Russia kills nuclear non-proliferation!!!!!

[Hercules56]

I'm wondering why the media isn't talking about how Russia's actions have pretty much KILLED nuclear non-proliferation around the world. After what Russia has done and is doing, no nation will ever again give up their nukes or nuclear ambitions.

In 1994, Russia committed to respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders, refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine, and refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.

In exchange for this, Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons.

Literally 20 years later, Russia has VIOLATED these commitments to Ukraine.

Why the $%&# would Iran, North Korea, or any other country give up their nuclear weapons or ambitions, now that its clear that commitments made to nations that do such are worth nothing????

If Ukraine today still had nuclear weapons, Russia wouldn't dare invade Crimea or mass troops on Ukraine's eastern border.

Thanks Russia. You just killed international nuclear non-proliferation.

 

[marplots]

I think you're right.

Just the other day I was thinking, "What I really need, what would make me stand out in my suburban bland-scape, is a nuke." Something in a compact tactical - not too ostentatious or threatening, but enough megatonnage to let my neighbors (and their nasty, nasty kids) know I'm not to be toyed with.

 

[Garrison]

I'm wondering why the media isn't talking about how Russia's actions have pretty much KILLED nuclear non-proliferation around the world. After what Russia has done and is doing, no nation will ever again give up their nukes or nuclear ambitions.

In 1994, Russia committed to respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders, refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine, and refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.

In exchange for this, Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons.

Literally 20 years later, Russia has VIOLATED these commitments to Ukraine.

Why the $%&# would Iran, North Korea, or any other country give up their nuclear weapons or ambitions, now that its clear that commitments made to nations that do such are worth nothing????

If Ukraine today still had nuclear weapons, Russia wouldn't dare invade Crimea or mass troops on Ukraine's eastern border.

Thanks Russia. You just killed international nuclear non-proliferation.

Considerable truth in that; and in broader terms how can you trust Russia to stick to any treaty now?

 

[McHrozni]

Precisely. Putin pretty much destroyed the world security scheme that lasted for so long and worked so well. He made the world a far more dangerous place than it already was, in order to illegaly take over a sliver of land.

It won't be pretty. I do wonder how Ukraine abandoning NNPT, declaring their signature null and void as a result would be seen in Moscow.

McHrozni

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Nonsense. Saint Reagan's wise foreign policy ensured that it would never become an issue again. He spent them into oblivion, peace out.

 

[tyr_13]

Nonsense. Saint Reagan's wise foreign policy ensured that it would never become an issue again. He spent them into oblivion, peace out.

I thought he flew them all into the sun?

 

[GnaGnaMan]

Why the $%&# would Iran, North Korea, or any other country give up their nuclear weapons or ambitions, now that its clear that commitments made to nations that do such are worth nothing????

Neither Iran nor NK are on the russian menu.
Those two want nukes against the USA and the USA sent a strong message with the Iraq war: "You better be able to defend yourselves or else..."

It doesn't matter much, globally, what Russia does because Russia can't project force. Right now, only the US can do that to a significant degree.

 

[marplots]

Maybe this is why we use the word 'sovereign' in the term "sovereign nation."

 

[Crossbow]

I'm wondering why the media isn't talking about how Russia's actions have pretty much KILLED nuclear non-proliferation around the world. After what Russia has done and is doing, no nation will ever again give up their nukes or nuclear ambitions.

In 1994, Russia committed to respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders, refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine, and refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.

In exchange for this, Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons.

Literally 20 years later, Russia has VIOLATED these commitments to Ukraine.

Why the $%&# would Iran, North Korea, or any other country give up their nuclear weapons or ambitions, now that its clear that commitments made to nations that do such are worth nothing????

If Ukraine today still had nuclear weapons, Russia wouldn't dare invade Crimea or mass troops on Ukraine's eastern border.

Thanks Russia. You just killed international nuclear non-proliferation.

I am not so sure about that.

After all, there was never any sort of formal treaty or other solid agreement that Russia would never act against the Ukraine in the future. Instead, there was more of an understanding that Russia would refrain from acting against the Ukraine in the future.

There is a big difference between those two concepts.

I also noticed that Ukraine never made any serious efforts to build up its international support over the years.

Also, while international nuclear non-proliferation has been often stated as being most desirable by the nations that have nuclear weapons, however there are very few nations which have nuclear weapons that have seriously engaged in international nuclear non-proliferation.

Finally, I think that you make a rather rash assumption in stating that "If Ukraine today still had nuclear weapons, Russia wouldn't dare invade Crimea or mass troops on Ukraine's eastern border.". If you will recall recent history, India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, and yet both nations have troops massed against their respective borders. And the USA and the former USSR had many nuclear weapons, and yet had very large military forces posted on their respective borders.

 

[McHrozni]

I am not so sure about that.

After all, there was never any sort of formal treaty or other solid agreement that Russia would never act against the Ukraine in the future. Instead, there was more of an understanding that Russia would refrain from acting against the Ukraine in the future.

If this is used as an argument, then forget about non-proliferation on this world.

