Why aren’t we giving Ukraine what it needs? | Hacker News Reader

Why aren’t we giving Ukraine what it needs?

spectator.co.uk

6 pointsacqbu18 comments

>By Boris Johnson

Because I would rather to have our hard earned tax money to go to fix our infrastructure, healthcare, and housing crisis for a starter.

I guess there are deals in place which companies profit most of rebuilding Ukraine. It won’t be of countries not helping I assume. So it could be a net positive outcome even tax wise to help as fast and good as possible for Ukraine to win the war.

We need to send Ukraine and Israel a bill for services rendered. Our roads and bridges are starting to look like haiti.

if you cut all the "moral crap" about of the war in ukraine:

because nobody wants to die in a nuclear apocalypse!?

> if you cut all the "moral crap" about of the war in ukraine: > because nobody wants to die in a nuclear apocalypse!?

I actually firmly believe that leaving Ukraine on its own to be steam rolled by Russia would of increased the worlds chances of a nuclear led extinction event in the near future (10+ years) by a drastic amount.

Think about, Ukraine willing gave up their own nuclear weapons in exchange for promises/pledges/assurances whatever you want to call it really, from multiple countries including Russia that their sovereignty would be respected.

If we don't help Ukraine when that promise is being broken what we are telling all other countries is "give up your nukes and your enemies with nukes are free to invade".

No on one would ever give up there nukes willing again, and nuclear proliferation would go through the roof with every country looking to counter every other countries nuclear weapons.

Ukraine never had 'its own' nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons from the USSR and then under the operational control of Russia were stationed on its territory. A lot of them.

They could probably not afford to keep them and to maintain them, they didn't have full control over them at the time, and my understanding is that most of them were ICBMs, so more useful against the US than against neighbouring countries.

Lastly, it's also most probable that no-one wanted Ukraine to have nukes so everyone 'nudged' them into the 'right' direction at a time when they were rock-bottom. Obviously promises are worthless but they can help sweeten things a bit.

Now, countries that have nuclear weapons now know why they do and aren't going to give them up unilaterally in any case. It is not easy to develop nuclear weapons, either.

So, overall the topic is a red herring.

> Now, countries that have nuclear weapons now know why they do and aren't going to give them up unilaterally in any case. It is not easy to develop nuclear weapons, either.

It's not hard to make simple fission bombs like fat man and little boy that do a lot of damage, its likely within the realm of most nation states to do so if they wished.

The hard part is the delivery mechanism.

A delivery mechanism is less hard if your looking to stave off enemies at your border though.

There is no reason that giving now what is needed would lead to an apocalypse.

No-one has interest in Russia losing in a way that would cause instability within Russia up to possibly a civil war. No-one wants to see the return of the chaos of the 90s, including risk of nuclear dissemination.

The continuation of the war also suits interests, especially for the US, broadly by ensuring a continuing split between Russia and Europe and by creating headaches for China, as well as, of course, keeping Russia isolated and weakened.

Is there a way to loose without causing instability? Is instability even avoidable since one day the emperor will die.

I am sure plenty of expert analysts have been working on scenarios of what would happen if Putin was toppled or/and if Russia was totally humiliated in Ukraine. Maybe those in charge do not like the most likely ones.

If it is unavoidable anyway because putin will die some day there is no reason to prolong the war - is it?

The question isn't whether Putin will leave power someday: He will, that is indeed a fact. The question is what would happened if he did now, especially if he were to be toppled. If the US reckon that he outcome would not be good for them compared to the current situation then they won't push for it but rather wait and/or maneuver to change the conditions so that the likelihood of a better outcome increases.

They need nukes, 20 new arimies, and all of the weapons in the west.

Without those they cannot win. Simple as that.

No war can be won with nukes. If they have any use at all it is to prevent hot wars. Simple as that.

Except the war in the pacific, which needed two atomic bombs to "win" it.

> "moral crap"

Whatever country you are from, consider which parts of it you would willingly give up to make other people feel a bit safer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com