upvote
> Ukraine got rid of nukes and it was massive collosal mistake.

They couldn't operate them, all electronics were in Moscow anyway, nor afford to maintain them or even guard them.

At the very same time Ukraine's corrupted military sold out on the black market tens of billions of weaponry.

In your alternate universe, bad actors acquire and reverse engineer those nuclear weapons resulting in a world that's much more dangerous.

reply
No it would not be more dangerous then current. Lets not pretend Russia is mot more currupt then Ukraine used to be. I dont particularly care whether it is Russia selling them, Ukraine or USA.

Ukraine would be better off keeping them and all of us would be safer.

Because as of now, bad actors (Russia, USA, China) have nukes. Ukraine does not and that is making Russia expand. Meanwhile USA is run entirely but bad actors.

reply
> My point is, Ukraine war and the way it evolved shows that not having nukes is a bad position.

Israel (allegedly? idk) has nukes. Did it stop October 7th? Did it stop Iran from firing ballistic missiles?

The war of today is not an open war (the war in Ukraine did not start on February 24 2022, but in 2014) where nuclear deterrence matters. Nuke will never help if the war is waged through proxies.

reply
To be fair, nuking a piece of land that you claim you own and is also just a few miles away and downwind of your own citizens is a fairly difficult thing to do. Nukes are a great deterrent when it's a place at least 100 miles from your borders, and better if even farther. They're useless in your own backyard.
reply
That's probably not the main reason.

Citing:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47157393

> I've spoken with engineers who worked on nuclear weapons systems, the consensus is that the public is deeply misinformed about how they work, the dangers, and the implications of weapons being used. (...)

> The biggest danger of a nuclear weapon is being hit by flying debris.

> Fusion airburst bombs of the modern era are incredibly clean and radiation is only a risk in a very small area (tens of miles) for a short time (days to weeks). (...)

reply
Your own quotes contradict you. Gaza isn't even 10 miles wide. If nukes are safe from over 10s of miles away, then nuking Gaza would without a doubt endanger Israel since there's no place they could irradiate that would be sufficiently far from them.

Plus if Israel thinks it's fine to use them, then countries that don't like Israel will be glad to get that approval to go ahead with using their own

reply
> Plus if Israel thinks it's fine to use them, then countries that don't like Israel will be glad to get that approval to go ahead with using their own

Now you're getting closer to the real reason ...

reply
Ukraine never had operational control of the missiles in its territory
reply
I am sure Ukrainians who built said nukes wouldn't have much problems figuring it out and building own nuclear program.

Instead believing in bright and peaceful future USA, France and UK promised. As Ukrainian who lived in Ukraine in 90s that felt like being on a frontier of the modern world, giving up the nukes. Oh, how full of hope we were.

reply
By now the nukes would have been useless. You need to have a continuous ballistic and nuclear program to manufacture new nukes and missiles as the old ones become stale.
reply
I think Ukraine would have no problem maintaining it's own nuclear program from purely technical perspective, considering they have a number of nuclear plants and expertise. Plutonium is a byproduct of a nuclear plant, they wouldn't even have to bother with uranium enrichment.
reply
Presumably if you kept your nukes you’d built that capacity
reply
That takes money. Ukraine was very poor in 1993. It's even poorer now.
reply
What an awful take devoid of context. Russia literally defaulted in 1998, and 'somehow' kept the nukes.

And today Ukraine is doing quite amazing, considering 12 years of war. I can only dream what it would be if russians didn't steal a generation. Giving up nukes was a giant mistake.

Back then, giving up on nukes never was about compromising security. In 1993, I remember being full of hope and opportunity to live in peaceful world with less nukes. It felt like we had our backs by France, UK and USA. That was a move full of betrayed optimism, not desperation - giving up third world arsenal because the future is bright.

reply
You also need to maintain vectors, at least functioning ICBMs, which cost quite dearly. And Russia had much more ressources than Ukraine at the time, by the way.
reply
Ukraine absolutely had fleet of functioning ICBMs and strategic bombers. Unlike russia, Ukraine didn't declare bankruptcy.

And pretty sure people who built those ICBMs and strategic bombers would have no issue maintaining them.

USA didn't pressure Ukraine into giving up nukes, at the same time bankrolling russian nuclear program for 'security' reasons.

reply
Ukraine didn't declare bankruptcy because Russia chose to assume 100% of the USSR external debt. Meanwhile, in 1998, Russia had a GDP PPP 80% higher than Ukraine.
reply
This is why usa had to bankroll russki nuclear security program?
reply
It was a non-proliferation issue, I believe? The same could have been said about the pressure for Ukrainians to renounce the nukes. I agree that in retrospect Ukraine would have been safer with nuclear weapons.

However, a lot could have happened in two decades, and Ukraine had to go through many issues typical of post-Soviet countries at the time. The risk associated with warheads being sold by generals or oligarchs was seen as a real one, see for instance:

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-09/press-releases/russi...

reply