A nice idea, but not crazy about the mushroom cloud icon.
Ironic, given Ukraine wouldn’t be in this situation had it not given up its nuclear weapons on the back of promises—from the U.K., U.S. and Russia—that its territory would be respected [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
The section of the Soviet military controlling those nukes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/43rd_Rocket_Army) became a part of the Ukranian military. Why wouldn't their equipment?
“Until then, Ukraine had the world's third-largest nuclear weapons stockpile, of which Ukraine had physical, but not operational, control. Russia alone controlled the codes needed to operate. Their use was dependent on Russian-controlled electronic Permissive Action Links and the Russian command and control system” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
If Ukraine had held on to those nukes, disconnected, an engineer today could re-work them to function under Kiev’s command. (American PALs from the era have de-classified weaknesses that merited upgrades. Post-USSR nuclear safekeeping was roundly criticised for decades [1].)
Even barring that, possessing fissile material is no small feat. It would give Kiev the credible capability to e.g. threaten large sections of Russian agricultural production. That’s the sort of thing that deters tanks.
I don't know where they got it, the book author cited in Wiki. The man cited read too much Tom Clancy I guess.
USSR nuclear weapons had no permissive action links as such
Kazakhstan's, and Ukrainian's nukes were fully operational, sans confused nuclear weapons officer command chain.
The launch codes were employed, but they were used solely for checking the authenticity of launch, and targetting commands.
I agree with some of what you say, but "the Soviet Union ceased to exist" is too simplistic. The codes necessary for firing the weapons (without modification) were controlled by military leaders largely in Russia.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/01/21/air-force-swears-our-nu...
This is a myth. There was a discussion in the midst of a negotiation that mentioned this. The final agreement, the Budapest Memorandum, which everyone is presently violating, did not.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017...
It just didnt appear in any treaty.
For the Soviet Union I think the notion that diplomatic assurances were meaningless unless backed by a treaty wasnt considered.
If you and I are negotiating the purchase and sale of a car, I say 10, you acknowledge my 10 and say 20, and we settle on 15, my heirs can’t later claim you said 10 and so agreed to it. That is the nonsense argument being raised here.
Even Gorbachev, to whom these statements were made, concurs he never understood there to be an agreement.
[1] https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-...
The Fifth French Republic may be the successor to the Fourth, but that doesn't mean Algeria is still French.
Either you brick a nuke in which case your boss bricks you, or the nuke bricks you and your local region.
Edit: Physically getting hold of a UK nuke might be a bit tricky....
This was a plot device in the popular Fallout games. Where a city had built up around a nuclear bomb which failed to detonate during a nuclear war.
Are these still basically a soccer ball of explosives encircling a core of subcritical nuclear material that "just" needs to be compressed?
I think all of my knowledge of nukes might be based on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manhattan_Project_(film) xD
You're effecting physical operations (movement, explosions) on such tight timescales that the software becomes part of the hardware. You can't just run the code on a different setup: the code is defined by the hardware it's running on, because it's orchestrating the physical properties of the hardware it's running on.
As an analogy, think about programming early video game systems or computers, where a single clock cycle was critical. Is the software just software? Or is it intertwined with the hardware it's running on? (See: emulators having to mimic actual hardware performance)
You can replace the timing and electronics mechanism prior to that network, but probably any sort of tamper resistant mechanism for a weapon will remove part of that network of switches if removed from the device. The rest of the controls are just too easy to replace to be effective at keeping someone from a roll your own type solution.
You'd be just as dead.
That said, Command Disable mechanisms on modern weapons don't result in a loud bang. However, there's no guarantee those mechanisms are all that are used in mechanisms which may deter physical penetration of vital areas of the weapon.
If an accidental detonation means just triggering some of the explosives, then yes, you'd get a dirty bomb. However, it's actually more likely that the bomb would actually detonate than the explosives being partially set off... they're designed specifically to be hard to detonate unless the actual detonator mechanism is used.
A 5 MT hydrogen bomb that "only" yields 750 kt of explosive power is a fizzle, but you don't want to be anywhere near when it happens.
2. Even if all the conventional explosions are worthless, you still have all the nuclear material and other extremely sophisticated equipment involved with boosting, etc. It's not like creating new nukes from scratch.
I think for this conversation to continue productively, we need experts to weigh in on these issues.
Presumably they would be part of the red army?
Possession is nine-tenths of the law [1].
Soviet weapons in Ukraine serviced by Russia when the Soviet Union dissolved had no clear owner. Russia would have had to seize them to gain control. Ukraine would have needed to develop or contract out servicing expertise.
To say nothing of the threat even inoperable nukes pose. If Ukraine had unserviced warheads in 2014, do you really think they would have found nobody who could get them working again?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_t...
They ended up with the 3rd largest nuclear stockpile and whilst they would probably would get invaded by both sides if they didn’t surrender the nukes and attempted to assert operational control over them they surely had that capability.
Also back then the primary fear was that some of those nukes would end up on the open market, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, North Korea heck even South Africa back then were all likely buyers.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_ma...
tl;dr: treaties are PR shams
Your body is correct though: Now why the US follows a counter-pattern and why Ukraine did not ask for ratification is another discussion, that I consider to be long term harmful.
From the Ukraine's side/pov: it will be politically not wise for the U.S.A. to back out of the protection treaty. There is good will capital that is lost, just for allowing this 8 year situation to occur.
Nobody in this thread claimed it was. A signed memorandum is still a promise and an agreement, even if not ratified as a treaty. We broke an agreement with Ukraine, letting her get sacked. We didn’t breach a treaty.
Lies on a handshake may not get far in court. They’re still lies.
It would have become the russian version of the Cuban Missile Crisis.