Exactly brother....but this emotional clown's 🤡.. they are soo desperate..is turkey the owner of the nuclear weapons, station in their country... they are station there by the US..
it's not about those specific bombs, which anyway, as explained in the video, were approaching their expiry date. Ukraine could have kept/started its own nuclear weapons programme, and disassembled the nukes it had to get back the uranium, plutonium or any other component. As it was said in the video, even when starting from zero, they could probably have build fission bombs within a couple of years.
Refusing the nukes could have been accomplished in a matter of months. Codes for Soviet nukes did not prevent use by those with direct access for an extended period of time. Ukraine had the technical capabilities to do this. They opted not to because of political and economic pressure.
@@vladthepistol3974 Ah but defenders of Russia always have a BRILLIANT answer to this: "Ukraine didn't have the codes so the weapons were useless". If they were useless... Why the interest in disarming Ukraine? 1. Avoid the possibility of a black market for Ukraine's nuclear material and make it impossible for groups/states to have access to that material. 2. well ... AVOID UKRAINE'S HAVING THE NUKES AS THEY ALWAYS REPRESENT A MAJOR FACTOR IN BALANCE POWER. Russia and everyone else knew that Ukraine could have very easily created its own control and delivery systems!!! The purpose of this line of argumentation is to downplay the enormous step taken by Ukraine towards peace with brotherly nation Russia, and how enormously unfair is the current state of affairs in which Russia annexes its land and the guarantors of the memorandum drag their feet with the deliverance of military equipment.
@@JOBAHFam You're so emotional and desperate to downplay the Ukraine's commitment to peace with Russia that you can't understand that Ukraine could create its own control systems!!!
There is no point asking such a question. Ukraine's independence was conditional on giving up nukes. If Ukraine did not agree, it would have remained part of Russia.
@@luckyluckydog123 Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union which was led by Russia which was the largest republic. All that Ukraine had like technical institutes, nuclear power stations, nuclear weapons, steel mills etc. was due to Russian investment.
Why then agreement was needed? Do you really think Russia was in any position to go and take them when army was not even getting paid for half year at a time? You are fooling yourself.
Implying only Russia in the USSR had the science to produce nuclear weapons is silly. Most of their scientists weren't Russian, they were Ukrainians Georgians Belorussians kazakhs etc.
@@TheNapchop Working under one nation. If the nation ask you to produce something do you hide it because your living in a different republic of the nation? Thats not how it work. The US has many labs in different states of the US but they work under the US
Hydrogen bombs cost a lot in maintenance, but Tritium can be refreshed from the water used inside a nuclear reactor (that's where it is normally obtained from - and that is why countries employ the kinds of nuclear reactors that they do - they are the cheapest source of tritium and plutonium) - the other components are relatively simple to produce with the right materials processing and engineering. One of the most difficult parts is the shaped charge design for the initial implosion charge to trigger an efficient fission explosion (rod and donut configurations do not work well) the lithium hydride fusion catalyst is relatively easy to obtain. Of course the soviets also developed fission catalysts that reduced the amount of plutonium required to below the critical mass of 3.4kg usually required. Typical efficient designs rely on a spherical core of Plutonium which is imploded by a series of shaped charges, arranged to ensure equal pressure from all sides.
I know, Right? Russia has already been destroying Ukrainian cities with conventional weapons. This guy obviously has some kind of bias that is clouding his judgement or he is lying.
@@Meczyk It was theirs and they could very easily create control systems for the weapons. Why ? Have you heard about Russia's war against Ukraine? No? Ok
A simple fission device is not difficult to construct. Ukraine had about 38% of the Soviet unions nuclear weapons. I’m sure they have enough leftovers to construct a simple fission weapon.
Ukraine has no such leftovers but, it has the biggest uranium ore deposits in Europe instead. As well as ICBMs to deliver nuclear warheads to any point everywhere in Muscovy.
Russia can have no decisive military advantage over Ukraine in any area. The nuclear weapons gap will need to be closed. Israel decided it was necessary to acquire nuclear weapons and Ukraine's circumstances are even more dire.
Russia will never allow Ukraine to have nukes. They will do whatever it takes to ensure that. Unless everyone wants Eastern Europe to be radioactive I suggest not attempting
I doubt very much the cost of maintaining and keeping nuclear weapons viable has been a main priority of Russia, to much corruption and leaching funds to keep Russias nuclear weapons functioning.
@@davemccrillis1470 Ukraine will need to work harder just as Israel does. Israel has a Jewish population of 7.7 million surrounded by a total Arab population of 473 million or a world Muslim population of 2.04 billion. Either Ukraine stands up to Russia or becomes part of Russia.
@ Yes, but they did not have full operational control over the nuclear weapons. The strategic weapons were designed to be controlled from Russia via Soviet command and control systems.
@@Crlmrtn Sure, however, rocket system technology and infrastructure were already in Ukraine. Nuclear weapons are repurposed by disassembly and transferring uranium to a new delivery system that you would fully control. Longest part of this process is enrichment of uranium, which Ukraine would NOT have to do. At the time Budapest memorandum was signed, it would have taken 2-6 months to repurpose the weapons for control out of Kiev. If they had to do this now, it would take 2-3 years. This is why it was a big deal; this is why Ukrainians were skeptical - they were in a position to create own security umbrella because materials, industry, infrastructure, experts and know-how was right there at home.
