231–240 of 396 posts
Maybe not well known, but during the 20th century a number of nations started a nuclear weapons program, but then were convinced to halt the work by security guarantees by the U.S. You better believe that every single one of those nations is now revisiting that decision. For those wondering if Italy can afford to build nuclear: their economy is larger than Russia’s. As is Brazil’s, another nation that put nuclear wea…
Maybe not well known, but during the 20th century a number of nations started a nuclear weapons program, but then were convinced to halt the work by security guarantees by the U.S. You better believe that every single one of those nations is now revisiting that decision. For those wondering if Italy can afford to build nuclear: their economy is larger than Russia’s. As is Brazil’s, another nation that put nuclear wea…
the Netherlands has nukes in loan from the US. They are at Volkel Airbase. Officially it's a secret, but it's common knowledge and was also confirmed by a former prime-minister. In exchange for these loaned nuclear weapons the Netherlands promised not to develop nuclear weapons of their own. With the US now showing they are not afraid of doing a "rug pull" on agreements, one starts to wonder if the Netherlands should…
And also, inexplicably, via (formerly) publicly viewable Chegg flashcards (???): https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2021/05/28/us-soldiers-expos...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not even sure they broke any non-binding agreements. But do share any if I'm wrong, I really would like to know. The words you quoted came out of Yeltsin's mouth, not Clintons: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/30921-document-9-memorand...
Dunno. "Clinton and Yeltsin did promise Ukraine “full guarantees of security" is from https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/01/ukraine-nuclear-...
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/30921-document-9-memorand...
Also, that was not any form of an agreement, it was just words in a meeting. Nobody signed, it was not ratified with US congress as a treaty.
If you take that as binding then all the verbal commitments made to Russia that NATO won't expand eastwards should also have been binding, and they were broken first. I know you will get angry that I mention it, but it's a fact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No their economy is not larger than Russia, this is a common trope among people whose only way to reach reality is to irrationally use statistics computed by bureaucrats
Huh, so you're claiming that GDP data and such is not correct? Any source on that? Because I see multiple sources reporting that in 2023 the GDP of Russia was $2,009,959M and that of Italy was $2,300,941M, although Italy has a higher debt %. Which would confirm the original posters claim considering Italy is a much, much smaller country than Russia. What I find a common trope is people claiming facts are incorrect wi…
Anders Puck Nielsen just published an interesting video on this topic [How does Russia's military spending compare to Europe?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxq-TvgNCBU)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Budapest Memorandum had no security guarantees. > Another key point was that U.S. State Department lawyers made a distinction between "security guarantee" and "security assurance", referring to the security guarantees that were desired by Ukraine in exchange for non-proliferation. "Security guarantee" would have implied the use of military force in assisting its non-nuclear parties attacked by an aggressor (such…
To clarify, the upholding of the security assurance is still left up to the discretion of nations in the agreement, based on how important non-proliferation of nuclear weapons is to them. It seems that recently, nuclear proliferation is no longer a concern for the US, hence they no longer enforce this agreement, which is their right, for better or worse.
Even NATO article 5, I'd expect if Russia rolls into Lithuania Trump would ignore it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The world is lucky that Zelensky is the President of Ukraine and not somebody like me - given that Ukraine does have plutonium from its power plants, i'd be already making the warheads (technological difficulties? they were solved 80 years ago and with the modern tech the 3 years is more than enough to produce something working). That is also notable in the context of Trump yelling at Zelensky that Zelensky is suppos…
It's very, very expensive and (until last week) it was critical to keep the US on side, which would be jeopardized by breaking the nonproliferation treaty. The MAD argument still applies: Ukraine can't threaten to nuke Moscow without Russia obviously threatening to retaliate with nukes.
Ukraine isn’t in and probably never will be in a position to credibly threaten a MAD second strike to Russia. From number of warheads to strategic depth, it’s not a realistic option. Instead it would seek to credibly threaten limited nuclear war using tactical nukes.
This would only make sense with European support. And at that point, it almost makes more sense for Europe to directly enter the fight. (Or give Kyiv the nuclear weapons.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no binding commitment that the US broke. You may not like that fact, but it is a fact.
The U.S. declined to provide a security "guarantee" because that would have amounted to a backdoor accession to NATO, and the U.S. could not grant that unilaterally. (An example of the U.S. honoring a prior commitment, by the way.) A "guarantee" would have required the U.S. to commit its military forces to the battlefield if Ukraine was invaded. The U.S. instead provided a security "assurance" which was understood to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost all nuclear plants in the west were built in the 70s and 80s. The number built since is miniscule so of course the costs are going to be huge, they're one off projects.
True but irrelevant. The construction of new reactors now is unlikely to be in numbers greater than back then. (Unless new ones are SMR, which is why there's now business interest in SMRs. They may well have numbers large enough to cut costs).
Maybe not well known, but during the 20th century a number of nations started a nuclear weapons program, but then were convinced to halt the work by security guarantees by the U.S. You better believe that every single one of those nations is now revisiting that decision. For those wondering if Italy can afford to build nuclear: their economy is larger than Russia’s. As is Brazil’s, another nation that put nuclear wea…
Can We Please Stop Comparing Russia’s Economy to Italy’s? Who's comparing Russia's economy to Italy's? Apparently Lindsay Graham did in 2014. CNN in 2022. I like this article because it made me think about Russia and it's economy in a way that I didn't fully appreciate before. The article calls out an argument that compares Russia's economy to Italy's economy, using nominal GDP as a measurement. This is supposed to b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Budapest Memorandum had no security guarantees. > Another key point was that U.S. State Department lawyers made a distinction between "security guarantee" and "security assurance", referring to the security guarantees that were desired by Ukraine in exchange for non-proliferation. "Security guarantee" would have implied the use of military force in assisting its non-nuclear parties attacked by an aggressor (such…
To clarify, the upholding of the security assurance is still left up to the discretion of nations in the agreement, based on how important non-proliferation of nuclear weapons is to them. It seems that recently, nuclear proliferation is no longer a concern for the US, hence they no longer enforce this agreement, which is their right, for better or worse.