Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Belarus referendum approves proposal to renounce non-nuclear status

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 165 posts

Re: Belarus referendum approves proposal to renounce non-nuclear status

#71

Post by XorNot »

dane-pgp wrote: post #68
adrian_b wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it is correct that Ukraine did not have operational control over the nuclear weapons, anybody who have nuclear weapons in their possession, and who have the engineering resources of an entire state, would be easily able to disassemble the weapons, reverse engineer the connections to the devices that initiate the detonation and substitute the control units in order to gain operational control. Such an operation…

> Such an operation cannot need more than a few months at most. But how much would it have cost to keep those warheads and their rocket engines and all the associated infrastructure in good working order, and secure from accidental launch or denotation, for decades up to the present day? When the decision was made, I suspect it was not at all clear that having the ability to nuke Russia might be an option worth spend…

Ukraine has a space industry. Just this week a rocket went up which was Russian engines, on a Ukranian second stage, with a US payload.

So while it would be expensive..history pretty much shows it would've been cheaper for Ukraine then what's currently happening, and they definitely have the knowledge and skills locally to do it.

Re: Belarus referendum approves proposal to renounce non-nuclear status

#72

Post by andy_ppp »

godmode2019 wrote: post #26
dstick wrote: post #13

It seems that the only option left for Putin is the "nuclear" one (no pun intended) now that the whole world is seeing that the Russian army lost its morale, and its teeth. Old equipment, young soldiers that are harder to brainwash than in the old days. It is fascinating to see for the first time in the modern age what effect modern media consumption and the internet has on a local war. While it is undeniably true th…

Your take is very surface level, its like you are looking for faults. Assaults on massive countries are not won overnight. USA had a quick win of a month in Iraq by using shock and awe. Blowing everything up and killing any civilian who got in the way. This created a massive insurgency, which was fine because they didn't plan on occupying only destabilising. Russia plans on occupying, to reduce NATOs ability to out f…

How does one outflank a country with thousands of nuclear weapons?

Re: Belarus referendum approves proposal to renounce non-nuclear status

#73

Post by pelasaco »

hef19898 wrote: post #60
pelasaco wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let us agree on that one: From the Geopolitical point of view was a mistake, from the practical point of view maybe not.

I'm not even sure geopolitical. Or do you think Ukraine would get all the NATO support if they had an arsenal of nukes outside of NATOs control? Culd easily be that NATO would tentatively ally with, un-officially of course, with Russia to get rid of a potentially rogue nuclear nation. Depending of the Ukrainian government of course. Or that Russia would have already annexed the whole lot during the Orange revolution.…

> Personally, as bad as war is for those in the region, every war in which belligerents don't have nukes is better. Because there is less risk of "accidently" causing a nuclear exchange.

That's true, but having the Nukes, would may raise more responsibility around that topic too. Ukraine would be today a different country. The region dynamics would be different. Pakistan and North Korea demonstrated that. Said that, the only variable from the geopolitical point of view that for sure can be evaluated here is the possibility of "avoiding a Russia invasion in the Ukraine".

Re: Belarus referendum approves proposal to renounce non-nuclear status

#75

Post by hef19898 »

kgonza wrote: post #70
hef19898 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the heck are you talking about? Germany also lost WW1 and nobody committed genocide then neither. If you refer to the Morgenthau plan, that lost to the Marschall plan, I think history showed that the world was better of with the latter. The main reason why Germany had so many foreign troops in the former occupation zones was simple: the Cold War. The French held the Ruhr, the British the North and the US the Sou…

Is it deliberate that you don't mention Hitler, Nazism, and WW2?

I did menrion WW2, didn't I? Hitler and the Holocaust were, IMHO, what caused proposals like the Morgenthau Plan. Luckily, the Marschall Plan won, and helped create a stable Europe. Before that, Europe was a hotbed of conflict.

Out of couriosity, Hitler and the Nazis would have justified ehat exactly after the war when it comes to the German population at large? That de-natzification wasn't near as complete as it should have been is a different story.

Re: Belarus referendum approves proposal to renounce non-nuclear status

#76

Post by dane-pgp »

hericium wrote: post #15
ChemSpider wrote: post #2

Belarus is de-facto a part of Russia now. I don't think that Alexander Lukashenko can make any independent decision anymore, except maybe the color of his underpants. He needs Putin for his survival. And he sacrificed his country's independence for it.

I like "Vlad the Underpants Poisoner" title given Putin by Navalny after he confirmed[1] responsibility for novichok nerve agent in his underpants. Lukashenko's underpants may interest Putin. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/21/europe/russia-navalny-poisoni...

The linked article doesn't use that title, and I've heard that "Vlad" is not a culturally accurate shortening of "Vladimir" anyway:

> Vlad is short for Vladislav. The affectionate form of Vladimir would be Vova or Volodya.

https://twitter.com/alexey__kovalev/status/89032144807785676...

Re: Belarus referendum approves proposal to renounce non-nuclear status

#77

Post by hef19898 »

pelasaco wrote: post #73
hef19898 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not even sure geopolitical. Or do you think Ukraine would get all the NATO support if they had an arsenal of nukes outside of NATOs control? Culd easily be that NATO would tentatively ally with, un-officially of course, with Russia to get rid of a potentially rogue nuclear nation. Depending of the Ukrainian government of course. Or that Russia would have already annexed the whole lot during the Orange revolution.…

> Personally, as bad as war is for those in the region, every war in which belligerents don't have nukes is better. Because there is less risk of "accidently" causing a nuclear exchange. That's true, but having the Nukes, would may raise more responsibility around that topic too. Ukraine would be today a different country. The region dynamics would be different. Pakistan and North Korea demonstrated that. Said that,…

On that we can agree.

Re: Belarus referendum approves proposal to renounce non-nuclear status

#79

Post by ChuckNorris89 »

adrian_b wrote: post #59
0x_rs wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's good to remember Ukraine never possessed operational control of them [0], so I'm not sure how much is "willingly giving up own's nuclear weapons" since they never had concrete nuclear deterrence capability, and circumstances (treaties and support from both Russia and NATO) required them to do so. Their decision has been impacting their condition ever since. But this may be the good outcome for all we may ever kn…

While it is correct that Ukraine did not have operational control over the nuclear weapons, anybody who have nuclear weapons in their possession, and who have the engineering resources of an entire state, would be easily able to disassemble the weapons, reverse engineer the connections to the devices that initiate the detonation and substitute the control units in order to gain operational control. Such an operation…

>would be easily able to disassemble the weapons, reverse engineer the connections to the devices that initiate the detonation and substitute the control units in order to gain operational control. Such an operation cannot need more than a few months at most.

I think you're massively underestimating the effort needed to have operational nuclear weapons. Nuclear missiles aren't like a car that you can just hotwire and jump start and something you can store and forget in their silos for years and then dust them off when you need them, but require constant and ludicrously expensive maintenance to stay operational.

First you need to have the rockets well maintained and tested to make sure then can have successful lift-off, then make sure the guidance systems are accurate enough to deliver your payload to the target.

Secondly and probably the most difficult, you need the detonation mechanism well maintained and tested, as the nuclear reaction needs super precise timing of the fissile material inside the chamber. Otherwise, even if you're lucky and hit your target, if the nuclear reaction is off, the explosion will be a dud and not cause much damage.

This is not something trivial that can be pulled off successfully in a few months notice, but you need a coordinated round the clock, and very costly, national program like the nuclear programs of France, UK, US, etc.

Post reply on HN