Which is why you would deny having any nuclear weapons program if you were doing it in secret. Possibly even continuing to be ambiguous about the possession of them even after you have a stockpile. Just send a hint to Russia that you might or might not have them and they have a deterrent against using their own nukes.
@@gezalesko3813 Yes, Ukraine had nuclear weapons and could very easily create control systems for them, and Ukraine gave its nukes away in exchange for sovereignty, and finally Russia started a war to deprive Ukraine of the land and sovereignty.
Great commentary from this gentleman. One dimension to nuclear weapons which he only touched on briefly is what they are good for. He did hint that they are fairly useless, extremely expensive and difficult to build and maintain, all of which is true. The question then may arise: why do any of the small number of nations which maintain nuclear arsenals bother to maintain them? The answer is deterrence. A nuclear arsenal of sufficient composition and with systems of detection, decision and guidance support can represent a threat of a "Dead Hand Strike," that is, an attack against an adversary which has already launched their nuclear weapons, and is likely to cause extreme harm or even national death. This is the one scenario in which using nuclear weapons can be said to make some sense. This is the only scenario because using them in any other way risks setting in motion a series of events which culminates in national death. This condition was thought to have existed by the early 1950s and certainly was a reality by the early 1960s: a world with two or more nuclear armed adversaries targeting one another and observing one another and prepared to either engage in a "Decapitation First Strike," or else a Dead Hand Reprisal Strike. The term Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) was coined to characterize this peculiar dynamic in which no nuclear armed nation can risk using their nuclear weapons for fear that it will lead to the death of the nation. But simultaneously, keeping them at the ready is a way to deter against anyone else using theirs too. The French and British only maintain a couple hundred and China about 300. Both the U.S. and Russia still have thousands, but they have always had the most. Depending on how many war heads might fail to reach their targets, 50 to 100 is likely to be adequate to effectively kill any nation on Earth by hiting all the major cities, and all major military targets with at least one ~1 megaton bomb, which is sufficient to destroy large metropolitan areas. In sum: nuclear weapons are pretty much useless. They have only been used to influence the outcome of a war once, when the U.S. used the 2nd and 3rd devices ever created to attack Nagasaki and Hiroshima and compel the Japanese Empire to surrender in a timely manner and on much less costly terms. Arguably, there was a period of time from 1945 until about 1952 or 1953 when the U.S. could have ventured using such weapons in warfare again (because no one else had enough capacity to retaliate that MAD was not yet imposed to any significant degree). By 1953, it was thought that Soviet capacities were sufficiently threatening that nuclear weapons were not a sensible option; and certainly by the 1960s both the U.S. and the Soviets understood that the primary purpose of these weapons was to deter the other from using theirs. Because there are multiple oppositional international dyads (India vs. Pakistan; West vs. Russia; China vs. any adversaries) which possess sufficient arsenals to pose a credible threat of an effective "nation killing" Dead Hand strike, using nuclear weapons is not a realistic option for any national leader, not even the most irresponsible, unethical and corrupt ones. Nuclear weapons are of zero utility to Ukraine and you are honestly better off without them. Nuclear weapons do not deter conventional and hybrid warfare and they are useless for defense or for winning wars. Observe: Russia with ostensibly one of the worlds largest nuclear arsenals but Ukraine has not been the least bit deterred in in invading and occupying Kursk Oblast, nor crossing any of the other preceding "red lines" which were touted as a potential trigger for Russian nuclear attack.
As far as I understood most of the sites where they would be able to build this this type of weapon were destroyed. After all the Soviets built these places and know exactly where they are.
Since atomic weapons are mostly a political tool to get more leverage between countries, if not directly, a way to blackmail your neighbors (hey, Russia and DPRK), so should it be the possibility to get them. If (and yeh, its a great if) EU had a firm position against Russian aggression, it should anounce that is considering the development of an european nuclear force. With the economic, industrial and intellectual power of EU members, it shouldn't be difficult to get nukes in a short time. Let's see what would Putin think about the possibility of nukes in Poland, Finland and the Baltics...
As I said in the short, Ukraine had thousand of nuclear weapons. Tritium has a half life of 12.5 years so after 30 year you would have about 1/4 left. Recycling and removing the old tritium and removing the helium would produce enough tritium for a large nuclear arsenal. Tritium isn’t necessary to make a nuclear weapon but it helps in making them small. By recycling the old tritium they could easily use the weapons they had and give them enough time to time to develop the ability to produce their own tritium.
@@stupidburpThe problem is it’s an unstable isotope with a half-life of 12.5 years. You won’t find it in nature typically except in tiny amounts. The way it’s manufactured is to expose lithium to neutron bombardment. It’s also a byproduct in some nuclear reactors. The USA doesn’t manufacture it anymore because they can get all they want from retired nuclear warheads. That’s why I was saying the Ukrainians could have done the same with theirs.
@ The problem is it’s an unstable isotope with a half-life of 12.5 years. You won’t find it in nature typically except in tiny amounts. The way it’s manufactured is to expose lithium to neutron bombardment. It’s also a byproduct in some nuclear reactors. The USA doesn’t manufacture it anymore because they can get all they want from retired nuclear warheads. That’s why I was saying the Ukrainians could have done the same with theirs.