McHrozni

 

[Crossbow]

If this is used as an argument, then forget about non-proliferation on this world.

McHrozni

Well, ...

If this is the case, then that implies nuclear non-profileration is (or at least 'was') a serious issue; however, nuclear non-proliferation has never been a serious issue.

While many nations like to talk about nuclear non-proliferation (especially when it suits their immediate purposes) and there is even a treaty about nuclear non-proliferation, but very few nations have actually done anything substanitve about it.

 

[angrysoba]

Considerable truth in that; and in broader terms how can you trust Russia to stick to any treaty now?

There is quite a lot of truth in the fact that by dishonouring the treaty that it now diminishes the worth of such treaties, but really I think such ideas may have been pretty naiive to begin with.

Precisely. Putin pretty much destroyed the world security scheme that lasted for so long and worked so well. He made the world a far more dangerous place than it already was, in order to illegaly take over a sliver of land.

It won't be pretty. I do wonder how Ukraine abandoning NNPT, declaring their signature null and void as a result would be seen in Moscow.

McHrozni

I think we already agreed on another thread that Ukraine is not going to become a nuclear armed power any time soon. It isn't just Russia that don't want Ukraine to have a nuclear weapons programme, but pretty much every other country too. Ukraine simply won't have the money or the know-how to do it and would be thwarted early on anyway.

The deal was to get Ukraine to give up its nukes to prevent loose ones from going elsewhere especially given the notorious corruption of ex-Soviet empire republics.

Besides, as mentioned there are plenty of other reasons why "rogue states" will want nukes and that is because they seem like the best kind of bargaining chips if you can keep hold of them.

Neither Iran nor NK are on the russian menu.
Those two want nukes against the USA and the USA sent a strong message with the Iraq war: "You better be able to defend yourselves or else..."

It doesn't matter much, globally, what Russia does because Russia can't project force. Right now, only the US can do that to a significant degree.

It probably wasn't only Iraq that North Korea looked to as a good reason for getting nukes, but also Libya. Libya's giving up of its nukes was seen as a victory bi-product of the Iraq invasion, but a few years later Gaddafi ended up beaten to a pulp with a knife shoved into his anus. I think there are plenty of dictators around who will want to avoid such a fate and so they will want to prevent "no-fly zones" being imposed on them.

None of this is an option for Ukraine, however, because no one is going to trust them with nukes.

 

[Lorentz]

Considerable truth in that; and in broader terms how can you trust Russia to stick to any treaty now?

Well, absolutely.

On the other hand, would you trust the U.S. to stick to any treaty?

 

[McHrozni]

I think we already agreed on another thread that Ukraine is not going to become a nuclear armed power any time soon. It isn't just Russia that don't want Ukraine to have a nuclear weapons programme, but pretty much every other country too. Ukraine simply won't have the money or the know-how to do it and would be thwarted early on anyway.

The deal was to get Ukraine to give up its nukes to prevent loose ones from going elsewhere especially given the notorious corruption of ex-Soviet empire republics.

Besides, as mentioned there are plenty of other reasons why "rogue states" will want nukes and that is because they seem like the best kind of bargaining chips if you can keep hold of them.

Yes, but you're missing the point - it's not Ukraine we need to worry about. It's that both Iran and NK will want guarantees if they are to disarm. If US doesn't eject Russia from Crimea based on guarantees given in 1994, they could rightfully argue US guarantees are not good enough.

McHrozni

 

[Peephole]

This was already true in 2003 when Bush invaded and occupied the disarmed Iraq.

 

[angrysoba]

Yes, but you're missing the point - it's not Ukraine we need to worry about. It's that both Iran and NK will want guarantees if they are to disarm. If US doesn't eject Russia from Crimea based on guarantees given in 1994, they could rightfully argue US guarantees are not good enough.

McHrozni

They might, but they could have argued that anyway because of Libya.

Besides,

1.) North Korea's regime does not want a security guarantee. Its raison d'etre is based on telling its citizens to endure necessary privations to protect it from the hostile world of the Yankee Imperialist Aggressors and the Japanese Imperialist Reactionaries. What does the regime do after it has signed security promises? Besides, North Korea has already reneged on just about every agreement already going so what makes you think they take such agreements seriously?

2.) The same probably goes for Iran too, except of course that its official stance is that it is doing nothing wrong, has already renounced nuclear weapons and has signed up to a guarantee of its non-nuclear status already; namely the NPT. And if they were to ask for security guarantees they would point to a case in which another pretext could always be found to sweep away their regime anyway, namely...

3.) Libya.

As for Ukraine pulling out of the NPT, as you stated earlier...

Precisely. Putin pretty much destroyed the world security scheme that lasted for so long and worked so well. He made the world a far more dangerous place than it already was, in order to illegaly take over a sliver of land.

It won't be pretty. I do wonder how Ukraine abandoning NNPT, declaring their signature null and void as a result would be seen in Moscow.
McHrozni

I don't see why Ukraine would do such a thing. It would be of no benefit to them as far as I could see.

