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

111–120 of 165 posts

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

#111

Post by 0x_rs »

baybal2 wrote: post #101
0x_rs wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

I find the whole corpus of Western military writing on USSR, and later as "generally unreliable." Just too much of fiction writers working in these think tanks to pump grants, and research funding. Even today, go and lookup a number of articles on something very trivial, say, "Russian general military doctrine," and your will get absolutely random, and bizarre assortment of opinions not agreeing on anything, despite…

But all sources I can see indicate Soviet weapons did indeed use PAL-equivalent security systems and there's no indication that Ukraine ever had a "fully functioning nuclear force". Some argue it would have taken a few years to acquire complete control of those within their borders had they not been handed over or destroyed. Excerpts from "The Soviet Nuclear Legacy", 1995:

>Fourth, nuclear warheads and or delivery vehicles are equipped with switches that permit arming and fusing only when a given code is entered-these devices are called permissive action links (PALs) in the USA. Launch crews do not have these enabling codes, which are provided by higher commanders prior to actual use. All categories of strategic weapons in the FSU are believed to be covered by PALs.

>To launch an ICBM, for example, now requires a '12-digit key' inserted via a complex and apparently highly secure system, and originating with the top political and military leadership. The ICBM crews do not normally have access to be able to launch missiles, but must receive a special 'preliminary' command from the top military leadership. Then they must receive additional codes that physically unblock the missiles for which they are responsible. Only when they have received these codes and commands do the crews have the physical ability to fire any of the 10 missiles in their group , . . The crews must correctly insert the codes in three tries, with an allowable time span of several seconds between each try, or else the crews are locked out and unable to perform the launch sequence. After a certain span of time has expired, the blocking system is automatically activated.

consultable at https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/files/RR/SIPRIRR10...

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

#112

Post by koonsolo »

hunterb123 wrote: post #48
trompetenaccoun wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends entirely - what was the goal of this attack in the first place? Did he think he could quickly take Ukraine and the West wouldn't interfere? It's possible. His soldiers look unmotivated, even unprepared though. Maybe it's part of a larger strategy. We might see more crisis popping up soon.

> 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.

A siege of what? Land? Because the Ukrainians seem to prefer to die over living under Russian suppression.

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

#113

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

hef19898 wrote: post #41
b112 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think maybe parent is maybe combining info from the first and second invasion into one.

Could be yes, didn't think about it. But didn't they create a Shiit uprising in the south during the first one? An uprising they allowed Sadam to shoot down with whatever limited forces he was left with?

That would have been outside the boundaries of the UN mandate and Bush Sr. wouldn't violate it.

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

#114

Post by hdivider »

hef19898 wrote: post #103
hdivider wrote: post #99

One positive side effect: this result, in the context of an ongoing land war in Europe will finally help to rattle us Europeans out of our traditional resistance to defense and military investment. (I'm both British and German.) Stronger Europe -> stronger NATO -> more options for the Alliance, and for the US to prevent conflict in and out of Europe, since Europeans will shoulder more of the local deterrence burden.…

Can be a net positive, if we also start to really stand by our principles of democracy and equality. The EU and NATO have a less then stelar track record on those for quite a while. And the European disdain for military and defense spending only started after the end of the cold war when huge standing armies weren't needed anymore.

"Can be a net positive, if we also start to really stand by our principles of democracy and equality. The EU and NATO have a less then stelar track record on those for quite a while."

Absolutely. Our values are the engine of this entire thing. I'd say thanks to our insanely wired world, with the daily metric ton of stories coming out of Ukraine, people are realizing how precious Western values are, what they actually mean, and how necessary it is to defend them. We haven't thought in these terms for quite a while, in the context of superpower aggression.

"And the European disdain for military and defense spending only started after the end of the cold war when huge standing armies weren't needed anymore."

Yep -- we all hoped and worked towards a more advanced world. We didn't quite get it. But with the Kremlin intentions and ruthlessness made clear, for all to see, we now can make a wiser attempt. The aggregate political will that existed in Europe just 1 week ago, will now take a very different shape. That's despite Brexit, the pandemic, and the memory of our many past misdeeds. Great to see Western unity. That's what's holding the world together right now.

