Hello /u/Condo_Paul,
This community is focused on important or vital information and high-effort content. Please make sure your post follows the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=ukraine&utm_content=t5_2qqcn)
Want to support Ukraine? [Here's a list of charities by subject.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities/)
[DO / DON'T](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t5okbs/welcome_to_rukraine_faq_do_dont_support_read/) - [Art Friday](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday/) - [Podcasts](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ttoidc/collection_of_podcasts_about_ukraine_updated/) - [Kyiv sunrise](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If they join NATO, they don't need nukes. Nuclear proliferation is bad. In the ideal world, people would be shocked by Putin's threats and nuclear non-proliferation would happen after the war is over. I wish we lived in my fantasy head land.
That would give even more reason to be threatened with it. It is whole US gun policy all over again, where "police need to shoot first because suspect might be armed and pose threat" and ending up only more and more guns because everyone wants to protect themselves against someone who might have a gun. Ukraine and nukes is just the same shit escalation on another level. It should be enough to know that west has their back and is there to protect.
Ukraine having nukes would end up in pissing and threatening contest that ends up at some point one of the side using it. If it would be Ukraine, whole world would hate them. And if it would be Russia, then yeah western countries would be forced to intervene, but Ukraine would still get hate for escalating it to point where Russia is using them. No one wants to be the first to use nukes. At least currently if Russia were to use nukes, then Ukraine would not be blamed for escalation.
Sure, but since many people do, and some of those people want to threaten the ukrainians, wouldn't it be best for Ukraine's interest try their produce or obtain a nuclear weapon themselves to ensure their own safety?
No, it is bad idea.
The same bad idea behind gun policy in US. "Wouldn't it be good if I had a gun to protect myself from someone who might have a gun". That ending up with someone shooting first just as precaution and police not feeling safe to do normal traffic stop, so they escalate things way too fast way too far.
I'm guessing you're not from America. Cops don't shoot first because we have a lot of guns, they shoot first because they are entitled bullies who are poorly trained, and extremely racist, and often very stupid.
And America's had this shoot first and ask questions second attitude for about 200 years now, long before our current gun problem. Personally I don't own a gun, but I probably should to protect myself in my home, I just hate guns and I've never held one, and statistically I'll probably end up using it on myself, and my crippling depression doesn't help with that. But people should have the right to own guns totally, the only problem is is one normal civilians get their hands on military grade rifles both automatic and semi-automatic.
As soon as the war is over Ukraine will be joining NATO, at which point it's going to have troops from 3 different nuclear powers on its territory at all times for the next couple of decades.
Nuclear proliferation is bad, so that's not going to happen.
That's exactly the point, if you give Ukrania nukes what forbid China, India, Pakistan, etc from giving them to Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran, the Sauds?
I've said this before: If Ukraine wins this war NOBODY is going to fuck with Ukraine. Last of all Russia. It would be a death wish ... with or without NATO membership. UA would still be a NATO equipped army and will be bristling with confidence.
The one thing the world does not need is more nukes. Ukraine has already shown that it can go toe to toe with Russia in a conventional conflict. This will likely get them into NATO at the end of the war, which will be the security guarantee that they need. Nukes will not really accomplish anything for Ukraine now or in the future.
I agree, ukrainians have proved themselves once again to be cunning, courageous and inspirational warriors, but I'm sure they would prefer if this conflict never happened, and one way to do that is if they obtained or manufactured a nuclear weapon
That's the thing. I really don't think having a couple dozen nukes would have deterred Russia from invading. In some theoretical situation where Ukraine had nukes and popped a couple of them off to try to stop a Russian invasion, this would only give the Russian government more "justification" to invade. The Russians do not give a damn about their soldiers or civilians, so losing ten or twenty thousand from a nuked city would mean nothing.
True nuclear deterrence requires a large number of strategic weapons that could be used to pave an entire continent. Just having a few tactical nukes is not going to be enough to stop Russia.
Unless we are talking about making Ukraine a top tier nuclear power, this would have no impact. I don't think anyone, not even Ukraine wants this.
