The US should give Ukraine back some nuclear weapons (leader, Maine, foreign)
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.
Then if we are not willing to return the nuclear weapons they gave us, we need to uphold the protection of their borders. As a signatory of that agreement, we must uphold it if we are unwilling to return the nuclear weapons they gave up for it.
And we should expect any other country who signed that to help us. But not NATO. F-22s should be moving now, along with B-1s and B-2's.
When you make a agreement, you should keep it. And if we arent willing to return or replace the nuclear weapons, then we should be protecting their borders.
Unfortunately, the Budapest Memo is not legally binding. It was political rhetoric, but there were no legal obligations regarding Ukraine's security.
Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 basically mean that the 3 parties involved will not attack Ukraine.
Here is paragraph 4...
4. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a nonnuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.
Note the highlighted. Russia is not attacking Ukraine with nuclear weapons. There is nothing in the agreement that says anyone is legally obligated to come to Ukraine's aid in the event of a conventional military aggression. Even at the moral plane, the obligation argument is still dubious.
No, no, no. Give Ukraine nukes and they are going to use them. They have nothing to lose at this point. Once they use them, Russia will use them. Then the USA will use them. Then China. Then France. Then Pakistan. Then all the other nations that have them. And once that happens, what do you think that will do for our more pressing concern? The elephant standing in the corner of the room? Climate Change? And the spotted owl? Where does that leave him?
Someone here on CD needs to have a heart-to-heart chat with Sir Carey before proposing giving nukes to Ukraine. Seems some priorities need to be reordered.
Everything was controlled by Moscow.
The nukes too.
Ukraine was never some "country" that you imagine.
It was PART of the Soviet Union, with Moscow as a capitol of it.
Ukraine was never a country and that is due in part to their leaders which had a habit of undermining their princes , and inviting foreign influence. Their nobility adopted Polish culture and then back again to orthodoxy. The actual SSR Ukraine was even less so "a country" because parts of it had nothing to do with Ukrainian anything. There were no Cossacks Zaporians , whatever.
if you want to shed a tear for the russification of Crimea then talk to Stalin however its a bit like having a longing for Comancheria. It was a state based the Golden Hoard and the Mongols. They lost at their own game of hardball.
Thanks to Clinton, Obama and Biden the US is left in jeopardy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer
Did the U.S. take any nukes away from Ukraine?
Did the U.S. ever have any nukes in Ukraine?
In 1992 President Clinton supported the nuclear disarmament of Ukraine, who was third in the world of the largest nuclear weapons, and returned them to Russia.
In 1994 US, UK and Russia signed the Lisbon Protocol to protect Ukraine from aggression.
In 2014 Obama did nothing while Russian backed rebels seized control of Crimea from Ukraine and didn't hold up the promise of 1994.
Obama and then VP Biden were opponents of the fossil - fuel industry and opposed the Keystone pipeline. The restricted drilling set up by Biden had nations turning to Russia for low cost energy.
EU is dependent on Russia for energy and therefore won't stand up to them.
Ukraine signed a agreement with both Russia and the United states. In exchange for them surrendering their nuclear weapons, both Russia and the US agreed to respect their national boundaries.
Obviously this deal has not been held up by the Russian side. To me it seems fair to return or replace the nuclear weapons that were taken.
And start WWIII with complete annihilation? You have shelter deep enough and equipped for years to survive?
Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 basically mean that the 3 parties involved will not attack Ukraine.
Here is paragraph 4...
4. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a nonnuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.
Note the highlighted. Russia is not attacking Ukraine with nuclear weapons. There is nothing in the agreement that says anyone is legally obligated to come to Ukraine's aid in the event of a conventional military aggression. Even at the moral plane, the obligation argument is still dubious.
+1 for reality post.
Wish I could give -1 to posts wishing that some sort of Game of THrones dragon attack might ensue.
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.