[noemon]

It's literally a quote from wiki.

This is a quote from wiki:

Until Ukraine gave up the Soviet nuclear weapons stationed on its soil, it had the world's third-largest nuclear weapons stockpile,[10][11] of which Ukraine had no operational control.

The most difficult/expensive part of a nuclear weapons program are the delivery systems, and Ukraine built those. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PA_Pivdenmash

Russia built these in its Ukrainian province.

[Political Interest]

Nuclear weapons and nuclear power are in all cases disgusting and their proliferation should be avoided.

We don't need small countries having nuclear weapons, and nuclear proliferation will make the world a more dangerous place. Nukes do not make a country safer, they only make the consequences of war far more extreme.

Taiwan under the red flag would be preferable to a Taiwan that's flattened and irradiated. Once nuclear weapons are used that's the end of it, everyone loses.

[Rugoz]

This is a quote from wiki:

Mine was as well, but let's take a look at your quote:

"Until Ukraine gave up the Soviet nuclear weapons stationed on its soil.."

Soviet Union = Russia and Ukraine and ...

It follows:

"Until Ukraine gave up the Russian and Ukrainian nuclear weapons stationed on its soil.."

Russia built these in its Ukrainian province.

Nonsense. Ukrainians designed and built these:

Pivdenne Design Office (Ukrainian: Державне конструкторське бюро «Південне» ім. М. К. Янгеля, romanized: Derzhavne konstruktorske biuro "Pivdenne" im. M. K. Yanhelia, lit. 'State design bureau "Southern", named after M. K. Yangel'), located in Dnipro, Ukraine, is a designer of satellites and rockets, and formerly of Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), established by Mikhail Yangel.

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

[Godstud]

nuclear power are in all cases disgusting and their proliferation should be avoided.

Nuclear energy produces zero carbon emissions and doesn't produce other noxious greenhouse gases through its operation. The lifecycle emissions of nuclear energy (emissions resulting from every stage of the production process) are also significantly lower than in fossil fuel-based generation.

Nuclear fuels, such as the element uranium, are not considered renewable as they are a finite material mined from the ground and can only be found in certain locations. But nuclear power stations use a miniscule amount of fuel to generate the same amount of electricity that a coal or gas power station would (1 kg of uranium = 2.7 million kg of coal), so they’re considered a reliable source of energy for decades to come.
https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/en ... generation.

Also, many countries have nuclear reactors that use material that cannot be made into weapon grade stuff.(eg. CANDU Reactors - The CANDU (Canada Deuterium Uranium) is a Canadian pressurized heavy-water reactor design used to generate electric power.)

@Rugoz
When the Soviet Union broke up in 1991, there were thousands of former Soviet nuclear warheads, as well as hundreds of intercontinental ballistic missiles and bombers, left on Ukraine’s territory, which it decided to transfer to Russia. Ukraine never had an independent nuclear weapons arsenal, or control over these weapons, but agreed to remove former Soviet weapons stationed on its territory.In 1992, Ukraine signed the Lisbon Protocol and it joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state in 1994. The transfer of all nuclear material took some time, but by 2001, all nuclear weapons had been transferred to Russia to be dismantled and all launch silos decommissioned.
https://www.icanw.org/did_ukraine_give_ ... mmissioned.

[noemon]

Mine was as well, but let's take a look at your quote:
"Until Ukraine gave up the Soviet nuclear weapons stationed on its soil.."
Soviet Union = Russia and Ukraine and ...
It follows:
"Until Ukraine gave up the Russian and Ukrainian nuclear weapons stationed on its soil.."
Nonsense. Ukrainians designed and built these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KB_Pivdenne

You need to get a grip, Russians designed and built both the technology and all these companies in Ukraine, not 'Ukrainians'. Russia stationed some of its companies and weapons in one of its provinces called Ukraine. Russia had the access codes of all these weapons and they were officially Russian weapons. You are ridiculing both yourself and Ukraine in the process because the more you push the more obvious it becomes as to how Ukraine was just a province of Russia and not a "nation" in its own right. It actually only became one after 2014 effectively.

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

No such thing as "Ukraine" before 1991, just a province of Russia.

And no, Soviet Union does not equal Russia+Ukraine+more because most of the others(and Ukraine more particularly) did not even exist to participate to the formation of the Soviet Union prior to its establishment, it was created as a "republic" by Russia itself reorganizing its own official province.

[Rugoz]

@Rugoz
When the Soviet Union broke up in 1991, there were thousands of former Soviet nuclear warheads, as well as hundreds of intercontinental ballistic missiles and bombers, left on Ukraine’s territory, which it decided to transfer to Russia. Ukraine never had an independent nuclear weapons arsenal, or control over these weapons, but agreed to remove former Soviet weapons stationed on its territory.In 1992, Ukraine signed the Lisbon Protocol and it joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state in 1994. The transfer of all nuclear material took some time, but by 2001, all nuclear weapons had been transferred to Russia to be dismantled and all launch silos decommissioned.

"Ukraine never had an independent nuclear weapons arsenal".

True, but neither did Russia. It was Soviet.

Ukraine had the capability to maintain a nuclear weapons program, as much as Russia did.

You need to get a grip

You need to learn to admit when you lost an argument.

[noemon]

"Ukraine never had an independent nuclear weapons arsenal".

True, but neither did Russia. It was Soviet.

Ukraine had the capability to maintain a nuclear weapons program, as much as Russia did.

You need to learn to admit when you lost an argument.

There is never a sight for more sore eyes than a loser who believes he's won.

