US leads boycott of UN talks to ban nuclear weapons

PoS said:

In Ukraine's case, Russia has taken a sizable chunk of their territory. If they hadnt given up their nukes it would be a whole different story.

Click to expand...

I don't think the Ukrainian President would have used nukes on Russia since he chose to flee to Russia to escape and illegitimate overthrow of the government by neo-nazis backed by the West. So now Ukraine has a pro-Russian east and a pro-Western west.

Fishking said:

I don't think the Ukrainian President would have used nukes on Russia since he chose to flee to Russia to escape and illegitimate overthrow of the government by neo-nazis backed by the West. So now Ukraine has a pro-Russian east and a pro-Western west.

Click to expand...

There was a period of instability after Yanukovich was ousted and Russia moved into Crimea to take it back and started supporting rebels in Donbass. If the government had nukes then, Putin would have thought twice about doing that.

DA60 said:

True.

Actually South Africa also gave up their small nuclear stockpile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Dismantling

Click to expand...

Hmm, I wasnt aware of that. Then again, they are the regional power in the area and their neighbors are no military threat to them.

PoS said:

In Ukraine's case, Russia has taken a sizable chunk of their territory. If they hadnt given up their nukes it would be a whole different story.

Click to expand...

I gotta mostly disagree, man.

One) many thousands of Russians were already in the Crimea at the time of the referendum (at the Sevastopol Naval base). And the Crimeans - by over 90% - voted to leave Ukraine. The Russians did nothing but stop Kiev from starting a civil war to try and stop Crimea from lawfully leaving.
And I don't care what Ukraine's silly 'you-have-to-get-permission-from-the -rest-of-Ukraine-to-leave' law says. If a major region votes over 90% to leave - they should be allowed to leave. Russia just prevented the mess that is happening in the Donetsk Region. I don't think nukes would have made any difference as the Russian troops were already there - unless Kiev lost it's mind and started nuking Russia or the Crimea in retaliation.

Two) the Donetsk region might have been a different story. But somehow I don't think Putin would have backed down just because Ukraine had a few nukes. Again, I think they would have helped the Donetsk Region just as much as they have...as their aid has been far less direct then it was in the Crimea.
But maybe you are right about this region.


And, once again for the record, I fully support what Russia is doing in both those regions (from what I know) - though I hardly think their motives are sweet and kind.
Both regions voted well over 90% to leave the Ukraine. ANd both times Kiev was willing to kill their own people rather than let them leave. The latter is totally wrong and I fully support the right of major regions to determine their own sovereignty...whether that region is Crimea, Donetsk Region, Texas, West Bank/Gaza Strip, Quebec or any other major region.
Heck, in Canada, they only require a roughly 2/3'rd's vote for a province to leave (with some other stipulations).

DA60 said:

I gotta disagree.

One) many thousands of Russians were already in the Crimea at the time of the referendum (at the Sevastopol Naval base). And the Crimeans - by over 90% - voted to leave Ukraine. The Russians did nothing but stop Kiev from starting a civil war to try and stop Crimea from lawfully leaving.
And I don't care what Ukraine's silly 'you-have-to-get-permission-from-the -rest-of-Ukraine-to-leave' law says. If a major region votes over 90% to leave - they should be allowed to leave. Russia just prevented the mess that is happening in the Donetsk Region. I don't think nukes would have made any difference as the Russian troops were already there - unless Kiev lost it's mind and started nuking Russia or the Crimea in retaliation.

Two) the Donetsk region might have been a different story. But somehow I don't think Putin would have backed down just because Ukraine had a few nukes. Again, I think they would have helped the Donetsk Region just as much as they have...as their aid has been far less direct then it was in the Crimea.


And, once again, I fully support what Russia is doing in both those regions - though I hardly think their motives are sweet and kind.
Both regions voted well over 90% to leave the Ukraine. ANd both times Kiev was willing to kill their own people rather than let them leave. The latter is totally wrong and I fully support the right of major regions to determine their own sovereignty...whether that region is Crimea, Donetsk Region, Texas, California, Quebec or any major region.

Click to expand...

Im neutral in regards to the politics there, but at one time Ukraine had 30% of the Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal, close to 2,000 warheads I believe. If they had kept just a portion of it and threatened to use them if Russia intervened, then yeah, it would have been a very credible threat.

