How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[dan/california]

15 minutes ago, billbindc said:

It's worth remembering what the Budapest Memorandum actually said...and that not just the US but Japan, Great Britain and China all also signed on: 

1. Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.
2. Refrain from the threat or the use of force against the signatory.
3. Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by the signatory of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
4. Seek immediate Security Counsel action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against the signatory.
6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.

Lots of claims made about it seem to be based on the idea it contained an Article 5-like provision. It did not, and nobody in Ukraine who worked on the deal thought it did.

 

 

 

The lesson is extraordinarily simple, get nukes, and keep them. We will all regret that rather badly soon enough. But there is ZERO chance Russia would be in Ukraine if they still had those warheads. I am deeply curious if Japan and South Korea will get past their own animosities, and announce that they have joined they have club together.

Edited December 14, 2022 by dan/california

[Vanir Ausf B]

Keeping the nukes was not a realistic option for Ukraine.

__________

Ukraine never had the ability to launch those missiles or to use those warheads. The security measures against unauthorized use were under Moscow’s control. The Ukrainians might have found ways around those security measures, or they might not have. Removing the warheads and physically taking them apart to repurpose them would be dangerous, and Ukraine did not have the facilities for doing that. Nor did Ukraine have the facilities to maintain those warheads. For only one example, the tritium in those warheads has a 12-year half-life and needs to be replaced regularly.

Ukraine did not have the technical infrastructure to maintain a nuclear arsenal. It would have had to spend billions to build that infrastructure.

__________

https://nucleardiner.wordpress.com/2022/02/06/could-ukraine-have-retained-soviet-nuclear-weapons/

[billbindc]

11 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Keeping the nukes was not a realistic option for Ukraine.

__________

Ukraine never had the ability to launch those missiles or to use those warheads. The security measures against unauthorized use were under Moscow’s control. The Ukrainians might have found ways around those security measures, or they might not have. Removing the warheads and physically taking them apart to repurpose them would be dangerous, and Ukraine did not have the facilities for doing that. Nor did Ukraine have the facilities to maintain those warheads. For only one example, the tritium in those warheads has a 12-year half-life and needs to be replaced regularly.

Ukraine did not have the technical infrastructure to maintain a nuclear arsenal. It would have had to spend billions to build that infrastructure.

__________

https://nucleardiner.wordpress.com/2022/02/06/could-ukraine-have-retained-soviet-nuclear-weapons/

This. Ukraine was poor, insecure and unstable country in the early 90's in a world that was extremely worried about loose nukes. A Ukraine that tried to retain nukes it couldn't maintain or use would have been poor, insecure and unstable with even less investment going forward and no friends at all. 

The author of the article, Cheryl Rofer, is a stone cold expert on the subject. Believe her.

[NamEndedAllen]

9 hours ago, Taranis said:

The US Department of Commerce estimates that Russia's access to semiconductors has been reduced by almost 70% since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, a review of customs records "revealed that since the invasion the declared value of Russian semiconductor imports has, in fact, risen sharply," Reuters says.

This is enormously disappointing. And a reminder that the differences between what we think we know and what is actually the case can easily render our favorite predictions terribly wrong. I keep remembering those early predictions that Ukraine would collapse in three days. Followed by, the Russian army would collapse by May, and then by August, and then in autumn. Similarly, that Russia itself would collapse. Sure, those things still could happen. It looks as if the odds lean that way, for the reasons often discussed here. And in WWI, a collapse of Russia did take it out of the war. But in WWII, neither Germany nor Russia nor Japan collapsed. Despite the horrendous losses and destruction of their nations. They fought until they were defeated and surrendered, or were victorious.

Earlier, Dan wrote that the longer the war goes on, the higher the cost of everything soars. That is simple truth. Regardless of whether or not more aid would defeat Russia sooner. The longer the war goes on, the more things can go sideways. Especially outside Ukraine and Russia. One thing is firmly established: if the Allies’ financial and military commitment wavers, all bets are off. In a multi-year grind, how solidly united is that commitment? The future is not written. And it is fickle.

[Zeleban]

Just now, billbindc said:

This. Ukraine was poor, insecure and unstable country in the early 90's in a world that was extremely worried about loose nukes. A Ukraine that tried to retain nukes it couldn't maintain or use would have been poor, insecure and unstable with even less investment going forward and no friends at all. 

The author of the article, Cheryl Rofer, is a stone cold expert on the subject. Believe her.

 

Why didn't Ukraine have the ability to launch nuclear warheads? Isn't the most threatening missile of the USSR - "Satan" the brainchild of the "Pivdenne" Design Bureau from the city of Dnepropetrovsk?

 

weren't Ukrainian specialists from the above-mentioned design bureau after the collapse of the USSR engaged in servicing these missiles in Russia?

[womble]

1 minute ago, Zeleban said:

 

Why didn't Ukraine have the ability to launch nuclear warheads? Isn't the most threatening missile of the USSR - "Satan" the brainchild of the "Pivdenne" Design Bureau from the city of Dnepropetrovsk?

