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

81–90 of 165 posts

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

#81

Post by hunterb123 »

bigodbiel wrote: post #67
hunterb123 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Did he think he could quickly take Ukraine and the West wouldn't interfere? No and yes. He's taking it slowly because he knows the West won't interfere. It's not a blitz, it's a siege.

It was always blitz. They expected capitulation by Sunday, with some ongoing attrition medium term. This is both from US Intel and now confirmation via a deleted, but luckily web archived, article/commentary on one of their major state-media sites, praising the (now impossible) “success” and their resurgence, while also flaunting the west.

I disagree with the premise the article verifies that, that could have been planned for release at any time.

I don't know what US intel you're referring to, so no comment.

In the end, we shall see, but from their positioning imo it looks like a siege.

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

#82

Post by hef19898 »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #79
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…

>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…

Ukraine had all the necessary resources, except funds maybe. Not that transforming your fancy missle warheads into free-falling bombs wouldn't work. Or artillery shells, a country running quite a few nuclear reactors should be able to do so if it really wants.

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

#83

Post by hunterb123 »

pjc50 wrote: post #55
hunterb123 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Did he think he could quickly take Ukraine and the West wouldn't interfere? No and yes. He's taking it slowly because he knows the West won't interfere. It's not a blitz, it's a siege.

The initial paratroopers at the airports plus fast armor columns all indicated a blitz approach. Those have already been destroyed. It's no longer on the original plan, and the West is interfering. The longer it takes the more weapons we can ship them, and everyone's running around looking for new types of economic sanctions which can be applied against Russia.

Russia is no stranger to sanctions, it doesn't mean much. Ukraine can barely get people out much less weapons in. The main point was he knew there would be no military response from the West so surrounding, cutting off the capitol, and slowly taking it through attrition is possible.

Paratroopers/fast armor columns and sieges aren't mutually exclusive, they can be used to probe weaknesses in a siege.

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

#84

Post by 0x_rs »

baybal2 wrote: post #62
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…

> It's good to remember Ukraine never possessed operational control of them [0], Ukraine had full control, and an operational arsenal for a few years. There was no such thing as a PAL on Soviet nuclear weapons. Ukraine had a fully functioning nuclear force for these few years. I will give no credibility to claims of Western think tanks who can't tell apart a tank from an apc.

This goes against my knowledge and documentation available on the matter. Any sources on these claims? Thank you.

>By early 1994 the only barrier to Ukraine's ability to exercise full operational control over the nuclear weapons on missiles and bombers deployed on its soil was its inability to circumvent Russian permissive action links (PALs). (from "Pulling Back from the Nuclear Brink" by Barry R. Schneider)

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

#85

Post by quonn »

the-dude wrote: post #78

Meanwhile in the EU, specifically in The Netherlands, we had a referendum about the Ukraine EU assoc treaty in 2016. 60% of the voters voted against. Guess what happened? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Dutch_Ukraine%E2%80%93Eur...

So a single country out of 28 couldn‘t block it. Good.

And an addendum was added to address the concerns.

And the association treaty is merely a preparation, so that the country that wants to become a member can start to fulfill the requirements.

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

#86

Post by Aeolun »

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…

> 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?

If Russia can do it for a few thousand warheads, Ukraine can too. It’s not like their economies are that different.

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

#87

Post by rad_gruchalski »

ausudhz wrote: post #69
07d046 wrote: post #45

Ironically, one of Putin's stated reasons for invading Ukraine was that Ukraine might get nuclear weapons.

Source?

Vladimir Putin: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/23/us/politics/putin-ukraine...

> Mr. Putin’s arguments occupied a third of his speech to the Russian people on Monday, when he made a series of bizarre charges that “Ukraine intends to create its own nuclear weapons, and this is not just bragging.”

And if you don't trust NYT, just listen to his speech...

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

#88

Post by dane-pgp »

simonh wrote: post #24
ngc248 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of this --> https://twitter.com/reckless/status/1495430376042422273

I have a friend in the UK Military Police, he has soldiers claim their "right to remain silent" and "first amendment rights" all the time. He has to patiently explain to them that they have neither.

> their "right to remain silent"

There are limits to this right (as to all rights), but it would be wrong to suggest that a "right to remain silent" does not exist in English law. As Wikipedia states (admittedly without citation):

> In England and Wales, the right of suspects to refuse to answer questions during their actual trial (the "right to silence", or the right to remain silent as it is now known) was well established at common law from the 17th century.[0]

More helpfully, the article also quotes a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, which held that:

> the right to remain silent under police questioning and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...

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

#89

Post by dvdkon »

bigodbiel wrote: post #67
hunterb123 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Did he think he could quickly take Ukraine and the West wouldn't interfere? No and yes. He's taking it slowly because he knows the West won't interfere. It's not a blitz, it's a siege.

It was always blitz. They expected capitulation by Sunday, with some ongoing attrition medium term. This is both from US Intel and now confirmation via a deleted, but luckily web archived, article/commentary on one of their major state-media sites, praising the (now impossible) “success” and their resurgence, while also flaunting the west.

Could you please post a link to the pulled article?
Post reply on HN