|
Replies: 20
| visibility 640
|
Lot o points [155906]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65821
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Hypothetical Ukraine question
Mar 25, 2022, 10:41 AM
|
|
I’m asking this from a complete layman’s position…I don’t even have a YouTube mastery of the topic, so I’ll say in advance the theory could be moronic.
Let’s say you’re Ukraine though, and you have a massive percent of the Soviet nuclear arsenal. In the 90’s you agree to destroy them all. Just from a human nature level, do you REALLY destroy them all? It seems less likely to me that they would adhere to that moreso than that they’d keep a couple hidden away in their back pocket.
Maybe they’d have mentioned it already if my theory was accurate, but maybe they’re saving it for Russia rolling out the nukes/WMD’s.
Zany theory I guess, but just a thought.
|
|
|
|
 |
All-TigerNet [13107]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14105
Joined: 11/2/15
|
Re: Hypothetical Ukraine question
Mar 25, 2022, 10:55 AM
|
|
They did keep many of the weapons, and used piles of "destroyed" weapons as proof they had destroyed all of them. Whoops, we thought we could just destroy them all and pile it up, our bad.
Unfortunately Ukraine sold the remaining in-tact weapons to China, in a deal brokered by BHR Partners. Good stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155906]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65821
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Ok, good info—- I’ll amend my question.
Mar 25, 2022, 11:13 AM
|
|
Do you REALLY sell them all to China?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2693]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3411
Joined: 7/3/07
|
defeats the whole point of nukes
Mar 25, 2022, 11:23 AM
|
|
which is deterrence.
The time to advertise that you have nukes is right before you are invaded.
occam's razor
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155906]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65821
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Logically, I think you’re correct.
Mar 25, 2022, 12:11 PM
|
|
That’s likely more probable. I could also see that revelation being the justification Putin wanted for a heavier-handed invasion on a silver platter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20540]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11684
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: Logically, I think you’re correct.
Mar 25, 2022, 12:21 PM
|
|
If Putin doesn't gas some civvies on the way out, something or somebody compelled him not to. Otherwise I'm almost 100% he's going to.
Right now he looks like an inept clown, and worse, he looks weak. Which means on the way out he's got to give the world something to remind us all why we need to fear him.
He's always delighted in crossing those lines before, just to show he will. He killed one guy with a radioactive isotope. He's killed and attacked others with nerve agent. He poisoned Navalny right in public...and he did it with this painful, agonizing nerve toxin that had Navalny screaming out loud n the plane where he was poisoned. (It was awful to listen to.)
He's always shown he desperately wants the world to love him and respect him, but he's failed at that. At the end of the day, I think he'll settle for being feared.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13107]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14105
Joined: 11/2/15
|
Re: Ok, good info—- I’ll amend my question.
Mar 25, 2022, 11:27 AM
[ in reply to Ok, good info—- I’ll amend my question. ] |
|
lol, good question. I know what most people will do when they have to give up “all” of their guns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20540]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11684
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: Ok, good info—- I’ll amend my question.
Mar 25, 2022, 11:52 AM
|
|
Strangely I agree with you on something.
I very much doubt Ukraine gave up everything they have. I wouldn't, you wouldn't. Why would they?
I'm with Obed on this. Save a couple for a rainy day, you never know when you might need 'em.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137913]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63801
Joined: 10/22/00
|
Speaking of rainy days and nukes,
Mar 25, 2022, 12:04 PM
|
|
I've read that you can kill hurricanes with nuclear explosions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8837
Joined: 10/31/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24767]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42486
Joined: 7/31/10
|
A youthful Kissinger... Where's he hiding these days?***
Mar 25, 2022, 11:34 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Equally ignorant ...I would say that while the motivation
Mar 25, 2022, 11:26 AM
|
|
is there to hold back a couple, doing so would be a lot harder than one thinks. First, I would think they are accounted for, a higher tech version of a number painted on the side. And if you can work around that, hiding them is hard. Simply moving them is danged near impossible, I would think.
And the motivation might not be all that great. If, Russia, China or the US uses theirs, they have some plan for surviving the outcome, however bleak that might be. They are strategic weapons, a strategy all by themselves. If Ukraine uses one, not a Ukrainian anywhere survives; there is no strategic value.
That is the most uninformed take ever, which places all my others in a tie for second.
Edit: I meant mine most uninformed. @obed is at worst moderately informed.
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5676]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 12157
Joined: 9/28/08
|
Re: Equally ignorant ...I would say that while the motivation
Mar 25, 2022, 3:02 PM
|
|
Yeah, he admitted to ignorance though, so I am cutting him a break.
