WheelsAtLarge 15 hours ago | prev | next |

Okay, what am I missing here? One bomb against the thousands that Russia has. What is one rudimentary bomb going to do besides making Ukraine a pariah of the world? The US would not be part of that. Putin would just send a bunch of bombs their way if it was used. I don't see how this is a positive for Ukraine. I don't get it

jltsiren 14 hours ago | root | parent | next |

I think the basic premise is that the rules-based world order is dead, and having nuclear weapons would not make you any more pariah than you already are. If Ukraine is forced to accept an unfavorable peace deal, they would try to build an effective nuclear deterrent. One that could create serious doubts among the top Russian political and military leadership about their ability to personally survive another invasion.

rcxdude 7 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next |

Deterrence, and twisting the arm of NATO. For the war to end, Ukraine needs to believe that Russia won't just turn around and try again in a few years. Realistically, that either means being part of NATO (i.e. that NATO has formally committed to let them join once a peace of some form is agreed) or nukes. They'd rather be part of NATO, nukes are a crappy second option, but they know NATO doesn't like nuclear proliferation, so they will threaten to develop their own nukes if NATO doesn't commit to letting them in.

rasz 6 hours ago | root | parent | prev |

>One bomb against the thousands that Russia has

Are you using movie logic where a guy with a pistol gives up because opponent has a machine gun? One nuke is enough to destroy moscow, maybe even while putin is confirmed in the Kremlin, fitting revenge.

Its not meant to be positive, nothing about defending against war of aggression is positive.

wslh 5 hours ago | root | parent |

I'd like to add to the OP's point that the classic Cold War logic was based on two superpowers or countries with comparable power. In this case, however, we’re dealing with a significant asymmetry in nuclear game theory, which may represent a historically novel scenario.

While it's not exactly related to this topic, the first song that comes to mind when writing this is "First We Take Manhattan" by Leonard Cohen [1][2][3].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_We_Take_Manhattan

[2] https://open.spotify.com/intl-es/track/6UEzGV76d96lYTA68iBO0...

[3] https://open.spotify.com/intl-es/track/6IRkoSxV526waQU14HQ3c...

NikkiA 16 hours ago | prev | next |

Manufacturing consent for Putin to strike first.

rasz 6 hours ago | root | parent |

You are under erroneous assumption that putin needs any incentives/causes. This is one of popular russian talking points - that it was provoked and just had to react.

wslh 5 hours ago | root | parent |

In support of your point, I believe we need to include cross-cultural perspectives in education, as the world operates on diverse forms of logic (or just war!). For instance, while many American books on negotiation advocate for a win-win approach, there are entirely different negotiation frameworks in other cultures, some of which are rooted in win-lose strategies with ulterior motives. One further thought: the emphasis on win-win in American negotiation style may stem from the country’s relatively efficient markets, while in many parts of the world, markets are much less efficient, and power dynamics between buyers and sellers play a significant role. This creates a reality that diverges from the theoretical idea of balanced exchanges based purely on price and value.

wumeow 17 hours ago | prev | next |

> Ukraine could develop a rudimentary nuclear bomb within months if Donald Trump withdraws US military assistance

They should start now. If Tulsi Gabbard is confirmed for Director of National Intelligence in January, any intel the US has on such a program will get sent straight to Putin.

techdragon 13 hours ago | root | parent | next |

They in all likelihood, have already started… to some extent…

Given the geopolitical context it’s extremely unlikely that they were willing to make a statement, even as vaguely shaped as the whole, “nato or nukes and we choose nato” thing was… in essence, why mention nukes are a possibility if you don’t think you can realistically build them?

And this makes a lot of sense, because Ukraine was at the heart of a lot of the most sophisticated work done in the Soviet Union, and as befits their legacy as the birthplace of both nuclear weapons and nuclear power in the Soviet Union, they were (prior to the invasion and war) the 7th largest user of Nuclear power in the world by total output at 13 gigawatts, and they are only beaten by France in terms of how much of their national energy production is powered by nuclear at 55%… they have retained a significant nuclear industry and they were even considering starting up domestic nuclear fuel fabrication prior to the war, which is indicative of them being able to do a lot more than just “run a nuclear power plant”, coupled with their domestic uranium reserves and the wartime entrepreneurial spirit they have brought to the entire field of drone warfare… I don’t doubt that someone somewhere in the government had a thought one day cursing about the failure of their allies to follow their obligations under the Budapest Memorandum, and decided to get some pretty smart people to work out just how hard it would be to get back their nuclear capability. With such a significant nuclear industry, getting plutonium and just skipping all the difficult uranium enrichment stuff would be comparatively easy for them.

And from prior published research on the matter of nuclear proliferation, it’s not as hard as a lot of people would likely presume… in 1964, the USA commissioned the “Nth Country Experiment” which can be sort of summed up as “we took 3 brand new phd physicists with no idea how to make a nuclear weapon, and timed how long it took them to work out how to build one without letting them peek at any of the classified info on how the existing nukes were built, they have to do the work from scratch with just public info and their brain smarts” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nth_Country_Experiment … from scratch with, significantly less information than we all have available to us online today, if took the three of them 3 years to do. Ukraine has all the modern public information you or I have access to, likely a not insignificant amount of leftover classified information from the Soviet era, even if it’s just oral history and the spotty memories of long retired experts who were involved in building Soviet era nukes… and as recently demonstrated in the new domestic tactical missile and long range drone development efforts they have the capability to stand up domestic production of complex weapon systems… I think they know exactly how long it would take, they have a timeline, they have a rough idea what it would look like and they probably have a list of potential delivery platforms from their current arsenal… they just probably haven’t started actually, “making anything”

JSDevOps 16 hours ago | root | parent | prev |

Will it?

cthalupa 16 hours ago | root | parent | next |

Her clear ties to Russia, including Putin, should be of concern to anyone paying attention.

The suspicion isn't even partisan, since once upon a time Republicans were the ones questioning said ties.

aguaviva 3 hours ago | root | parent | prev |

She happily echoes the regime's propaganda, but "ties to Russia" has to mean something more concrete than that.

Care to elaborate?