People often view this issue using hindsight and quite a few incorrect assumptions. At the time that the memorandum was signed, Ukraine had only recently become independent and as with all of the former Soviet Union, was in financial crisis. The cost to maintain and protect those missiles was not feasible, or something that the nation could afford. In addition, there was a huge issue at the time with "loose nukes," in all of the former republics of the USSR, and there was a fear that one of the republics could have some of the nuclear components stolen, sold on the black market and fall into the hands of a terrorist group, which if used, could be linked back to the nation from which it was stolen. Ukraine wanted nothing to do with nuclear weapons at the time, and for good reason I commend the Kyiv Independent for accurately reporting that it was a political agreement, not a military treaty. People often attempt to claim that it was a military treaty, when it could not possibly be one. It was, however, not a security guarantee, but rather an agreement that required the parties to respect Ukraine's independence and sovereignty.
It was political and economic pressure that forced Ukraine to give them up. But they absolutely had the ability to make them serviceable again if they wanted to. They just didn’t have the cash at the time and were being blackmailed from both sides to give them up or suffer economic ruin.
@ that is untrue, Ukraine wanted absolutely nothing to do with them. Should you disagree, please quote anyone at the time that said what you just claimed
So if Ukraine had 'borrowed' plutonium and uranium from the USSR missiles before getting rid of them they could, within 2 years, have been able to produce atomic weapons.
They can mine the uranium themselves. The largest deposits in Europe. Something tells me that is one reason Putin wants Ukraine. Just the land, he doesn't give a sh*t about the people.
Ukraine per se had no nuclear weapons. Ukraine declared its independence from the Soviet Union on August 24, 1991, following a failed coup attempt in Moscow by hardline Communist leaders. This declaration was later confirmed by a nationwide referendum held on December 1, 1991, in which over 90% of Ukrainian voters supported independence. The Soviet Union officially dissolved on December 26, 1991, after the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus signed the Belavezha Accords on December 8, 1991, declaring the USSR ceased to exist and establishing the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in its place. The dissolution was finalized when the Soviet Supreme Council formally voted to dissolve the USSR. The USSR (which still existed when Ukraine became independent), had nuclear weapons, stationed on Ukrainian soil. Since Russia was the legal successor state to the USSR, those weapons then became Russian. Its utterly as simple as that.
@innerlotuslight Ah but defenders of Russia always have a BRILLIANT answer to this: "Ukraine didn't have the codes so the weapons were useless". If they were useless... Why the interest in disarming Ukraine? 1. Avoid the possibility of a black market for Ukraine's nuclear material and make it impossible for groups/states to have access to that material. 2. well ... AVOID UKRAINE'S HAVING THE NUKES AS THEY ALWAYS REPRESENT A MAJOR FACTOR IN BALANCE POWER. Russia and everyone else knew that Ukraine could have very easily created its own control and delivery systems!!! The purpose of this line of argumentation is to downplay the enormous step taken by Ukraine towards peace with brotherly nation Russia, and how enormously unfair is the current state of affairs in which Russia annexes its land and the guarantors of the memorandum drag their feet with the deliverance of military equipment.
@@gomersimpson777ram "Russia desperately wanted those imaginary weapons that Ukraine never had and for which never could have created control systems being a technically proficient country ". Love SENSE PEOPLE!!
@@cadicamo8720 man you need to learn what is to be a republic in USSR, what does it mean, because there is other sense in being part of ussr than you pretend....................................................................................................
Why did Russia then negotiate with Ukraine in the Budapest Memorandum to take over those nuclear weapons if they belonged to Russia in the first place? Belonged the Soviet Black Sea fleet to Russia too? Why did Russia then make a deal with Ukraine to split it between the two countries? And what about all those Russian planes, tanks and other vehicles which Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan kept?
According to Wikipedia/an Ukrainian think tank, the plutonium route would be possible: "On 13 November 2024, a report by a Ukrainian think tank that advises the Ukrainian government stated that Ukraine could construct a crude nuclear device "within months" if President Trump cut aid to Ukraine. Such weapons would use plutonium extracted from spent fuel from Ukraine's nuclear power plants."
IMO the plutonium is a red herring. Commercial power plants are not designed to operate as plutonium breeders. Not saying it can't be done, just not efficiently. Enriched uranium is another story.
@@Here0s0Johnny you can believe what the hell you like. Just giving my opinion. Admittedly my opinion is based on previous knowledge of the nuclear industry in UK from 50 years ago. I'm sure Ukraine has a different situation, but it doesn't make my personal opinion any less valid.
@@bobjohnbowles Yes, it does! You may understand the physics and engineering challenges very well, like the guest on this video, but this statement was made by whatever experts were tasked with answering this question by the Ukrainian government! They didn't just have some physicist sitting in an armchair give his opinion, they probably asked a group of experts to gather relevant data, analyze it, and calculate different scenarios.
The tritium is not essential in the fission stage of the bomb. Even without the fusion part, you could detonate the fission stage that would be comparable to to early bombs used against Japan.