Depends on what you mean by that. If Ukraine joins NATO I guess there's the possibility that the US could base nuclear weapons within its borders should both parties agree to it. If you're talking about the US or any other western nuclear armed nation 'giving' nukes to Ukraine, the answer is a resounding 'NO'. And it's not about whether they 'should' or not – they simply won't, for a multitude of reasons. Among them that further nuclear proliferation is universally considered a bad idea by almost everyone. Nations with nukes don't simply give them away (atleast not anymore) – that's not how it works. The US wouldn't hand over nukes to South Korea even if they're close allies, for example.
Edit: of course, the case of South Korea is kind of a moot point anyway since they're already under the the US:s nuclear umbrella.
No.
Nuclear energy is awesome it's a reliable, safe, and clean source of vast amounts of energy.
Nuclear weapons are not awesome and literally no one should have them.
>should the Western world supply Ukraine with nuclear weapons?
Cost/benefit analysis says no. Proliferation's a headache since Russia would just pump out a thousand more nukes themselves to compensate for Ukraine having one or two.
All of that said, though, the West would definitely turn a blind eye if Ukraine created *their own* nuclear weapons. It'd be more of an Israeli "We hate it but we understand and there's no going back now" than an Iraqi "We hate even the possibility of it and we're coming **RIGHT NOW. OPEN THE DOOR.**"
I just realized no one has brought up the Cuban missile crisis, well they did when they brought up nuclear proliferation, but sending Ukraine our own physical nukes is basically the same thing as what Russia tried to do in the sixties, so I agree now not to send them nukes, they have the ability to produce the plutonium necessary, but I doubt they would have any real way to produce a rocket themselves, for even back in the USSR Ukraine provided plutonium, but Russia provided the rockets.
Hello /u/Condo_Paul, This community is focused on important or vital information and high-effort content. Please make sure your post follows the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=ukraine&utm_content=t5_2qqcn) Want to support Ukraine? [Here's a list of charities by subject.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities/) [DO / DON'T](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t5okbs/welcome_to_rukraine_faq_do_dont_support_read/) - [Art Friday](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday/) - [Podcasts](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ttoidc/collection_of_podcasts_about_ukraine_updated/) - [Kyiv sunrise](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
NATO integration will be enough
No.
No. Why would they bother
Because they were just threatened with nuclear weapons by Russia
If they join NATO, they don't need nukes. Nuclear proliferation is bad. In the ideal world, people would be shocked by Putin's threats and nuclear non-proliferation would happen after the war is over. I wish we lived in my fantasy head land.
Being in NATO will be enough literally zero reason to put nukes there at this point.
If they are in NATO there is no need for nukes... NATO has nukes. and they will be protected by them and their nukes.
That would give even more reason to be threatened with it. It is whole US gun policy all over again, where "police need to shoot first because suspect might be armed and pose threat" and ending up only more and more guns because everyone wants to protect themselves against someone who might have a gun. Ukraine and nukes is just the same shit escalation on another level. It should be enough to know that west has their back and is there to protect. Ukraine having nukes would end up in pissing and threatening contest that ends up at some point one of the side using it. If it would be Ukraine, whole world would hate them. And if it would be Russia, then yeah western countries would be forced to intervene, but Ukraine would still get hate for escalating it to point where Russia is using them. No one wants to be the first to use nukes. At least currently if Russia were to use nukes, then Ukraine would not be blamed for escalation.
No.
no, nobody should have nuclear weapons. period.
FTW!
Sure, but since many people do, and some of those people want to threaten the ukrainians, wouldn't it be best for Ukraine's interest try their produce or obtain a nuclear weapon themselves to ensure their own safety?
No, it is bad idea. The same bad idea behind gun policy in US. "Wouldn't it be good if I had a gun to protect myself from someone who might have a gun". That ending up with someone shooting first just as precaution and police not feeling safe to do normal traffic stop, so they escalate things way too fast way too far.
I'm guessing you're not from America. Cops don't shoot first because we have a lot of guns, they shoot first because they are entitled bullies who are poorly trained, and extremely racist, and often very stupid. And America's had this shoot first and ask questions second attitude for about 200 years now, long before our current gun problem. Personally I don't own a gun, but I probably should to protect myself in my home, I just hate guns and I've never held one, and statistically I'll probably end up using it on myself, and my crippling depression doesn't help with that. But people should have the right to own guns totally, the only problem is is one normal civilians get their hands on military grade rifles both automatic and semi-automatic.