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

#115

Post by trhway »

javier2 wrote: post #35
sharikous wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's harder to mobilise people behind a corrupt cause once blood starts flowing. I don't know how significant it is. Dictatorships have always been feared and despised. And armies lost motivation many times in history, before the internet. From a military perspective what I think is different this time is how (probably) US intelligence is helping Ukrainians. It seems they know any Russian move in advance in real ti…

Same. While it is still a bit unclear to me at least why Russia sent their seemingly old gear without proper support and young conscripts in first, the terrible parachute attempts still stand out. When you want it to be over quickly, you have to send in the best soldiers with the best gear first to seal the deal? In addition to live NATO intelligence, it is clear to most europeans that US intelligence tried to warn a…

> seemingly old gear

1.Russia doesn't have much new gear and 2. the old at least works reliably in the field. Russia for example backed down from gas turbines in tanks (like T-80) because of poor reliability and high maintenance (and maintenance is always a huge issue in Russia)

> without proper support

that is the best Russia can. Support and logistics has always been an issue.

> and young conscripts in first

the young people grew during Putin's Russia and they are much easy to make them kill Ukrainians.

> you have to send in the best soldiers with the best gear first to seal the deal

that were the ones who were dropped on the airfields near Kiev in order to capture them and thus facilitate coming of the next wave of the best - the Pskov's 76th paratroopers - who were to flew in. The capture of any of the airfields failed.

The ground attack, even by the best of the best, was too slow to make to Kiev for the "Czechoslovakia 68" plan to work.

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

#117

Post by notapenny »

the-dude wrote: post #91
quonn wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You sound like our Prime Minister. I am just pointing out wether your corrupt regime is associated with NATO or not, a referendum is not worth much if anything at all.

It was advisory and non-binding. I for one am happy that we get to express our opinions in this way, but the communication around it could've been better. At the time I recall also not knowing that it was non-binding. Calling it a referendum probably set incorrect expectations.

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

#118

Post by RealityVoid »

TheAlchemist wrote: post #104
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…

While I'm all in awe for Ukraine resistance, I wouldn't dismiss so quickly the Russian army. The loss of morale and teeth, is mostly social media stuff. I do hope it's true, but I wouldn't bet on it. They did encounter much stiffer resistance than they expected, but there are still hundreds of tanks and tens of thousands of troops around Kyiv. Now that the West is sending arms to Ukraine, there is an increasing proba…

While I am mildly skeptical as well... There sure are a lot of videos of tanks blown up and of wreckages and of immobile vehicles. And recently Putin removed the head of the armed forces. I doubt things are going as planned for the Russians.

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

#119

Post by notapenny »

devpl wrote: post #74

it's getting really serious right now https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yM3SOQQ-7ng

You probably wouldn't get downvoted if you added some context, but the description of the video is apt. NATO doesn't want to go into Ukraine because NATO directly getting involved could cause escalation to WWIII. Putin seems crazy enough to want to use the nuclear option.

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

#120

Post by anticodon »

hdivider wrote: post #99

One positive side effect: this result, in the context of an ongoing land war in Europe will finally help to rattle us Europeans out of our traditional resistance to defense and military investment. (I'm both British and German.) Stronger Europe -> stronger NATO -> more options for the Alliance, and for the US to prevent conflict in and out of Europe, since Europeans will shoulder more of the local deterrence burden.…

One negative (and intended) side-effect: USA as usual will reap all benefits from this war. Probably it is the reason why it pumped so much weapons into Ukraine and refused to discuss security questions with Russia prior to February 24.

Sanctions announced by EU will immensely weaken EU economy and enrich USA by forcing EU to buy more expensive US oil and gas. Also, US sanctions are laughable compared to EU. E.g. EU cannot sell Airbus produced in Europe to Russia. USA can sell their Boeings. US jets fly over Russia, EU - cannot. Etc, etc.

All in all, this looks like an attempt to plunder the biggest economy after they teared USSR apart.

Post reply on HN