Nonsense. Who is this so called expert? Ukraine was the brain trust of the Soviet Union. Ukraine could absolutely have remanufactured or refurbished the nuclear weapons they had. The tritium for example would have simply been refilled as it is normally done with nukes in inventories all over the world. Obtaining tritium is easy especially when you have nuclear power plants around. Ukrainians helped to build the nukes of the Soviet Union. They could rebuild them into practical weapons of the same or similar type using the skills and resources they had. This nonsense about building from scratch is not even remotely relevant. They had full up weapons already. They just needed maintenance and replacement of some fusing components. In the meantime they could have kept them in inactive status. Ukraine was in an ambiguous position in the NPT because they already had nukes at an early stage and could justifiably be considered one of the existing nuclear powers grandfathered in. Ukraine could absolutely build their own new devices using technological knowledge available to them and with some nuclear material in at least limited supply. This would be extremely useful for deterrence against Russia attacking Ukraine with nukes even in small numbers. This guy is an idiot.
NATO Transferring nuclear weapons 🚀 to Poland could provide Ukraine with similar benefit without cost, risk associated with development of independent Ukrianian nuclear program until Ukraine joins NATO.
Ukraine will never be joining NATO. The only way that would happen is if Russia joins first. Back in 2000 maybe but it would take 20 years to get Russia to join.
Making U-235 bombs is a dead end. Too expensive, too limited supply of raw materials. AFAIK no country currently has any U-235 bombs. They're all plutonium implosion devices. Maybe Ukraine could make a bomb like Little Boy. So, in desperation, they can threaten to explode it. Then what? A plutonium weapons program can be started from small beginnings. DPRK did it. But when you're already under attack by a larger country, it miiiight not be the best use of limited resources.
We have RBMK reactor in Chernobyl which is dual purpose reactor and can produce plutonium. Chernobyl was closed and abandoned but we can build a new one, specifically for breeding plutonium, somewhere underground. Nukes are the best "guarantees".
Yeah but your dumbassss knows the whole truth, listen to one silly comment on youtube and take it in as the holy bible, tell me one thing why did so called russia aka muscovites recruit ukranians to maintain their nukes until the war started??? But Ukrainians didn't have the technology to build nukes even though the majority of nukes got produced in Dnipro
Perhaps naive but appreciate those in Japan that just won Nobel Peace Prize. Sometimes it is hard not to wonder "What if?". Nuclear deterrence theories also how much better the whole world could be if funds for so much war and implements of war were spent on public education, public health, environment. But will never not support any sovereign country to defend itself given unprovoked attack. ✨🇺🇦✨
Finally someone who is an expert finally telling truth that those nukes were useless without launch codes and maintenance the brain of the nuclear program was in Russia and nowhere else . But Ukraine uses it as a talking point “ we gave up our nukes” They were never your nukes they were just stationed there
He is talking nonsense. They could have replaced the fusing and refurbished the weapons to make them serviceable again. The Soviets did not use the deep permissive active link countermeasures that the US did. Simply replacing some electrical components and refilling the tritium tanks would have been feasible to make them active again
I can’t believe they allowed this interview on this channel!🤣 I have had debates with a lot of 🤡s online who keep saying that Russia won’t dare use a nuke in Ukraine because NATO will nuke Moscow 🤣🤣. These people actually think that any of the nuclear powers would trade their own countries for Ukraine. I hate to break it to you, if a nuke was used against a nato country that doesn’t have its own nukes, there won’t be any nato nuke flying to anywhere in Russia. Article 5 would be worth a toilet paper in a second as countries wouldn’t want to involve in nuclear war. There would only be more sanctions and negotiations! If you truly want to have security guarantee in today’s world, then you have to own your own nukes and not rely on someone else’s. What makes you think Germany doesn’t want to commit more into the war like the US, UK and France? They don’t have nukes and are not allowed to build one as they are still under occupation since they lost the war. US isn’t allowing these occupied countries in Europe build their own nukes as that would significantly reduce US influence around the world. I hope these countries knows that the US would back out in a minute if there’s a risk of a nuclear war!
Russia would never allow that. Russia would nuke Ukraine if necessary to prevent them from having nuclear weapons. The "disadvantageous peace" the US Army predicted when plotting the current proxy war in 2019 would only end up being even worse for Ukraine.
@@michaelwilson9921 Obviously Ukraine would try to keep the nuke construction site top secret. If Russia discovered it (more likely than not, I'd think), they would first try to destroy the site with a massive bombardment of conventional weapons.
Should USSR nukes be given to Ukraine when breaking off. If they stayed part of Russia? Maybe. Any type of break off means risk of rogue state selling or using nukes. Ukraine corruption is shockingly bad since the break up. Puts other Eastern European countries to shame.
I am not Ukrainian, I am an Albanian from Kosovo and I have met many Ukrainians across Europe. I really feel a lot of love and respect for Ukraine. I also did a DNA test and 9% of me says is also Ukrainian. I wish this war had never started. I wish Russia was more respectful towards Ukraine but my strongest disappointment is with NATO. NATO gave Putin way too much flexibility to start this war. Why allow Putin to gather thousands of soldiers next to Ukraine. The moment you see 5000 to 10000 you go to Putin and tell him that if you keep doing this we will have 500.000 NATO soldiers inside Ukraine. Just don't give Putin the idea that he can have a war on a country because it does not believe in his thug system.
