Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've never understood why a select number of countries can have them, and others not! It doesn't seem fair.
Just think if Vietnam had had them in the late 60's! If Saudi Arabia is allowed to have them, which seem probable, then Iraq, Iran, Yemen should have them as well.
What does fairness have to do with it? Nothing. It's all about managing risk. The more countries that acquire these weapons, the greater the odds of at least a regional nuclear conflict with associated dangers.
Every country that has nuclear weapons will endure an increase in risk when the weapons are acquired by others, so they should be highly motivated to make that not happen.
The countries that may nuclear deterrent the most are likely small, less military capable ones. That is only they can guarantee the sovereignty of their territory. Otherwise, some big power can easily undermine them with little complaints from the rest of the world.
Ukraine is a perfect example of a country that gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange from a written guarantee from Russia and the USA. Ukraine held 1/3 of USSR Nukes when the USSR broke up. Ukraine basically was naive enough to give them all up for guarantee of its territorial integrity in 1994.
Fast forward, 20 years, Russia takes over Crimea from Ukraine. Russia had signed that treaty and other signers only protested. In fact, Russia has been trying to force Ukraine to become its puppet state and take more of its territory. Perfect example, why a treaty doesn't mean anything.
Meanwhile, if Ukraine kept the Nukes and ICBM, Russia would have a real threat. Ukraine could have devasted Russian military bases. As a last resort, they could against Russian Cities.
With a nuclear deterrent, the fate of less powerful countries rests with the world's big powers. For example, almost all East Asian countries are relying on the US to protect them from China. Meanwhile, as another thread here demonstrate, there is military deterrent keeping US from annexing Mexico and the rest of Latin America. I don't think any other country will get dragged into saving another country if there is another large power doing the bullying.
Your own wiki link refutes your argument. First, it really wasn't an option on the table for Ukraine. The world was not going to allow it so Ukraine had a choice - non-nuclear independence or no independence. In addition, your wiki link says the nukes were long-range ICBM's and could have only targeted Russia's far east and would not have been an effective deterrent.
Your own wiki link refutes your argument. First, it really wasn't an option on the table for Ukraine. The world was not going to allow it so Ukraine had a choice - non-nuclear independence or no independence. In addition, your wiki link says the nukes were long-range ICBM's and could have only targeted Russia's far east and would not have been an effective deterrent.
Nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles are two different things. Nuclear warheads are weapons that can be delivered by different platforms. Ballistic missiles are delivery vehicles than can transport different payloads (for example, the rocket that sent Sputnik aloft was derived from an early Soviet ICBM).
Anyway, Ukraine wouldn't have even needed to go to the trouble of cannibalizing ICBMs for their nuclear payloads - the newly-independent Ukraine in 1991 found itself in possession of over a thousand cruise missiles, their nuclear warheads, and several dozen Tu-95 and Tu-160 strategic bombers (the cruise missiles were air-launched). Those Soviet-era cruise missiles (Kh-55s) had a range of about 2000 miles, but can target anything short of that as well. Ukraine also inherited some tactical nukes as well. I cannot find out just what they were - maybe artillery, or mines, or something like this:
That's the Davy Crockett, an American battlefield Jeep-deployed nuclear rocket with a maximum range of 2.5 miles. Yeah, that's a little close for comfort, but on the other hand the warhead it delivered had a yield of 1/1000th that of the Hiroshima bomb. Still...
But they were removed from service by the early 1970s, and if the Soviets ever had anything like them, I doubt they were in service by 1991. The point, however, is that Ukraine inherited many (ie, well over a thousand) nuclear warheads that they could have deployed against Russia.
I do agree that Ukraine effectively had to give them up. They needed a lot of international aid upon independence, and weren't going to get any of it as a nuclear state.
You realize, that Regan promised to Gorbachev non- expansion of NATO in Eastern Europe as a condition of the removal of that wall and an end to the “ Cold War”?
Why it did not happened? Russia was an idiot to believe US.
Why are you surprised then that Russia has to take actions?