 

weren't Ukrainian specialists from the above-mentioned design bureau after the collapse of the USSR engaged in servicing these missiles in Russia?

Still takes money to maintain the airframes and the warheads, and they had to get round the safety interlocks the Russians had the keys for. The SS-18 is/was a bus, not a bomb. Ukraine had better things to spend their limited money on at the time. Don't you think they'd've hung onto them if they thought they could get a better deal with than without them?

[Zeleban]

4 minutes ago, womble said:

Still takes money to maintain the airframes and the warheads, and they had to get round the safety interlocks the Russians had the keys for. The SS-18 is/was a bus, not a bomb. Ukraine had better things to spend their limited money on at the time. Don't you think they'd've hung onto them if they thought they could get a better deal with than without them?

 

I'm talking about your assertion that Ukraine could not maintain and launch these warheads. In your opinion, hacking into the security system of these warheads is an impossible task?

[womble]

44 minutes ago, dan/california said:

The lesson is extraordinarily simple, get nukes, and keep them.

Or get guarantees rather than assurances. Like NATO partners have. It's not 100%, but what is, in the world of international relations? Given the efforts expended for a nation that has "assurances", I'm more encouraged now to believe that Western powers actually consider "guarantees" to be as binding as they're meant to be. It's probably necessary for the maintenance of the structures that have improved material well-being across the world since WW2.

[billbindc]

14 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

 

Why didn't Ukraine have the ability to launch nuclear warheads? Isn't the most threatening missile of the USSR - "Satan" the brainchild of the "Pivdenne" Design Bureau from the city of Dnepropetrovsk?

 

weren't Ukrainian specialists from the above-mentioned design bureau after the collapse of the USSR engaged in servicing these missiles in Russia?

First, they didn't have the launch codes and Russia wasn't going to share them. Second, iirc missiles were made in Ukraine but warheads were made in places like Sverdlovsk-45/Lesnoy in Russia proper. Had Ukraine decided to crack the codes and start the very risky project of dismantling warheads to make them usable they would have potentially provoked a war right then with the US/NATO on the other side. 

 

[womble]

1 minute ago, Zeleban said:

I'm talking about your assertion that Ukraine could not maintain and launch these warheads. In your opinion, hacking into the security system of these warheads is an impossible task?

Wasn't my assertion. Was the assertion of an expert. And she wasn't saying they couldn't be launched.

Nuclear warheads take maintenance to remain in a detonatable state. Expensive maintenance. Sure, if Ukraine was planning on launching all the warheads before the first maintenance cycle passed, they'd have an operable deterrent. Past that? Not so much. Back in the 90s the money simply wasn't there to achieve that.

Maybe they could hack some things. Maybe they couldn't. Maybe failing the first couple of times would render the warhead inert and require complete remanufacture. The fact remains that if they could have practically retained and maintained even a reduced nuclear deterrent, they absolutely would have. And probably joined the other non-permanent UNSC nuclear powers in demanding a permanent seat.

[Zeleban]

2 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Had Ukraine decided to crack the codes and start the very risky project of dismantling warheads to make them usable they would have potentially provoked a war right then with the US/NATO on the other side. 

Tell me exactly what kind of war with the US/NATO has provoked the creation of nuclear weapons by North Korea. Or do you think the creation of a new nuclear weapon is a justifying factor compared to hacking the security systems of nuclear warheads?

[billbindc]

10 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

 

I'm talking about your assertion that Ukraine could not maintain and launch these warheads. In your opinion, hacking into the security system of these warheads is an impossible task?

Not impossible but very time consuming and given the Russian/American penetration of the Ukrainian services quite impossible to keep secret. You can imagine the reaction that would have ensued.

[billbindc]

Just now, Zeleban said:

Tell me exactly what kind of war with the US/NATO has provoked the creation of nuclear weapons by North Korea. Or do you think the creation of a new nuclear weapon is a justifying factor compared to hacking the security systems of nuclear warheads?

None. But North Korea is then condemned to be North Korea. I think it's a pretty safe assumption to say that domestic Ukrainian politics wouldn't have supported going in that direction.

[JonS]

7 minutes ago, billbindc said:

None.

Well, a state of war does still exist there

Also, I love the phrase "NK is condemned to be NK". Its a truth that our local nihilists are apt to overlook.

Edited December 14, 2022 by JonS

[dan/california]

10 minutes ago, billbindc said:

First, they didn't have the launch codes and Russia wasn't going to share them. Second, iirc missiles were made in Ukraine but warheads were made in places like Sverdlovsk-45/Lesnoy in Russia proper. Had Ukraine decided to crack the codes and start the very risky project of dismantling warheads to make them usable they would have potentially provoked a war right then with the US/NATO on the other side. 

 

Funnily enough that would have gotten them into Europe thirty years sooner, and with a fraction of the damage the Russians are doing now. We really should start a pool about which of the major asian nations announces first. Indonesia might be a sleeper in the race. I need to look up more about their nuclear power program.