@@siphofunnykhosa9871 Very very similar behaviour. Look at Serbia and Russia history. Serbia has attacked and killed Slavic people in the history, so did Russia. Serbia has killed its own people and blamed others, Russia has done the same. Russia never says what they do and always sneak around, same like Serbia. I have been watching so many documentaries from many sides and read a lot of things about these two countries. They are closer than let's say Austria with Germany. I mean their ideology not location.
He is knowledgeable, but as a nuclear engineer, I think his estimates are conservative. While a Uranium bomb like Iran now has would likely take years, a plutonium bomb such as North Korea developed could be done much faster under wartime pressures. Ukraine already has spent fuel from which plutonium can be extracted chemically, which is much easier than enriching uranium. The design of a plutonium bomb is trickier, but the key ideas can be found on UA-cam and Ukraine has the expertise to convert the ideas to a design. I think Ukraine could do this in months, not years.
Chemical extraction of plutonium from spent fuel is indeed quite simple. Whether it can be used for a fission bomb or not (due to too much Pu-240 and too high a spontaneous fission rate), is not really clear. Some advocate it cannot be used, other disagree. But definitely Ukraine don't need UA-cam to get an idea how to design such a bomb 🙂
@@urbansimoncic8623 Not completely agreed about UA-cam. Using conventional explosive shapes to turn spherically expanded shock waves into spheriically contracting shock waves is not an intuitive idea. It's not as difficult to come up with as the Teller-Ulam (hydrogen bomb) secret - which remains classified in the US even if you think of it yourself - but it's not trivial.
Yes and also thanks to russia, nuclear proliferation is back on the agenda for any state with a bad neighbour or if you want to steal chunks of a neighbouring countrys territory!
@ Those Nukes belonged to the USSR not Ukraine and Ukraine never had operational of it. When the USSR splits apart, Russia who leads the USSR took it back to their territory.
That's what happens when Ukraine soldiers garrison themselves in Frontline cities. If Russia wanted to level Lviv or Chernihiv they could've done it already, but they're not at the front. Common sense.
@@homersimpson8955 and what does your weak deflection have to do with Frontline cities getting leveled? Because Chernihiv still standing is a fact... I don't understand if you're trying to embarrass yourself or make a point.
@@mugenmugen9632 my point is obvious, you so mermerized by russian might that you can believe in any bs. The only reason russia didn't destroy something in Ukraine because they simply can't. Due to ukrainian ground forces or air defense systems. Right now russia totally loosing in Syria and their fleet running away. Is it too according to the plan and they simply doesn't want to keep their fleet in Syria?
@@mugenmugen9632 assuming that you knowing ukrainian cities so well, you are obviously russian. So do you really think putin is a djudo mastet and kadirov is mma champion, or maybe they just pretenders?
Can Ukraine build a nuke Well they have Chernobyl The hardest part out of the way, source of uranium and plutonium Depends how fast and effectively the can reprocess and separate the left over reactor material Requires infrastructure, and additional natural resources Titanium, beryllium, alkalines and akali metals, they have the dead sea so a possible source of deuterium, need helium Also need reactors, this way you can also manufacture fissile metal from non fissile or less fissionable isotopes Do they have a thorium deposit 2-3 year is possible and with all the books and data available for purchase and the nuclear scientist running powr stations, because all the hardest work was done during the Manhattan project. Now atleast in America they build nuclear bombs based on quantum mechanics and not just solely on Einstein based nuclear physics and f=ma2, yes America still produces nukes, they detonate em with supercomputers now thats why you never hear anything from the government, because of lessons learned from manhattan project and information security. They can skip atomic and go straight to teller-ulam. They would be first to develop a hydrogen bomb without going atomic, and interesting because they also be the first nation to independently produce one, All other nations used Russian sourced design, which are built from stolen American designs Thats why Americans dont give away nukes, countries rent them by joining NATO, and need a good reason, and the nukes wont be out of sight or control of the department of Defense
😂 Russia now knows that Ukraine has such intentions and will be actively monitoring power generation and use in Ukraine for any changes as well as movement in and around Chernobyl and will absolutely devastate that reactor site the moment they get the slightest hint that Ukraine is actively developing nuclear weapons.
Russia has already destroyed a lot of Ukrainian cities ( w.o. nukes), Chernobyl has a second working (Breeder) reactor, built during the Soviet era, which can supply "fissionable" material !!
The Russians in general are excellent chess players, I see all their moves as very calculated and careful, And this is one of the proofs that their caution and forward thinking in not passing on the knowledge in not allowing nuclear missiles to fall into the hands of the crazy Nazi Zelensky.
It would be prudent for them to keep a small amount of such weapons secret if they had them. Just hint to Russia that they might have them is enough for defensive deterrence.
These were not Ukrainian nuclear weapons, such things never exist but they were placed on Ukrainian territory and belonged to the USSR. Please learn a history first before you start discussing nonsense here.
But that had already dissolved, so that's not history, and if true, even Russia never claimed anything of the sort, or the memorandum wouldn't have been needed, or signed by Russia. You have an interesting understanding of history.