The borders of Eastern European countries supposed to stay the same according to those agreements from the 80-90th
Who bombed Serbia and took up its territory and established an independent Kosovo? (which btw, is a drug transit capital of the world)
There are American troops and bases not only in Eastern Europe now, but on the territory of former Soviet Union
How would you feel if Russia has a military base, contingent in Canada and Mexico? And in Cuba?
You are right though, that nuclear deterrent could help small countries:North Korea has it- still independent.
Iraq- not so much!
Good points all. It's not that Ivan hasn't cheated on a few treaties or agreements. But still, we're supposedly better than that.
A better solution would have been to make the European states more responsible for their own security. Momma USA should not still be protecting a very wealthy and degenerate Europe 75 years after the end of WWII.
Our continued protection only allows their codependency, it almost encourages their irresponsibility and lack of facing up to the real world. We have plenty of other fish to fry, the Pacific theater for one.
Countries like the Soviet Union and Red Chin and NoKo etc. are already paranoid.
Turns out that for Russia, it wasn't paranoia, it WAS real.
What would any rational person expect to happen?
After its formation in 1949 with twelve founding members, NATO grew by including Greece and Turkey in 1952 and West Germany in 1955, and then later Spain in 1982. After the Cold War ended, and Germany reunited in 1990, there was a debate in NATO about continued expansion eastward. In 1999, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic joined the organization, amid much debate within the organization and Russian opposition. Another expansion came with the accession of seven Central and Eastern European countries: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. These nations were first invited to start talks of membership during the 2002 Prague summit, and joined NATO shortly before the 2004 Istanbul summit. Albania and Croatia joined on 1 April 2009, prior to the 2009 Strasbourg–Kehl summit. The most recent member state to be added to NATO is Montenegro on 5 June 2017. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO
If we didn't have Nuclear weapons I'm about 90% certain we would have already had a WW3. The only reason super powers had not gone to war is because of the fear of Nuclear weapons.
The countries that may nuclear deterrent the most are likely small, less military capable ones. That is only they can guarantee the sovereignty of their territory. Otherwise, some big power can easily undermine them with little complaints from the rest of the world.
Ukraine is a perfect example of a country that gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange from a written guarantee from Russia and the USA. Ukraine held 1/3 of USSR Nukes when the USSR broke up. Ukraine basically was naive enough to give them all up for guarantee of its territorial integrity in 1994.
Fast forward, 20 years, Russia takes over Crimea from Ukraine. Russia had signed that treaty and other signers only protested. In fact, Russia has been trying to force Ukraine to become its puppet state and take more of its territory. Perfect example, why a treaty doesn't mean anything.
Meanwhile, if Ukraine kept the Nukes and ICBM, Russia would have a real threat. Ukraine could have devasted Russian military bases. As a last resort, they could against Russian Cities.
With a nuclear deterrent, the fate of less powerful countries rests with the world's big powers. For example, almost all East Asian countries are relying on the US to protect them from China. Meanwhile, as another thread here demonstrate, there is military deterrent keeping US from annexing Mexico and the rest of Latin America. I don't think any other country will get dragged into saving another country if there is another large power doing the bullying.
Well, just to clarify, there was no treaty, it was a memorandum and it was non-binding. The Ukrainian economy was in a shattered state at the time, and there would have been no way they could afford to maintain a nuclear arsenal, nor the delivery system for such arsenal. Ukraine also had no means t repair and maintain a nuclear arsenal. As for striking Russia, Ukraine only had ICBMs, so western Russia was not in range of these missiles, so basically useless. Politically, there is no way the West nor Russia would have allowed Ukraine to retain nuclear weapons without severe economic consequences.
Ok, say they did have nukes, and? What, nuke Russia over these actions? That would immediately be detrimental to Ukraine on all fronts. First, Russia's arsenal would respond in kind and two, the West and world would impose severe penalties on Ukraine for launching nukes and killing millions of people.
I've never understood why a select number of countries can have them, and others not! It doesn't seem fair.
Just think if Vietnam had had them in the late 60's! If Saudi Arabia is allowed to have them, which seem probable, then Iraq, Iran, Yemen should have them as well.
The biggest issue is those states stability and keeping them out of nefarious hands.
