly undermine Russia’s standing on the world stage.
In conclusion, the hypothetical scenario of a nuclear-armed Ukraine would undoubtedly have far-reaching implications for the conflict with Russia. It’s a complex and multi-dimensional issue that involves considerations of deterrence, international relations, and the potential for catastrophic escalation. While we can’t predict the outcome of such a scenario with certainty, it’s clear that the presence of nuclear weapons would significantly alter the dynamics of the conflict.
As always, the issue of nuclear proliferation and disarmament is a critical topic for global security, and it’s essential to continue exploring peaceful and diplomatic solutions to conflicts such as the one between Russia and Ukraine. Only through dialogue, cooperation, and a commitment to non-proliferation can we hope to prevent the devastating consequences of nuclear warfare.
The best part is that when the soviet union collapsed, Ukraine gave russia their nuclear weapons in exchange for russia agreeing to never attack Ukraine.
Three decades ago, the newly independent country of Ukraine was briefly the third-largest nuclear power in the world.
Thousands of nuclear arms had been left on Ukrainian soil by Moscow after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. But in the years that followed, Ukraine made the decision to completely denuclearize.
In exchange, the U.S., the U.K. and Russia would guarantee Ukraine’s security in a 1994 agreement known as the Budapest Memorandum.
If Ukraine had nukes, the US would want to remove the nukes before starting the orange revolution etc. A country in civil unrest increases the chance they sell nukes to Arabs, the last thing US wants to see.
To compare, the US left North Korea alone, and decimated Muammar Gaddafi, depending on the nuke availability.
(Edited for clarity.)
No country with nuclear arms has ever been invaded and occupied over a large part of its territory, or faced an existential threat to its existence, by conventional military means from another state. Some have faced limited invasions of colonies or contested border regions and met these with conventional force without resorting to nuclear arms.
The possible exception is Israel during the Yom Kippur War- but, Israel is intentionally ambiguous about whether or not it has nuclear weapons, and if the Samson Option is to be believed, holds them in reserve as a final weapon if conventional arms have failed. So, deterrence works differently for them, though it remains the case that the destruction of the state of Israel by force of arms is extremely unlikely, in part because they have the nuclear option.
Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons with guarantees from the western powers and Russia that they’d all defend Ukrainian sovereignty and never allow it to be invaded by Russia
No country with a tiny handful of nuclear warheads can actually *use* them, they are entirely for bluff and bluster.
If Ukraine had 5-6 warheads and used one on Russia, they know perfectly well what would happen: Pootie would use a couple dozen of his *6000* nukes and turn Ukraine into a glass parking lot.
And the same is true for North Korea, Iran, or anyone else who doesn’t have at least several hundred.
They should make a couple they have the material and know how
No, at least if Russia also knew they had nukes
“If I’m a 5’5″ weedy little dicksplash, should I go up and slap a person in the nuts who’s a 6’6″ psychotic bouncer with a baseball bat?”
^^^ That’s what your question sounds like.
Of course not.
When Bush invaded Iraq, he set the current world order. The ONLY way for a country to protect its sovereignty is to have nukes.
this is the equivalent of “if he had a gun aswell he wouldve been able to defend himself”. we dont need more damn nukes
No.
Every country should have a police officer at the border with a gun. Works for schools in Texas!
Ukraine never had the capability to use those nukes. Sure, Ukraine had the physical nukes, but no capability to launch. The codes were in moscow, and Moscow would never give those up.
Ukraine would have had to place the warheads in new missles, and create new launch platforms.
When Ukraine became a state, their focus was not completely collapsing and making sure their citizens were fed. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars building icbms (or regular Ballistic missles) wasnt fesable.
I think he would have still invaded because I don’t think two nuclear powers would have used them yet at this point and Putin would have known that. Ukraine hasn’t escalated in Russia besides some small drone bombs.
Ukraine needs support of the rest of the world and nukes just don’t look very good, even under an existential threat of this degree.
Yeah, Ukraine had no way of maintaining or using what it had
Those were never Ukrainian nukes, they were Soviet nukes that passed on to Russia and Russia retained operational control over them. Ukraine never had means to activate them. Ukraine also never had means to maintain them if they had had them.
If Ukraine decides to forcefully seize actual nuclear weapons Russia will invade to the cheering, if not actual assistance, of NATO.
This is so depressingly pathetic.
So many other things we could be achieving, but this… Is so much more important.
think of it this way — if Canada showed keen interest in invading Montana after the US federal government had collapsed, would they be deterred by Montana’s nuclear missile sites?
If ukraine had nukes, it would have ignited a much larger crisis in 2014. Donbas and crimea would be close to launching nukes against the new regime, considering how they would go as far a teason letting in the russian military.
It would have been a much larger conflict, and it would have happened immediately, when the colors revolution started.
Put it to this way, Russia would not exist as it is today if it didn’t have nukes.
Ukraine gained its independence in return of the nukes. I think if ykraine had the nukes it wouldnt be a war because ukraine wouldnt be a free country. But lets say they somehow managed to get nukes. They dont have the air superiority needed to drop it. I think what would happen is once word got out that ukraine had nukes there would be no civil war no unrest just a whole invasion as we have the last few years just earlier.
Tangential related facts
The collapse of the Soviet Union left Ukraine with with ~1,700 nuclear warheads making it the third largest nuclear power. In 1994 Ukraine agreed to destroy their nuclear assets and sign the the nuclear non proliferation treaty in exchange for security and non aggression assurances from USA, Uk and Russia.
Obviously tho Russia has not upheld this particular treaty.
It’s not like Putin just invaded on a whim. He wanted control of Ukraine since forever, but he was doing it through his puppets like Yanukovich. I’d imagine he’d do something like that more actively if there were any nukes involved
They would never have gotten nukes while Russia is there mate. If they tried the Russians would attack and destroy the whole country(like they do now)
Would we not act if there were missiles in let’s say… Cuba? I don’t think the nukes would’ve stopped it at all