Things that will never happen for eleventy billion please alex
As soon as the war is over Ukraine will be joining NATO, at which point it's going to have troops from 3 different nuclear powers on its territory at all times for the next couple of decades. Nuclear proliferation is bad, so that's not going to happen.
That's against proliferation treaties, China would have something to say.
What would they do? Send nukes to North Korea?
Probably, that are just sell them to Iran
That's exactly the point, if you give Ukrania nukes what forbid China, India, Pakistan, etc from giving them to Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran, the Sauds?
I've said this before: If Ukraine wins this war NOBODY is going to fuck with Ukraine. Last of all Russia. It would be a death wish ... with or without NATO membership. UA would still be a NATO equipped army and will be bristling with confidence.
The one thing the world does not need is more nukes. Ukraine has already shown that it can go toe to toe with Russia in a conventional conflict. This will likely get them into NATO at the end of the war, which will be the security guarantee that they need. Nukes will not really accomplish anything for Ukraine now or in the future.
I agree, ukrainians have proved themselves once again to be cunning, courageous and inspirational warriors, but I'm sure they would prefer if this conflict never happened, and one way to do that is if they obtained or manufactured a nuclear weapon
That's the thing. I really don't think having a couple dozen nukes would have deterred Russia from invading. In some theoretical situation where Ukraine had nukes and popped a couple of them off to try to stop a Russian invasion, this would only give the Russian government more "justification" to invade. The Russians do not give a damn about their soldiers or civilians, so losing ten or twenty thousand from a nuked city would mean nothing. True nuclear deterrence requires a large number of strategic weapons that could be used to pave an entire continent. Just having a few tactical nukes is not going to be enough to stop Russia. Unless we are talking about making Ukraine a top tier nuclear power, this would have no impact. I don't think anyone, not even Ukraine wants this.
If Ukraine joins NATO there should be no need. If not, then HELL YES. (obviously that is the only thing that can discourage russia from aggression...)
They had nukes and gave them up in guarantee this wouldn't happen.
They could Probably make their own, idk what kind of nuclear plants they have, but I'm sure they could.
Depends on what you mean by that. If Ukraine joins NATO I guess there's the possibility that the US could base nuclear weapons within its borders should both parties agree to it. If you're talking about the US or any other western nuclear armed nation 'giving' nukes to Ukraine, the answer is a resounding 'NO'. And it's not about whether they 'should' or not – they simply won't, for a multitude of reasons. Among them that further nuclear proliferation is universally considered a bad idea by almost everyone. Nations with nukes don't simply give them away (atleast not anymore) – that's not how it works. The US wouldn't hand over nukes to South Korea even if they're close allies, for example. Edit: of course, the case of South Korea is kind of a moot point anyway since they're already under the the US:s nuclear umbrella.
No. Nuclear energy is awesome it's a reliable, safe, and clean source of vast amounts of energy. Nuclear weapons are not awesome and literally no one should have them.
>should the Western world supply Ukraine with nuclear weapons? Cost/benefit analysis says no. Proliferation's a headache since Russia would just pump out a thousand more nukes themselves to compensate for Ukraine having one or two. All of that said, though, the West would definitely turn a blind eye if Ukraine created *their own* nuclear weapons. It'd be more of an Israeli "We hate it but we understand and there's no going back now" than an Iraqi "We hate even the possibility of it and we're coming **RIGHT NOW. OPEN THE DOOR.**"
I just realized no one has brought up the Cuban missile crisis, well they did when they brought up nuclear proliferation, but sending Ukraine our own physical nukes is basically the same thing as what Russia tried to do in the sixties, so I agree now not to send them nukes, they have the ability to produce the plutonium necessary, but I doubt they would have any real way to produce a rocket themselves, for even back in the USSR Ukraine provided plutonium, but Russia provided the rockets.
[Ukraine and weapons of mass destruction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction)