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.
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.
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.
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!
In Crimea, Ukraine military was given a choice - to join Russia or return to Ukraine. Only 3991 of 13468 Ukraine troops returned to Ukraine. Most others (9477) decided to join Russia. Same applies to USS (secret service): only 217 of 1619 went back to Ukraine, the rest (1402) joined Russia. In referendum (on Mar 16, 2014) 97,32% voted to join Russia.
Numbers tell us, that it's not "Russia took Crimea". It's "Crimea ran away from Ukraine".
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.
Actually, Russia trusted US completely up to the moment of bombing of Yugoslavia. That's when trust was destroyed.
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.
In any event, I do think that it is clear that having nuclear weapons has some deterrent effect. 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). Now, one can argue that nukes prevented such conventional hostilities from spiraling out of control, and I'd tend to agree. But I'm not 100% sure about that. Many of these hostilities were, of course, small and I doubt would have been blown out of proportion anyway.
The missile sites and cruise missiles were dismantled by the US, but the nuclear warheads were transferred to Russia.
A breakup of the country does not necessarily result in an escalation to nuclear strikes. We could've had a nuclear exchange long ago between Pakistan and India.
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.
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.