@@siphofunnykhosa9871 With a little effort, they could have reverse engineered some of the nukes, many of the original engineers who actually designed and made them were, in fact Ukrainians!
They didn’t need the codes. Replace the fusing and they could enter their own codes. Physical security measures were only meant to prevent immediate use. Refurbishing the weapons was always feasible.
@bobjohnbowles LOL.....Russia has 5580 nukes you fool. They will detect anything that Ukraine launches and will have dozens hitting you back. So stop your nonsense crazy dreams. 🤮
The Soviets didn't discriminate on where their leaders or engineers were coming from, on like the US with it's BLACK minority. Otherwise the Soviets wouldn't have produced leaders like Stalin nor Edward Schavadnaze from other Soviet REPUBLICS.🇷🇺👍🏾 thus the Ukraine can build NUCLEAR WEAPONS because these engineers were Soviet trained.
False. Soviets didnt produce those leaders, they came in through a coup. Later leaders rose from within, but Stalin was in the same Tsarist prisons as Lenin. And yes, Soviets did discriminate to the lowest levels of society, where far easterners and middle easterners would not get good jobs or leadership considerations. Anyone not white would not even get jobs as cooks in cafeterias. They would do construction, cleaning, driving and etc.
Nukes are these morons talking about 😂😂. Can Turkey claim right to USA nukes deployed in its territory if the nato alliance no longer exists ?. The Soviet Union dissolve and Russia toon back all its nukes deployed in former soviet territories like Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan etc… so what’s the problem here 😂😂
A simple fission device is not difficult to construct. Ukraine had about 38% of the Soviet unions nuclear weapons. I’m sure they have enough leftovers to construct a simple fission weapon.
Moscow had the keys to the nukes in ukraine. Ukraine had it on its territory but never had any control or ability to use it
Exactly brother....but this emotional clown's 🤡.. they are soo desperate..is turkey the owner of the nuclear weapons, station in their country... they are station there by the US..
it's not about those specific bombs, which anyway, as explained in the video, were approaching their expiry date. Ukraine could have kept/started its own nuclear weapons programme, and disassembled the nukes it had to get back the uranium, plutonium or any other component. As it was said in the video, even when starting from zero, they could probably have build fission bombs within a couple of years.
Refusing the nukes could have been accomplished in a matter of months. Codes for Soviet nukes did not prevent use by those with direct access for an extended period of time. Ukraine had the technical capabilities to do this. They opted not to because of political and economic pressure.
@@vladthepistol3974 Ah but defenders of Russia always have a BRILLIANT answer to this: "Ukraine didn't have the codes so the weapons were useless". If they were useless... Why the interest in disarming Ukraine? 1. Avoid the possibility of a black market for Ukraine's nuclear material and make it impossible for groups/states to have access to that material. 2. well ... AVOID UKRAINE'S HAVING THE NUKES AS THEY ALWAYS REPRESENT A MAJOR FACTOR IN BALANCE POWER. Russia and everyone else knew that Ukraine could have very easily created its own control and delivery systems!!!
The purpose of this line of argumentation is to downplay the enormous step taken by Ukraine towards peace with brotherly nation Russia, and how enormously unfair is the current state of affairs in which Russia annexes its land and the guarantors of the memorandum drag their feet with the deliverance of military equipment.
@@JOBAHFam You're so emotional and desperate to downplay the Ukraine's commitment to peace with Russia that you can't understand that Ukraine could create its own control systems!!!
There is no point asking such a question. Ukraine's independence was conditional on giving up nukes. If Ukraine did not agree, it would have remained part of Russia.
Ukraine was never part of russia.
@@luckyluckydog123 Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union which was led by Russia which was the largest republic. All that Ukraine had like technical institutes, nuclear power stations, nuclear weapons, steel mills etc. was due to Russian investment.
@@johnadam2885 did you study history from russian propaganda?
@@luckyluckydog123 You are unable to disprove anything I wrote. Ukraine did not have a choice of not giving up nukes. Numskull.
Why then agreement was needed? Do you really think Russia was in any position to go and take them when army was not even getting paid for half year at a time? You are fooling yourself.
Implying only Russia in the USSR had the science to produce nuclear weapons is silly. Most of their scientists weren't Russian, they were Ukrainians Georgians Belorussians kazakhs etc.
Why can't the same scientists produce high quality weapons as the Russians are doing now? The Soviet Union was a Russian project.
@@TheNapchop Working under one nation. If the nation ask you to produce something do you hide it because your living in a different republic of the nation? Thats not how it work. The US has many labs in different states of the US but they work under the US
You are half correct, but so is he.
Hydrogen bombs cost a lot in maintenance, but Tritium can be refreshed from the water used inside a nuclear reactor (that's where it is normally obtained from - and that is why countries employ the kinds of nuclear reactors that they do - they are the cheapest source of tritium and plutonium) - the other components are relatively simple to produce with the right materials processing and engineering. One of the most difficult parts is the shaped charge design for the initial implosion charge to trigger an efficient fission explosion (rod and donut configurations do not work well) the lithium hydride fusion catalyst is relatively easy to obtain. Of course the soviets also developed fission catalysts that reduced the amount of plutonium required to below the critical mass of 3.4kg usually required. Typical efficient designs rely on a spherical core of Plutonium which is imploded by a series of shaped charges, arranged to ensure equal pressure from all sides.