Saudi Arabia doesn’t have them, and should’t. They’re known to help terrorists, we just don’t press the matter.
If everyone has a nuclear deterrent the more likely someone will use it and end us all.
Emotional arguments are baseless and without merit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
Interestingly, I think there is a strong argument to be made that Russia, as the internationally recognized successor state to the Soviet Union, owned all of the USSR's nukes, no matter where they were stationed.
Wow! You really impressed the hell out of me.
That's exactly right.
Before International Law existed, there were Customary Laws.
Customary Laws are unwritten laws, but everyone follows them anyway. There was a Customary Law of the Sea, Customary Law of Land Usage and Customary Law of Warfare, plus a Customary Law of State Succession.
There was nothing in writing about the Customary Law of the Sea until the Brits wrote it down in the 1950s to become UNCLOS and then later UNCLOS-I and UNCLOS-II.
The Brits and Dutch recognized the Customary Law of Land Usage. That's why the Dutch bought Manhattan Island instead of beating up the tribe and taking their land, and that's also why indigenous tribal groups still to this day live in the New England States (including New York) instead of being forced off on reservations.
Any land that was developed, meaning it had permanent structures of any kind (housing, storage or market structures), or improvements like wells or roads or boundary markers delineating personal property or clan/tribal property was considered to be owned, even if no formal written deed or title existed.
The newly-formed US Government refused to recognize the Customary Law of Land Usage.
Anyway, under International and Customary Law, the successor State owns all the property produced, and gets saddled with all the debt.
In a war of secession in the US, the successor State would be saddle with the federal debt, unless the newly-formed States agree to have the debt apportioned, and all the nuclear weapons, naval vessels and aircraft belong to the successor State, unless an agreement is reached to divide that property.
A newly-formed State might agree to take on a portion of the federal debt in exchange for also getting a few nuclear weapons, some naval vessels and aircraft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
In any event, I do think that it is clear that having nuclear weapons has some deterrent effect.
I think it can be, but it is dependent on what's at stake for the States involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
The extent of this isn't always clear, though, as many countries with nukes will still resort to conventional arms hostilities (think India/Pakistan and India/China in the years since they acquired nukes).
The 1971 Pakistani-Indian War was before both States acquired nuclear weapons.
India's fissile material is Pu-239 and their warheads are far greater in yield than Pakistani warheads. Indian warheads range from 1 kt to 100 kt. A Jaguar could carry a 100 kt Plutonium device.
Indian missile warheads probably range from 20 kt to 80 kt.
Pakistan has only U-235 as a fissile material. That limits their warheads to about 20 kt.
The only aircraft Pakistan has that could carry a 20 kt warhead is the F-16, because they have the C/D models, and those can be modified to carry the warhead on the center pylon.
Pakistan has a lot of 0.1 kt warheads for their 8"/203mm towed and self-propelled guns.
There's a reason why neither the US nor the Russians used U-235 for missile warheads. They couldn't get it to work reliably.
Regarding India and China, China has no theater or battlefield tactical nuclear weapons.
The only warheads China has are ICBM warheads and probably now SLBM warheads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41
Nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles are two different things. Nuclear warheads are weapons that can be delivered by different platforms. Ballistic missiles are delivery vehicles than can transport different payloads (for example, the rocket that sent Sputnik aloft was derived from an early Soviet ICBM).
That's correct.
Not all nuclear warheads can be delivered by aircraft and not all can be delivered by missiles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41
Anyway, Ukraine wouldn't have even needed to go to the trouble of cannibalizing ICBMs for their nuclear payloads - the newly-independent Ukraine in 1991 found itself in possession of over a thousand cruise missiles, their nuclear warheads, and several dozen Tu-95 and Tu-160 strategic bombers (the cruise missiles were air-launched). Those Soviet-era cruise missiles (Kh-55s) had a range of about 2000 miles, but can target anything short of that as well. Ukraine also inherited some tactical nukes as well.
Like the US, Russian warheads are generic.
So, the warhead used for the Tomahawk sea-launched cruise missile was the same as the BGM-109G ground-launched cruise missile which was the same warhead used in the Pershing II.
That warhead was variable yield 0.3 kt to 100 kt.
The air-launched cruise missile had a different warhead that was also variable yield, but from 0.3 kt to 80 kt.
The reason is because the air-launched cruise missile was originally designed for the B-52G/H series bombers. The missiles were stored internally in a cylinder, just like the cylinder on a revolver. The cylinder dropped down from the bomb-bay and fired, then the cylinder rotated and fired, and rotated and fired like that.
Because the cylinder bays are narrow in diameter, both the missile and the warhead had to have a narrow diameter.
The tactical nuclear weapons that Ukraine has are just like those of Russia and they include a 1 kt enhanced radiation warhead, or "neutron bomb" if you prefer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41
That's the Davy Crockett, an American battlefield Jeep-deployed nuclear rocket with a maximum range of 2.5 miles. Yeah, that's a little close for comfort, but on the other hand the warhead it delivered had a yield of 1/1000th that of the Hiroshima bomb. Still...
But they were removed from service by the early 1970s, and if the Soviets ever had anything like them, I doubt they were in service by 1991.
Ooops....wrong answer.
The weapon was out of service, but not the warhead.
The Davy Crockett warhead and ADM warhead were one in the same, and the ADMs were removed starting October 1986.
That was a multiple yield warhead up to 1 kt.
Multiple yield is different than variable yield.
For a 100 kt variable yield warhead, you have a 12 kt fission trigger, plus fusion fuel that is deuterium or deuterium-tritium.
When you talk to the bomb, and tell it 100 kt, that's what it does.
But if you tell the bomb 60 kt, then during the primary arming sequence, a valve opens and bleeds off a small quantity of deuterium, then it goes through the secondary arming sequence and fires and you get 60 kt.
If you want 12 kt, you just tell the bomb to bleed off all the deuterium.
For yields less than 12 kt, you manipulate the 72 plastic explosive lenses. For a yield of 0.3 kt you fire off 6 of the plastic explosive lenses instead of all 72.
The Davy Crockett/ADM was multiple yield and your only choices were 0.01 kt, 0.1 kt and 1 kt.
On this warhead there were 36 plastic explosive lenses, and when you select the yield it only fires off certain ones.
The Russians had those, too.
Do the Russians still have them? Maybe.
They're quite useful, especially since their only 9" in diameter with a height of 13" and weighed 52 pounds.
It would literally fit in a back-pack and can easily be carried.
Pu-239 has a spontaneous fission rate of 20,000 fissions per second per kilogram and that weapon had 4.3 kg Pu-239 so the Russian weapon would have about the same.
Do the math.
Will it work? Sure, but it won't have a yield of 1 kt. Figure that Pu-239 was probably made in the late 1950s or early 1960s. 1959 would be a good guess, so it's 2019 and that's 60 years. The max yield would probably be around 0.8 kt.
Emotional arguments are baseless and without merit.
Wow! You really impressed the hell out of me.
That's exactly right.
Before International Law existed, there were Customary Laws.
Customary Laws are unwritten laws, but everyone follows them anyway. There was a Customary Law of the Sea, Customary Law of Land Usage and Customary Law of Warfare, plus a Customary Law of State Succession.
There was nothing in writing about the Customary Law of the Sea until the Brits wrote it down in the 1950s to become UNCLOS and then later UNCLOS-I and UNCLOS-II.
The Brits and Dutch recognized the Customary Law of Land Usage. That's why the Dutch bought Manhattan Island instead of beating up the tribe and taking their land, and that's also why indigenous tribal groups still to this day live in the New England States (including New York) instead of being forced off on reservations.
Any land that was developed, meaning it had permanent structures of any kind (housing, storage or market structures), or improvements like wells or roads or boundary markers delineating personal property or clan/tribal property was considered to be owned, even if no formal written deed or title existed.
The newly-formed US Government refused to recognize the Customary Law of Land Usage.
Anyway, under International and Customary Law, the successor State owns all the property produced, and gets saddled with all the debt.
In a war of secession in the US, the successor State would be saddle with the federal debt, unless the newly-formed States agree to have the debt apportioned, and all the nuclear weapons, naval vessels and aircraft belong to the successor State, unless an agreement is reached to divide that property.