PoS said:

There was a period of instability after Yanukovich was ousted and Russia moved into Crimea to take it back and started supporting rebels in Donbass. If the government had nukes then, Putin would have thought twice about doing that.

Click to expand...

There is and was a continuous period of instability in Ukraine that exists to this day. Russia didn't move into Crimea. Russia was always in Crimea. Again I ask, which government? The illegitimate Kiev government that is full of neo-nazis and is committing war crimes but is backed by the west? So because we say they are the government that makes it so? That's ridiculous.

PoS said:

Im neutral in regards to the politics there, but at one time Ukraine had 30% of the Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal, close to 2,000 warheads I believe. If they had kept just a portion of it and threatened to use them if Russia intervened, then yeah, it would have been a very credible threat.

Click to expand...

Well. fortunately, we will never know.

Fishking said:

I'd say there are a few logical reasons for a reduction. You note yourself that there is no tactical difference between 1,000 vs 10,000. So we have things like nuclear waste to look at, as things degrade and have to be replaced. We have the $$ it costs to maintain and operate. Then we have the biggest issue and that is accountability. The more you have of something the higher likelihood of there being a security failure and something being compromised.

Click to expand...

The rebuttal though is anti-missile technology. We have to be sure enough missiles would get through to prove an effective deterrence.

jonny5 said:

The rebuttal though is anti-missile technology. We have to be sure enough missiles would get through to prove an effective deterrence.

Click to expand...

1000 nukes is already sure enough of that. Anti-missile systems are simply inadequate to handling the extreme intercept velocity of an ICBM.

DA60 said:

'US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley announced Monday that the United States and almost 40 other nations would not participate in the first-ever talks on an international treaty to ban nuclear weapons.

Flanked by ambassadors from about 20 nations, including nuclear powers United Kingdom and France, Haley couched the decision not to attend the talks, which began Monday, in personal terms.
As a mom and daughter, "there is nothing I want more for my family than a world with no nuclear weapons," the former South Carolina governor said. "But we have to be realistic."'

US leads boycott of UN talks to ban nuclear weapons - CNNPolitics.com


Thoughts?

Click to expand...

The UN continues to be insignificant.

Deuce said:

1000 nukes is already sure enough of that. Anti-missile systems are simply inadequate to handling the extreme intercept velocity of an ICBM.

Click to expand...

Not to mention saturation. The same method North Korea plans on using. Saturate the skies with missiles and surely a few will get through the net.

PoS said:

In Ukraine's case, Russia has taken a sizable chunk of their territory. If they hadnt given up their nukes it would be a whole different story.

Click to expand...

Would it? Only if Russia genuinely believed Ukraine would launch nukes in response to what happened in Crimea, and we all know that realistically, no one is going to launch nukes over a small land grab.

Deuce said:

1000 nukes is already sure enough of that. Anti-missile systems are simply inadequate to handling the extreme intercept velocity of an ICBM.

Click to expand...

Not if you shoot them down on launch. But thats just today. What about tommorow? Everyone is developing ICBM defenses. Or what if they user a cyber attack or sink our subs? The more missiles you have the more they have to take out.

http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/russia-claims-nato-us-possess-1000-interceptors-can-counter-icbms/

Blue_State said:

Not to mention saturation. The same method North Korea plans on using. Saturate the skies with missiles and surely a few will get through the net.

Click to expand...

Quite a few. Even under test conditions where you know the target projectile's timing and course ahead of time, ABM systems have performed very poorly. Even a 90% success rate would be considered abysmal in this environment, but they couldn't achieve that.

Missile defense doesn't even make us safer. The problem is that we tend to think of ourselves as the good guys, using a missile DEFENSE system to DEFEND ourselves and truth, justice, and the American way. (background fade to waving American flag and crying bald eagle) But imagine a world where Russia has developed a truly effective missile defense, say from reverse engineering a turbolaser from the alien spaceship that crashed in Roswell, Ukraine. Vladmir Freaking Putin is about to become immune to our deterrent. He'll have the ability to destroy us at will without fear of retaliation. We have about a month to decide what to do before deployment finishes. And the man in charge of making that decision is Donald Freaking Trump.

This is not a safer world.

Well, the Russians and North Koreans see us much in the same way. If America starts deploying a true missile shield, they have to decide whether or not they trust Donald Freaking Trump to leave them be, or to strike first while they have the chance.