"Destroy cities, which I don't think russia wants to destroy cities" - what an underestimate of russians.
🥱
They destroy cities with conventional weapons already!
They already _have_ destroyed Ukrainian cities. And we have also seen that it is not necessary to go nuclear to do that.
Russia already has destroyed cities in Ukraine the evidence is clear for war crimes
I know, Right? Russia has already been destroying Ukrainian cities with conventional weapons. This guy obviously has some kind of bias that is clouding his judgement or he is lying.
Why you would keep something that 1) isn't yours 2) you cannot use it?
@@Meczyk It was theirs and they could very easily create control systems for the weapons. Why ? Have you heard about Russia's war against Ukraine? No? Ok
A simple fission device is not difficult to construct. Ukraine had about 38% of the Soviet unions nuclear weapons. I’m sure they have enough leftovers to construct a simple fission weapon.
Ukraine has no such leftovers but, it has the biggest uranium ore deposits in Europe instead. As well as ICBMs to deliver nuclear warheads to any point everywhere in Muscovy.
@@betterdonotanswertrue. And the brains, sealed Chernobyl and other nuclear power stations.
The Ukraine didn't have any nuclear weapons
What's your source about the 38% figure?
It's much more complicated than that bud.
Russia can have no decisive military advantage over Ukraine in any area. The nuclear weapons gap will need to be closed. Israel decided it was necessary to acquire nuclear weapons and Ukraine's circumstances are even more dire.
Russia will never allow Ukraine to have nukes. They will do whatever it takes to ensure that. Unless everyone wants Eastern Europe to be radioactive I suggest not attempting
I doubt very much the cost of maintaining and keeping nuclear weapons viable has been a main priority of Russia, to much corruption and leaching funds to keep Russias nuclear weapons functioning.
What are they supposed to do with the 100 million more people than Ukraine ?
@@davemccrillis1470 Ukraine will need to work harder just as Israel does. Israel has a Jewish population of 7.7 million surrounded by a total Arab population of 473 million or a world Muslim population of 2.04 billion. Either Ukraine stands up to Russia or becomes part of Russia.
You''re not jewish so stop larping as a jew lol
Fascinating. You get the sense the interviewee is VERY knowledgable.
Nope
I get the sense that he has little respect for the scientists and innovators in Ukraine.
Ukraine never had atomic bombs. The Soviet Union did.
@@Crlmrtn and Ukrain was a part of that
@@camillamattsson7235yup. Everyone got to keep what was there.
@@Crlmrtn Ukraine got nuclear weapons after USSR dissolution. That was the whole point of Budapest Memorandum. Keep trying!
@ Yes, but they did not have full operational control over the nuclear weapons. The strategic weapons were designed to be controlled from Russia via Soviet command and control systems.
@@Crlmrtn Sure, however, rocket system technology and infrastructure were already in Ukraine. Nuclear weapons are repurposed by disassembly and transferring uranium to a new delivery system that you would fully control. Longest part of this process is enrichment of uranium, which Ukraine would NOT have to do. At the time Budapest memorandum was signed, it would have taken 2-6 months to repurpose the weapons for control out of Kiev. If they had to do this now, it would take 2-3 years. This is why it was a big deal; this is why Ukrainians were skeptical - they were in a position to create own security umbrella because materials, industry, infrastructure, experts and know-how was right there at home.
I hate to break it to u guys, but Ukraine never had a Nuclear Arsenal..... It was Soviet Unions
Ukrainian SSR had the weapons. Ukraine inherited them. They belonged to Ukraine.
@@stupidburplol man
Rubbish
They didn't inherent it, all nukes were to be returned to russia but ukraine was trying to refuse so the Us had to be involved @@stupidburp
@@stupidburpit was on Ukrainian SSR territory controlled by USSR having capital in Moscow
Very informative. A knowledgeable guest.
its stupid to assume Russia will not nuke Kyiv before the device is completed.
@@wolfswinkel8906ikr, 90% of these "experts" are speculators and guess artists who misled the public on Ukraine for2 years.
Which is why you would deny having any nuclear weapons program if you were doing it in secret. Possibly even continuing to be ambiguous about the possession of them even after you have a stockpile. Just send a hint to Russia that you might or might not have them and they have a deterrent against using their own nukes.
Ukraine never had nuclear weapons...
@@gezalesko3813 Yes it had, putinboy.
@cadicamo8720 "let the rockets speak" Zelensky..
You are wrong,my son 😊 @@cadicamo8720
@@gezalesko3813 Yes, Ukraine had nuclear weapons and could very easily create control systems for them, and Ukraine gave its nukes away in exchange for sovereignty, and finally Russia started a war to deprive Ukraine of the land and sovereignty.
@cadicamo8720 to my best knowledge there were some talks about remaining neutral..
"There is little place on a battlefield for nuclear weapons"....Joe Starlin.
