That, along with North Korea, only shows you that it is, within the global game of influence, pretty stupid to give up a nuclear capability once you have it.

This concept, broadened to include "acquisition at all costs" is what the book Eating Grass is about.

The title comes from Pakistani leaders' declaration that they would acquire nuclear weapons capability even if it meant their citizens would have to eat grass. Every government with a viable nuclear weapons program that has abandoned it has come to regret that decision. The nuclear weapons states have utterly failed to make the NPT an attractive bargain for the non-nuclear weapons states, which has completely undermined the goal of non-proliferation.

Ukraine had no choice. They were Russian nukes, and not giving them back would have probably triggered a war immediately. But with Ukraine drowning in pro-Russian influence at the time, there is no chance they would have defied Russia.

They were soviet nukes. Ukraine was soviet land and soviet people too. Breakaways by definition take stuff with them. To claim Russia had a right to the nukes is no different then saying they had a right to the land and people.

They had a choice, they just chose the one that didn't lead to war.

They didn't have the codes to use the nukes though so it changes the balance of power somewhat.

So, new launch control? The war heads would still work. Especially the old ones just needing the turn of a key.

Ukraine was a Sobiet republic under the USSR, as was Russia. Ukraine also took other military stuff, the Black Sea Fleet was fiercly discussed issue as well. Economically and politically Ukraine didn't have much of a choice, sure. Legal ownership wasn't the propblem so.

I hope it's abundantly clear to anyone that Putin and buddies cannot be trusted. Whenever some politician suggest any deals with them, shut him/her down.

…Iran Nuclear Deal?

Putin is insane, but his record of recklessness and betrayal simply doesn’t come close to the mischief of the United States on the global stage.

The number of countries that have fallen for that line paints a depressing picture of political comprehension among politicians. How have they - of all the classes in the world - not cottoned on to how this works?

It is a minor miracle when voters can get their own government to follow through on an inconvenient promise. Promises mean nothing when foreign armies are involved.

And they now learned what a serious naive mistake that was. As a german I am ashamed that we did not accept frances offer of a shared nuclear arsenal when we could. We cowardly hide under the umbrella of french nuclear deterrence, yet chose not to get our hands dirty and take the responsibility on ourselves

We do have US nukes stationed in Germany for that very reason. rather old tech nukes, but still. This gives Germany a seat at the NATO table about nuclear strategy. If push comes to shove, German Tornado fighter jets are going to carry those nukes into combat.

Just another cowardly work around. If we want to live under the protection of weapons of mass destruction and the means of a global nuclear holocaust than we should take on that responsibility ourselves instead of delegating it to the US, Britain and France.

Every NATO country, especially those on the eastern flank should be given their nukes, without anyone knowing it. Heck, even Finland. This is the best thing that could be done for peace in Europe. Imagine Russia attacking Finland, and they say, we have nukes, we haven't told you so. Step back or we will blow St Petersburg to dust. Nothing protects a country like nukes, NATO, you never know how it works out in practice. Denuclearizing was only in favor of the super powers that would not denecluarize - and is it really in their favor, certainly half of Europe being destroyed is not in US favor. And the drawbacks are really small. Look at North Korea, there has been some fear around it but nothing happened so far. In the end of the day, everyone wants to live. And if some small nuclear state went insane, it would not have the arsenal needed to destroy the world anyway and could be neutralized quickly by other nuclear states. The biggest problem is centralization of power, it should never be centralized. It should be distributed among independent states.

You are aware that Gean rearmament, conventional rearmament, was a hard pill for the Western allies to swallow? Let alone nukes? And Strauss, defense minister back the day, wanted German nukes. Turned he didn't get a majority for that. Thus, the compromise. And hence no German nukes. Technically it wouldn't have that much of a problem.

I think today the resistance is much more on the side of the german people than it would be for the western allies. France basically told us "bro, wanna share those nukes we got?" in 2007 and Germany declined.

What do you suggest? ICBM launch silos in Germany and hypersonic missile launchers?

Accepting Frances offer of shared custody of the french nuclear arsenal and a Bundeswehr (german armed forces) with enough technical and personal resources to facilitate that effectively.

ICBM launch silos and hypersonic missiles would be icing on the cake.

> I cannot believe there actual proponents of nuclear armament and proliferation in 2022.

There will be more in the years to come if thanks to the current events. Plenty of people here and else where are quick to point out that Ukraine is in NATO and that Russia would not dare attack a nato country so this is all fine but at the end of the day NATO, like any treaty, is just a promise not inherently like the promise the Ukraine was made when they gave up their nuclear weapons. An attack on a NATO country will not mean an automatic response from all other NATO countries but instead prompt a decision from each of the leaders of those countries what would be better for their citizens at that point. Retaining their own protection via NATO is going to be a big influence of that decision but it is never going to be the only factor.

If Ukraine would have been in the NATO then we would have NATO troops (including US troops) in Ukraine. What do you think would be the response if russia opens fire on US troops? Biden made it very clear, in this case we have WW3 immediately.

It's not clear they had a choice. The west was scared shitless of nuclear proliferation in ex-soviet republics, and would probably not have lifted a finger about the matter.

When you have the third largest stockpile of nuclear weapons on the plant like ukraine did at the dissolution of the soviet union you have a choice. They chose to trade nuclear safety for empty promises. A mistake no country will ever make again.

and the US signed agreeing to provide assistance if they got attacked or threatened with nuclear weapons.

you may say that the threats of nuclear aggression were thinly veiled but not technically apply because the word nuclear has not been used. but if you applied an honest interpretation of what is happening you would say that point 4 does apply.

> 4. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine 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".

nobody wants a nuclear war so it's better if the US stays out of it at this point, but just I'm pointing out that got screwed by more than one signer on that treaty.