Ukraine did not have such capability to maintain an independent nuclear program, and it did not even have the capability to control the existing nukes it already had stationed on its soil. Ukraine had no control over the nukes in its territory, just like Turkey has no control over the US nukes stationed in its own territory. One needs to be severely mentally handicapped to be unable to comprehend this very basic statement.

Your wiki "quote" did not say what you claimed it did, that was your own fictional imagination.

True, but neither did Russia. It was Soviet.

Russia had and still has control over the Soviet nuclear program, not any of the other "republics" that Russia established on paper on its own accord by re-organising its own geographic provinces.

[Rugoz]

It was a political decision.

Ultimately, although cobbling together a nuclear deterrent force would have been technically possible, Ukrainian political leaders judged it unwise. As Budjeryn writes, Ukraine “needed to join the international community more than it could afford to defy it.” There was an upside, however, as “Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine found themselves in a position of leverage vis-à-vis powerful nuclear-armed states if only by virtue of their sovereignty and international law.”

...

After independence, Ukraine played a key role in constraining Russian nuclear options because, without Ukraine’s Pivdenmash, Russia could not sustain its MIRV ICBM force and, as a result, “it was either unilateral disarmament or conceding to bilateral de-MIRVing with the Americans.” Ukraine drove Russia into arms control concessions it would not otherwise have made.

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2023-04 ... aNycGzNDGU

[Politics_Observer]

@noemon

Is Turkey ok to just keep US nukes according to you cause she doesn't want to get raped?

Turkey didn't build those nukes nor contribute to the costs of building those nukes. The United States did. Nor was Turkey ever a part of the United States. Turkey granted the US permission to place nuclear weapons on their soil. That still means the US owns those nukes and is the only rightful owner. If Turkey was the 51st state of the US and contributed to the cost and engineering know-how in building those nukes, maybe Turkey would have a rightful claim to those nukes on their soil given they would have at one time been the 51st state of the United States officially and contributed tax dollars and engineering know-how in building them.

Ukraine though was part of the Soviet Union, contributed know-how and money to the cost of those nukes, and they were on their soil to boot when they were part of the Soviet Union as one country with Russia as a Soviet republic. Therefore, Ukraine was entitled to ownership of those nukes on its soil after the breakup of the Soviet Union. In return, Russia got to keep the nukes on its soil given that they too contributed to the cost of those nukes and know-how that were once part of the Soviet Union. It would have been a fair deal. Plus, in the future, Ukraine never gets invaded and nobody was ever messing with Russia anyway, so everybody is happy and there would be no bloodshed.

[Godstud]

Ukraine made the decision to get rid of the nukes, while signing a Non-Proliferation Treaty, so your arguments are irrelevant, and ridiculous.

[Rich]

The "USSR". The name makes no mention of any nationality, linguistic, grouping or ethnicity. At its inception it was assumed that in fairly short order the whole world would be ruled by a single world communist government. For nearly all of its history the loyalty of non Russian leaders to the Soviet Union, as opposed to the ordinary people, was considered as reliable as Russians.

It was during the 1991 coup attempt that large parts of the leadership of the Soviet Union's security apparatus decided to throw their lot in with the Russian Federation. The main problem for Ukraine was a social one. Ukraine at the end of 1991 was just not the nation state that it is becoming in 2023.

[noemon]

@noemon
Turkey didn't build those nukes nor contribute to the costs of building those nukes. The United States did. Nor was Turkey ever a part of the United States. Turkey granted the US permission to place nuclear weapons on their soil. That still means the US owns those nukes and is the only rightful owner. If Turkey was the 51st state of the US and contributed to the cost and engineering know-how in building those nukes, maybe Turkey would have a rightful claim to those nukes on their soil given they would have at one time been the 51st state of the United States officially and contributed tax dollars and engineering know-how in building them.

Ukraine though was part of the Soviet Union, contributed know-how and money to the cost of those nukes, and they were on their soil to boot when they were part of the Soviet Union as one country with Russia as a Soviet republic. Therefore, Ukraine was entitled to ownership of those nukes on its soil after the breakup of the Soviet Union. In return, Russia got to keep the nukes on its soil given that they too contributed to the cost of those nukes and know-how that were once part of the Soviet Union. It would have been a fair deal. Plus, in the future, Ukraine never gets invaded and nobody was ever messing with Russia anyway, so everybody is happy and there would be no bloodshed.

The only contribution Ukraine provided to the Russian nuclear program is having them stationed on its soil, same as Turkey and unlike Turkey not by choice either. As an integral part of Russia, Ukraine had no independent discernable contribution. Ukraine did not "give up its nukes", because it never had access or control over them and because it was Russia & Russians that established the rocket companies in their Ukranian province, it simply gave them back to the ones who had control and access over them. This is sufficient to end this topic and all the sauce saying otherwise is just evidence that the Americans have been setting up a rhetorical "political" argument to be deployed as a weapon when the time is right thus betraying their long-term plans against Ukraine and Russia.

If the US had to deal with the scenario of say Texas leaving the Union to join the Chinese or Russian Nato and keep the US nukes stationed in Texas thus making them available to the other side, the US would not entertain any of these thoughts, nor would it permit the matter to become international. And no American would ever consider Texans as having an independent nuclear program.

It was a political decision.

These faux arguments make it more and more obvious that the US has been planning to destroy Ukraine and Russia since then.

[Politics_Observer]

@noemon

So here is a quesiton I have, why would Turkey allow the United States to station nuclear weapons on their soil? What's in it for the Turks?

[noemon]

@noemon

So here is a quesiton I have, why would Turkey allow the United States to station nuclear weapons on their soil? What's in it for the Turks?

To buy good will, at the time. And because it was NATO standard practice 'nuclear arms sharing'. Everyone did the same, most of them have returned them since.