[etangent]

The episode starts with a strawman (that Ukraine never had nukes) and proceeds to beat it up. It's a strawman for reasons I will not go into for long, but ones that should be obvious to a fourth grader: physical possession of an object as well as of factories used to make it (which Ukraine also had) are far more important than electronic systems of control. This now classic 1993 paper by Mearsheimer is a much more clear-eyed take, his recent positions notwithstanding. https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Mears...

Aside from either, how many nuclear states have been invaded in the past 80 years? Apart from Ukraine's incursion into Russia's Kursk oblast last summer, the answer is a big fat zero. Finally (and this also applies to my post), social media is the worst place for any foreign policy discussion because it offers asymmetric returns to a foreign actor attempting to subvert a country's policy who happens to speak the country's language, and English is a very popular international language spoken by many people abroad at this point in history.

[aguaviva]

How many nuclear states have been invaded in the past 80 years? Aside from Ukraine invading Russia's Kursk oblast last summer, the answer is a big fat zero.

The answer is Israel was subject to a full-scale invasion in 1973, despite having nuclear weapons since 1966. There have been regular border skirmishes between India and Pakistan since long after they both went nuclear. We also have Argentina's seizure of the Falkland Islands in 1982.

[jjk166]

Israel didn't, and still hasn't, claimed to possess nuclear weapons. While it now is widely believed they do, that is far less of a deterrent. It's also worth noting that the US, one of Israel's closest allies and possessing arguably the best intelligence apparatus in the world, was not aware that Israel had the bomb until 1975, it's extremely doubtful the surrounding arab states knew earlier.

None of the conflicts between India and Pakistan since either of the powers got Nuclear weapons (1974 and 1998, respectively) could be reasonably characterized as invasions.

The Falkland islands are a British overseas territory. They are self governing, but the UK is responsible for their defense and foreing affairs. Classic protectorate. Obviously invading the Falklands is very different from invading the UK.

[talldayo]

There has not been much of a question surrounding Israel's nuclear capability since the Apollo Affair: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_affair

I guess you could look at their non-admission as evidence to the contrary, but it's not like they're selling enriched uranium as a souvenir to tourists at Ben Gurion international.

[jjk166]

The apollo affair was reported in 1976.

Further, while it was widely suspected Israel had a nuclear weapons program, that's a very different thing than having a bomb. Iran is believed to have had a nuclear weapons program. So have many countries.

[sedan_baklazhan]

What matters is that the Falkland islands are considered to be a part of UK's sovereign territory.

[jjk166]

That's very much not what matters. If you wanted to travel to the UK and your plane took you to the Falkland Islands, you'd be very pissed off and say "you didn't take me to the UK!" If someone says "where is the UK?" the correct answer is not "the south Atlantic." There is the United Kingdom the nation and United Kingdom the place. An invasion means troops in the place.

[sedan_baklazhan]

You are being childish.

[jjk166]

You're being obtuse. We all know what parent comment meant, what any reasonable person means when they use the term invade.

[talldayo]

> (physical possession of an object as well as of factories used to produce are far more important than electronic systems of control).

Sure, but I don't think you understand what goes into keeping nuclear weapons ready. Even assuming Ukraine can manufacture the complete supply chain required for ICBMs, they still have to make and maintain their own warheads. That means either refining nuclear material domestically (where it will get destroyed at any cost by Russia) or importing it from an ally a-la the United States who has no desire to deal with the consequences of that. Ukraine is a strong country, but they cannot sabre-rattle the way Russia can.

Also, I don't think you can cherry-pick Mearsheimer so easily. Even in Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent we see him discounting NATO as an impotent defense, an assumption that that very much isn't true today and one that he (somehow) still seems to believe in. I think his essay is showing it's age, and then some.

[etangent]

Read Mearsheimer's paper again. Nuclear deterrent is far cheaper than equivalent conventional deterrent. A country under existential threat will find means, one way or another, to fund it.

[Yeul]

European countries practically begged the US to place nuclear weapons after the Berlin blockade.

[sedan_baklazhan]

>Aside from either, how many nuclear states have been invaded in the past 80 years?

Great Britain was, in 1982 (the Falklands War). It that such a fat zero?