A newly-formed State might agree to take on a portion of the federal debt in exchange for also getting a few nuclear weapons, some naval vessels and aircraft.
I think it can be, but it is dependent on what's at stake for the States involved.
The 1971 Pakistani-Indian War was before both States acquired nuclear weapons.
India's fissile material is Pu-239 and their warheads are far greater in yield than Pakistani warheads. Indian warheads range from 1 kt to 100 kt. A Jaguar could carry a 100 kt Plutonium device.
Indian missile warheads probably range from 20 kt to 80 kt.
Pakistan has only U-235 as a fissile material. That limits their warheads to about 20 kt.
The only aircraft Pakistan has that could carry a 20 kt warhead is the F-16, because they have the C/D models, and those can be modified to carry the warhead on the center pylon.
Pakistan has a lot of 0.1 kt warheads for their 8"/203mm towed and self-propelled guns.
There's a reason why neither the US nor the Russians used U-235 for missile warheads. They couldn't get it to work reliably.
Regarding India and China, China has no theater or battlefield tactical nuclear weapons.
The only warheads China has are ICBM warheads and probably now SLBM warheads.
That's correct.
Not all nuclear warheads can be delivered by aircraft and not all can be delivered by missiles.
Like the US, Russian warheads are generic.
So, the warhead used for the Tomahawk sea-launched cruise missile was the same as the BGM-109G ground-launched cruise missile which was the same warhead used in the Pershing II.
That warhead was variable yield 0.3 kt to 100 kt.
The air-launched cruise missile had a different warhead that was also variable yield, but from 0.3 kt to 80 kt.
The reason is because the air-launched cruise missile was originally designed for the B-52G/H series bombers. The missiles were stored internally in a cylinder, just like the cylinder on a revolver. The cylinder dropped down from the bomb-bay and fired, then the cylinder rotated and fired, and rotated and fired like that.
Because the cylinder bays are narrow in diameter, both the missile and the warhead had to have a narrow diameter.
The tactical nuclear weapons that Ukraine has are just like those of Russia and they include a 1 kt enhanced radiation warhead, or "neutron bomb" if you prefer.
Ooops....wrong answer.
The weapon was out of service, but not the warhead.
The Davy Crockett warhead and ADM warhead were one in the same, and the ADMs were removed starting October 1986.
That was a multiple yield warhead up to 1 kt.
Multiple yield is different than variable yield.
For a 100 kt variable yield warhead, you have a 12 kt fission trigger, plus fusion fuel that is deuterium or deuterium-tritium.
When you talk to the bomb, and tell it 100 kt, that's what it does.
But if you tell the bomb 60 kt, then during the primary arming sequence, a valve opens and bleeds off a small quantity of deuterium, then it goes through the secondary arming sequence and fires and you get 60 kt.
If you want 12 kt, you just tell the bomb to bleed off all the deuterium.
For yields less than 12 kt, you manipulate the 72 plastic explosive lenses. For a yield of 0.3 kt you fire off 6 of the plastic explosive lenses instead of all 72.
The Davy Crockett/ADM was multiple yield and your only choices were 0.01 kt, 0.1 kt and 1 kt.
On this warhead there were 36 plastic explosive lenses, and when you select the yield it only fires off certain ones.
The Russians had those, too.
Do the Russians still have them? Maybe.
They're quite useful, especially since their only 9" in diameter with a height of 13" and weighed 52 pounds.
It would literally fit in a back-pack and can easily be carried.
Pu-239 has a spontaneous fission rate of 20,000 fissions per second per kilogram and that weapon had 4.3 kg Pu-239 so the Russian weapon would have about the same.
Do the math.
Will it work? Sure, but it won't have a yield of 1 kt. Figure that Pu-239 was probably made in the late 1950s or early 1960s. 1959 would be a good guess, so it's 2019 and that's 60 years. The max yield would probably be around 0.8 kt.
Still deadly.
If I recall my studies correctly, India and Pakistan have had armed conflicts/skirmages since both became nuclear powers. Nothing as intense as their battles pre nuclear weapons acquisition but the point remains.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
