There have been many, many studies done in the West (especially the USA) as to why Ukraine couldn't operate the nuclear arsenal on its soil. Google is your friend.
There have been many, many studies done in the West (especially the USA) as to why Ukraine couldn't operate the nuclear arsenal on its soil. Google is your friend.
As this is more or less part of my job, I am well aware that even on scientific and technical subjects, it is quite easy to defend one view or the opposite. And I trust that if disarmament was the path that the US wanted to lead Ukraine in, reports have been published to that effect.
Nevertheless, I would find it very difficult to take them seriously, since a country like France, starting in 1945 from purely theoretical knowledge, has managed to acquire a nuclear arsenal and the means to maintain it in barely 20 years. Ukraine had all the relevant theoretical and technological knowledge in the 1990s. A possible lack of expertise on any technical point would have been easily remedied.
While googling, I learned that in 1993 John Mearsheimer himself argued in Foreign Affairs that a nuclear arsenal was “imperative” if Ukraine was “to maintain peace” and that it would ensure that the Russians, “who have a history of bad relations with Ukraine, do not move to reconquer it.” I don't think he would have seriously considered this option if there was an obvious impossibility.
History has once again proven him right and I know his views on Ukraine are close to yours nowadays...
I have to agree that the Ukraineans could almost certainly not maintained their stockpile - wasn't critical components of their nuclear weapons made in other SSRs?
They probably could have built up a own nuclear capability though, but seeing how poor Ukraine has performed economically over the decades - and that is with many tens of billions of Russian aid - I doubt they would have had the industrial capacity to carry it through even if they almost certainly had the nuclear know-how back then.
There have been many, many studies done in the West (especially the USA) as to why Ukraine couldn't operate the nuclear arsenal on its soil. Google is your friend.
As this is more or less part of my job, I am well aware that even on scientific and technical subjects, it is quite easy to defend one view or the opposite. And I trust that if disarmament was the path that the US wanted to lead Ukraine in, reports have been published to that effect.
Nevertheless, I would find it very difficult to take them seriously, since a country like France, starting in 1945 from purely theoretical knowledge, has managed to acquire a nuclear arsenal and the means to maintain it in barely 20 years. Ukraine had all the relevant theoretical and technological knowledge in the 1990s. A possible lack of expertise on any technical point would have been easily remedied.
While googling, I learned that in 1993 John Mearsheimer himself argued in Foreign Affairs that a nuclear arsenal was “imperative” if Ukraine was “to maintain peace” and that it would ensure that the Russians, “who have a history of bad relations with Ukraine, do not move to reconquer it.” I don't think he would have seriously considered this option if there was an obvious impossibility.
History has once again proven him right and I know his views on Ukraine are close to yours nowadays...
I will dig up the paper this week that explains why Ukraine couldn't maintain the stockpile.
I have to agree that the Ukraineans could almost certainly not maintained their stockpile - wasn't critical components of their nuclear weapons made in other SSRs?
They probably could have built up a own nuclear capability though, but seeing how poor Ukraine has performed economically over the decades - and that is with many tens of billions of Russian aid - I doubt they would have had the industrial capacity to carry it through even if they almost certainly had the nuclear know-how back then.
I agree with these points-that Ukraine quite could have made the nukes operational, and that nukes are the fundamental condition of true sovereignty.