The NPT is usually a worthwhile treaty to be a member of if you are not yet a nuclear weapon state because you can claim lots of assistance from other countries for "civilian" purposes, which is why most countries that do arm themselves with nukes only pull out of it at the last minute.

 

[fuelair]

I think you're right.

Just the other day I was thinking, "What I really need, what would make me stand out in my suburban bland-scape, is a nuke." Something in a compact tactical - not too ostentatious or threatening, but enough megatonnage to let my neighbors (and their nasty, nasty kids) know I'm not to be toyed with.

A tad of nitroglycerin is quite enough for a neighborhood. Or a smidgeon of weaponized chlorine.

 

[McHrozni]

They might, but they could have argued that anyway because of Libya.

Might, or might not. The case in point is that Ukraine in particular singed a treaty to get rid of nuclear arms, in exchange for security guarantees. When said security guarantees became relevant, Ukraine still lost territory.

It may not seem relevant, but this is a current situation. It could change easily and quickly.

McHrozni

 

[angrysoba]

Might, or might not. The case in point is that Ukraine in particular singed a treaty to get rid of nuclear arms, in exchange for security guarantees. When said security guarantees became relevant, Ukraine still lost territory.

It may not seem relevant, but this is a current situation. It could change easily and quickly.

McHrozni

Unfortunately, they did not sign a treaty. From what I have read, they signed some form of agreement, as the United States, in particular, would not have been able to sign a treaty that required ratification from the Senate.

But anyway, as we all know, the deal was done because of the fear of loose nukes. I don't know the full details of how the agreement came to be signed but my guess is that there was more than an undercurrent of diplomatic threat to it: send back these nukes or we will consider you a rogue state!

Would you personally think that Ukraine or Russia are the more responsible custodians of these nukes, if you had to choose one country? Or better yet would you prefer two countries having large nuclear arsenals or one?

In fact, the argument that Ukraine would not have had Crimea taken from them rather relies on the idea that they would not have been responsible owners to begin with. When Argentina invaded the Falklands Islands, the UK had nuclear weapons. Did the UK use these weapons against Argentina? No, but it seems you and others are arguing that Ukraine should start sabre-rattling with the threat of nukes now that it doesn't even have any.

There's at least one more serious problem, by the looks of things here. (I don't claim to be an expert on these things but I am a skeptic and I have been very skeptical of some of the confident assertions that have been made on this issue which sound more like wishful thinking than rational calculation):

Some people were saying that Russia cannot hold the Crimea because Ukraine would just shut off the water and electricity, especially during the tourist season, but I think that is a bit far-fetched having looked at where Ukraine itself gets energy from.

According to the trusty Wikipedia, not only does "Ukraine depend[ ] on Russia for its supplies of natural gas and oil (which are also produced domestically), although being net-exporter of electricity and coal. Ukraine tries to diversify energy sources."

As for the electricity that Ukraine can shut off from the Crimea, how is it produced?

Ukraine is one of Europe’s largest energy consumers, it consumes almost double the energy of Germany, per unit of GDP.[2] A great share of energy supply in Ukraine comes from nuclear power, with the country receiving most of its nuclear fuel from Russia.

Oh bottom!

 

[McHrozni]

Would you personally think that Ukraine or Russia are the more responsible custodians of these nukes, if you had to choose one country? Or better yet would you prefer two countries having large nuclear arsenals or one?

No, I fully agree that the Bucharest decleration was the best for all concerned. The issue is that Russia violated it so completely as to render it null and void.

In fact, the argument that Ukraine would not have had Crimea taken from them rather relies on the idea that they would not have been responsible owners to begin with. When Argentina invaded the Falklands Islands, the UK had nuclear weapons. Did the UK use these weapons against Argentina? No, but it seems you and others are arguing that Ukraine should start sabre-rattling with the threat of nukes now that it doesn't even have any.

Different situation entirely. Ukraine clearly has no capacity to defy Russia now, which certainly wasn't the case with the Falklands. I'm also certain that Putin wouldn't dare to invade Ukraine, if it had the capacity to essentially destroy Russia. He can return them the destruction in kind, but what has he achieved? Nothing good.

Some people were saying that Russia cannot hold the Crimea because Ukraine would just shut off the water and electricity, especially during the tourist season, but I think that is a bit far-fetched having looked at where Ukraine itself gets energy from.

No, Russia can hold Crimea fine. Even if they have to truck water in, and suffer from chronic blackouts. Crimean economy will collapse for a few years now, that's a given, especiallly if there is a terror campaign by disgruntled Tatars and Ukrainians and others. Extra blackouts and water shortages can make the whole thing notably worse though.

However, it will be a phyrric victory for Russia, regardless of what Ukraine does. They will have to hold a substantial garrison there, to prevent Ukrainian attempts to retake it, plus to discourage rebels. They will have to pour in very substantial resources to keep it financially afloat and to build new infrastructure. They will also get very little income from there for the forseeable future. It won't bankrupt Russia, but it won't benefit it either.

One thing they could do is keep water and power flowing for a few years, until Russia builds some infrastructure to attract tourists, and cut it just as the investment was becoming profitable, making the pain last longer. Reform to be independant from Russia in the meantime.

McHrozni