[holoween]

2 hours ago, JonS said:

Certifying 16th Air Assault Bde took the British Army about 18 months from formation, IIRC, and all /they/ had to do was successfully apply gravity then walk around a bit.

And that was with fully trained and manned component battalions, and it's 'only' a bde. Certifying a div takes much longer.

To put that metaphorically: I learned how to use a keyboard several decades ago. By your logic I must therefore have written several best selling novels, prize winning poetry, a couple of chart topping songs, and a few movies when I had a bit of down time. And yet, weirdly, I haven't. 

I must just need a better keyboard.

Ive given you the time i was trained on the leo2 by the german army condensed to actual training on the tank. So no youre not going to stand up a brigade from scratch in a few weeks but thats a matter of the command structure not the equipment. A platoon you can make function by the time the training on the equipment is done. add a few more weeks per company and you have a fairly powerful unit you can slot into existing structures.

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, NamEndedAllen said:

But really, we ought not to need Daddy and his threat of the strap.

But... what if we like the strap?

 

 

_giggity

[JonS]

14 minutes ago, holoween said:

Ive given you the time i was trained on the leo2 by the german army condensed to actual training on the tank. So no youre not going to stand up a brigade from scratch in a few weeks but thats a matter of the command structure not the equipment. A platoon you can make function by the time the training on the equipment is done. add a few more weeks per company and you have a fairly powerful unit you can slot into existing structures.

16AAB used existing bns with (mostly) their existing equipment sets, and slotted them under a new bde HQ and structure that was composed of trained and experienced personnel. It still took over a year.

Aka., getting a new keyboard does not make you an author.

Edit. A better metaphor is an Orchestra. Giving a bunch of folks new instruments and telling them to have at it doesnt make them an orchestra.

Edited December 14, 2022 by JonS

[Kinophile]

33 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

I'm talking about your assertion that Ukraine could not maintain and launch these warheads. In your opinion, hacking into the security system of these warheads is an impossible task?

I think you're nitpicking here. Any mechanical/digital system can be circumvented given time and/or money, so of course any security measures could, eventually with great cost, be nullified. The technical ability of Ukrainian engineers and scientists is well documented and accepted, they're clever and resourceful gits so I'm certain they could have done something eventually.

That wasn't the issue, it was the nasty warhead material itself. Ukraine had specialists sure, but it didn't have the comprehensive and integrated industrial, research and development architecture to maintain the warheads it had, keep their own country safe from accidents or make new ones, or store/get rid of the old material. Dismantling the damn things is insanely risky as it is.

Plus Chernobyl gave everyone the willies and if I remember correctly from my reading ( a long time ago), the fact of already having one nuclear accident to clean up helped with the argument against holding onto a decaying stockpile of actual warheads. Plus, lets face it - the corruption at the time was nutso, so holding onto extremely dangerous weapons-grade material was just inviting trouble down the line.

Edited December 14, 2022 by Kinophile

[holoween]

Just now, JonS said:

16AAB used existing bns with (mostly) their existing equipment sets, and slotted them under a new bde HQ and structure that was composed of trained and experienced personnel. It still took over a year.

Aka., getting a new keyboard does not make you an author

To use your analogy youre not asked to write a bestseller youre asked to write a 3page essay.

as said noone asks to set up essentially a nato style armoured brigade from scratch. Youre looking for at best company sized units and those are far faster to stand up even from scratch.
 

[Kinophile]

14 minutes ago, holoween said:

Ive given you the time i was trained on the leo2 by the german army condensed to actual training on the tank. So no youre not going to stand up a brigade from scratch in a few weeks but thats a matter of the command structure not the equipment. A platoon you can make function by the time the training on the equipment is done. add a few more weeks per company and you have a fairly powerful unit you can slot into existing structures.

I'm no soldier but it sounds wayyy more complex and time consuming that that, to slot Leo2s into Ukrainian mech forces...

[JonS]

3 minutes ago, holoween said:

noone asks to set up essentially a nato style armoured brigade

Except for the people demanding exactly that, sure.

[dan/california]

17 minutes ago, holoween said:

Ive given you the time i was trained on the leo2 by the german army condensed to actual training on the tank. So no youre not going to stand up a brigade from scratch in a few weeks but thats a matter of the command structure not the equipment. A platoon you can make function by the time the training on the equipment is done. add a few more weeks per company and you have a fairly powerful unit you can slot into existing structures.

Of course we could have started nine months ago, or eight years and nine months ago.

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, sburke said:

Honestly?  

1 I think it was cheaper in the long run than shipping them home

2 The border with Iran dictated we had to have an Iraqi military that could hold its own for at least a bit.

3 There was no border line conflict with a nuclear power we had to add into the equation

and:

4.  Seeing ISIS driving away in Abrams and Taliban buzzing around in Humvees did not make Americans very happy.

Steve

[FancyCat]

6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

and:

4.  Seeing ISIS driving away in Abrams and Taliban buzzing around in Humvees did not make Americans very happy.

Steve

Sure, you could use that as justification early on but not now, Ukraine has provided results. Real good results.