Tulsa is correct. We (the US) are pretty sure there is a good accounting of all the weapons. The US spent billions in the FSU helping to dismantle and store weapons. I was involved in it tangentially and even went to Austria to the IAEA for negotiations with Russians related to this stuff.
China has plenty of weapons - don't need any others.
The infrastructure required to properly care and feed for these weapons is enormous. GINORMOUS! Takes a lot of people with a lot of expertise and expensive equipment.
With respect to Russia's nuclear arsenal...I do not want to ever be proven right (or worse, wrong) on this, but I suspect if Russia launched 100 ICBMs against the US that few would detonate on their intended targets. Again, the money it takes to deal with nuclear weapons is massive. Russian nukes are old - some very old just like in the US. You can't just dust these things off after 40 years and expect them to go off like clockwork. There's a lot of chit that has to work perfectly in series for the weapon to fly to the right location and detonate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155906]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65821
Joined: 5/6/13
|
HEY!!!!***
Mar 25, 2022, 3:33 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5072]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5618
Joined: 8/17/03
|
Re: Hypothetical Ukraine question
Mar 25, 2022, 11:37 AM
|
|
I'd be shocked. As others have said, the biggest advantage to having nukes is having other countries know you have nukes.
Also, let's say they put away a few nukes and decided to use them against Russia. Maybe they cause a ton of damage to a few Russian cities and kill millions of Russians, but it wouldn't be enough to wipe Russia completely out. Then they'd be facing a situation where all their allies including the US turn on them. Maybe those allies don't directly attack Ukraine, but they'd certainly denounce the attack and stop giving any aid. Then you'd be all alone facing a highly pissed off Russia that has thousands of nukes ready to erase you from Earth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8837
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Hypothetical Ukraine question
Mar 25, 2022, 11:44 AM
|
|
My guess would be that they have something, though what I don't know.
Keep in mind that not every nuke is a megaton type. The US army conceptualized a nuclear hand grenade in the 1950's. But back then the smallest they could get, with the requirements of critical mass and technology all that, was about a 30-40 lb warhead, fired from this ...
It had a blast radios of about 200 yards. Tiny, compared to WW2 or Tsar Bomba.
Still, the idea of "using nukes" has such a stigma, even if it's only big enough to blow up a football stadium, that you might as well stick with conventionals. It's kind of the irony of nukes. We finally invented a weapon that for all intents and purposes, no one can use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24767]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42486
Joined: 7/31/10
|
Yet... (again).***
Mar 25, 2022, 11:51 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5676]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 12157
Joined: 9/28/08
|
Re: Hypothetical Ukraine question
Mar 25, 2022, 3:11 PM
[ in reply to Re: Hypothetical Ukraine question ] |
|
Army had lots of 155 mm and 8-inch nuke warheads. They are all gone now. I'm sure Soviets had similar...
"A principal concern expressed by opponents was that by virtue of the lower yield and greater utility of Enhanced Radiation weapons, their deployment would serve to lower the threshold for nuclear war. This controversy led to a 1985 Congressional order that future W79s be built without the ER capability, and existing units were modified to remove this capability."
https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/w79.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8837
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Hypothetical Ukraine question
Mar 25, 2022, 11:55 AM
|
|
It's actually a really, really scary thought. Don't forget that in Cuba in the Bay of Pigs, there were medium ranged nukes that could reach Miami, and under LOCAL control.
So any ground commander who just got a hair up his axx over anything could have decided, "Welp, it feels like the right time to use time to me."
We didn't even know this until the 1990's I think, when it came out at a summit where a lot of the commanders at the time had a reunion of sorts on saving the world.
If there's EVER a time you want heavy-handed, top down command control, it's with nukes. I'd just as soon not have Gomer Pyle making the decision to use one or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8984]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9785
Joined: 4/27/13
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20540]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11684
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: Hypothetical Ukraine question
Mar 25, 2022, 3:52 PM
|
|
That kind of thing is exactly my concern.
The Soviets were corrupt as sin. That much hasn't changed.
One guy I know commented that most of the Russian ICBM's were in waterlogged silos where the pumps didn't even work anymore, and were mostly just sitting there in their underground holes rusting away. The only way those missiles would ever leave the silos, he said, was if we set the nukes off first. So that very much squares with what NC said.
But how certain are we that we got all the nuclear material? Because that's what spooks me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 20
| visibility 640
|
|
|
50
