[Timpanzee]

In light of renewed aggressions from powerful states, the only recourse smaller states have to defend themselves is to turn themselves into a fortress like Taiwan (which is prohibitively expensive for most larger states) or nuclear deterrence (which Ukraine gave up for false guarantees of protection from invasion). Guarantees aren't what they used to be, and I wouldn't be surprised if many waning US allies are covertly developing nuclear capabilities.

I hope my state is because the alternative is being at the whim of the powerful nuclear states around us in a political climate of rising authoritarianism.

[ASalazarMX]

> Guarantees aren't what they used to be

Anyone that has read history knows that state leaders' promises are written in the wind. Throughout history, states have traditionally behaved like dishonorable people, because their leaders have been traditionally dishonorable. It's as if it was almost a requirement, no matter the form of government.

[technothrasher]

> their leaders have been traditionally dishonorable.

I suspect that is because the majority of people who would make good, honorable leaders of nations do not want the job.

[RandomTeaParty]

Ukraine didn't give up nukes for false guarantees - it gave them up to not become sanctioned to the level of North Korea and Iran (while at the same time it didn't even have the launchcodes because nobody wants to get Dr.Strangelove-d)

And considering the level of poverty there in the following decade, chances are nukes would've just gotten sold off, just like its carrier

[Salgat]

There's no clear evidence that sanctions were a strong motivator for them. Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in exchange for security assurances and economic support. At the time non-proliferation was an international movement which Ukraine aligned with, it just made sense. In hindsight though, what Russia did isn't surprising, but the US seemingly abandoning them to indirectly support Russia is surprising.

[the_snooze]

Ukraine was never a nuclear power any real sense. The USSR's bombs were parked there, and Ukraine merely had physical (but not operational) custody over them after the USSR fell. Ukraine could have kept them to bootstrap a nuclear arms program, but they didn't, so they were never had a nuclear deterrent to give up in the first place.

[qaq]

Nice russian talking point. UA designed developed and maintained most top tier soviet nuclear weapons. The largest nuke plant in USSR was Yuzhmash in Dnepr and largest design bureau again in UA Dnepr KB Yuzhnoe. UA had to help maintain russian nukes after the collapse of USSR cause russia lacked tech. capability.

[qaq]

To understand scale the Yuzhmash campus is 1800+ acres Boeing Everett is about 1000 acres

[temp8830]

You know the truth full well, but insist on perpetuating the myth of genius Ukrainians and dumb Russian orcs.

The USSR had a policy of distributing economic development over its entire area instead of concentrating it in one place. Once a high-tech facility was built, it would be staffed by specialists recruited from all over the Soviet Union. They would be offered generous relocation assistance.

Now, I am not saying that Ukrainians are dumb or anything like that. What I am saying is that in a centrally planned economy the location of a project is chosen according to different criteria.

[qaq]

Where did I say russians are dumb? The claim I am disputing is a myth that Ukraine was just a place the nukes were stationed in and they had no capability to manage them. While USSR was often making sub-optimal decisions availability of eng. talent was def a consideration when sites were being chosen. There is a very long list of key Nuke and space related R&D and manufacturing in UA. They are concentrated in exactly 3 places (Dnepr, Kyiv, Kharkiv), so you spiel on distributing does not make much sense.

[aktenlage]

Credible Source?

[ceejayoz]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnepr_(rocket)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KB_Pivdenne

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pivdenmash

etc.

[qaq]

Are you banned by google ? I literally provided you the names of the entities. They btw. designed and built the infamous SS-18 Satan

[Zealotux]

Ukraine never had the possibility to keep its nuclear arsenal, they simply didn't have the infrastructure for it, let's not pretend they had any real choice.

[ceejayoz]

The US built nukes in the 1940s. Ukraine has at least as much technical know-how and engineering infrastructure as, say, Pakistan or North Korea.

They couldn't have launched the Russian warheads as-is, but disassembly and reuse of the warhead material is another thing entirely.

[ben_w]

I agree Ukraine could probably build a new nuclear deterrent, similar examples as you give.

> They couldn't have launched the Russian warheads as-is, but disassembly and reuse of the warhead material is another thing entirely.

Another thing entirely, yes.

But consider that Ukraine build the Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, lost it in the collapse of the USSR because the (captain?) just sailed off with it: everyone would have noticed if Ukraine had tried to keep those weapons, and at least some of them would have demonstrated how upset they were with an invasion and/or by bribing guards to put them in trucks and drive them across a border (not necessarily the USSR-Ukraine border) regardless of what the government thought.

[ajuc]

They could keep a few hundred no problem.

[pyuser583]

Taiwan isn't much of a fortress. The Nordic states are probably better defended than Taiwan.