This is just one idea how history is rewritten, now ask yourself if you really know the truth of the history you know
Great commentary from this gentleman. One dimension to nuclear weapons which he only touched on briefly is what they are good for. He did hint that they are fairly useless, extremely expensive and difficult to build and maintain, all of which is true. The question then may arise: why do any of the small number of nations which maintain nuclear arsenals bother to maintain them? The answer is deterrence. A nuclear arsenal of sufficient composition and with systems of detection, decision and guidance support can represent a threat of a "Dead Hand Strike," that is, an attack against an adversary which has already launched their nuclear weapons, and is likely to cause extreme harm or even national death. This is the one scenario in which using nuclear weapons can be said to make some sense. This is the only scenario because using them in any other way risks setting in motion a series of events which culminates in national death. This condition was thought to have existed by the early 1950s and certainly was a reality by the early 1960s: a world with two or more nuclear armed adversaries targeting one another and observing one another and prepared to either engage in a "Decapitation First Strike," or else a Dead Hand Reprisal Strike. The term Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) was coined to characterize this peculiar dynamic in which no nuclear armed nation can risk using their nuclear weapons for fear that it will lead to the death of the nation. But simultaneously, keeping them at the ready is a way to deter against anyone else using theirs too. The French and British only maintain a couple hundred and China about 300. Both the U.S. and Russia still have thousands, but they have always had the most. Depending on how many war heads might fail to reach their targets, 50 to 100 is likely to be adequate to effectively kill any nation on Earth by hiting all the major cities, and all major military targets with at least one ~1 megaton bomb, which is sufficient to destroy large metropolitan areas.
In sum: nuclear weapons are pretty much useless. They have only been used to influence the outcome of a war once, when the U.S. used the 2nd and 3rd devices ever created to attack Nagasaki and Hiroshima and compel the Japanese Empire to surrender in a timely manner and on much less costly terms. Arguably, there was a period of time from 1945 until about 1952 or 1953 when the U.S. could have ventured using such weapons in warfare again (because no one else had enough capacity to retaliate that MAD was not yet imposed to any significant degree). By 1953, it was thought that Soviet capacities were sufficiently threatening that nuclear weapons were not a sensible option; and certainly by the 1960s both the U.S. and the Soviets understood that the primary purpose of these weapons was to deter the other from using theirs.
Because there are multiple oppositional international dyads (India vs. Pakistan; West vs. Russia; China vs. any adversaries) which possess sufficient arsenals to pose a credible threat of an effective "nation killing" Dead Hand strike, using nuclear weapons is not a realistic option for any national leader, not even the most irresponsible, unethical and corrupt ones. Nuclear weapons are of zero utility to Ukraine and you are honestly better off without them. Nuclear weapons do not deter conventional and hybrid warfare and they are useless for defense or for winning wars. Observe: Russia with ostensibly one of the worlds largest nuclear arsenals but Ukraine has not been the least bit deterred in in invading and occupying Kursk Oblast, nor crossing any of the other preceding "red lines" which were touted as a potential trigger for Russian nuclear attack.
Very well put together. Thank you.
As far as I understood most of the sites where they would be able to build this this type of weapon were destroyed. After all the Soviets built these places and know exactly where they are.
You are wrong.
They were still active at the time of transfer
Since atomic weapons are mostly a political tool to get more leverage between countries, if not directly, a way to blackmail your neighbors (hey, Russia and DPRK), so should it be the possibility to get them. If (and yeh, its a great if) EU had a firm position against Russian aggression, it should anounce that is considering the development of an european nuclear force. With the economic, industrial and intellectual power of EU members, it shouldn't be difficult to get nukes in a short time. Let's see what would Putin think about the possibility of nukes in Poland, Finland and the Baltics...
As I said in the short, Ukraine had thousand of nuclear weapons. Tritium has a half life of 12.5 years so after 30 year you would have about 1/4 left. Recycling and removing the old tritium and removing the helium would produce enough tritium for a large nuclear arsenal. Tritium isn’t necessary to make a nuclear weapon but it helps in making them small. By recycling the old tritium they could easily use the weapons they had and give them enough time to time to develop the ability to produce their own tritium.
Obtaining tritium is easy anyways. It is just an isotope of hydrogen.
@@stupidburpThe problem is it’s an unstable isotope with a half-life of 12.5 years. You won’t find it in nature typically except in tiny amounts. The way it’s manufactured is to expose lithium to neutron bombardment. It’s also a byproduct in some nuclear reactors. The USA doesn’t manufacture it anymore because they can get all they want from retired nuclear warheads. That’s why I was saying the Ukrainians could have done the same with theirs.
@ The problem is it’s an unstable isotope with a half-life of 12.5 years. You won’t find it in nature typically except in tiny amounts. The way it’s manufactured is to expose lithium to neutron bombardment. It’s also a byproduct in some nuclear reactors. The USA doesn’t manufacture it anymore because they can get all they want from retired nuclear warheads. That’s why I was saying the Ukrainians could have done the same with theirs.
People often view this issue using hindsight and quite a few incorrect assumptions. At the time that the memorandum was signed, Ukraine had only recently become independent and as with all of the former Soviet Union, was in financial crisis. The cost to maintain and protect those missiles was not feasible, or something that the nation could afford. In addition, there was a huge issue at the time with "loose nukes," in all of the former republics of the USSR, and there was a fear that one of the republics could have some of the nuclear components stolen, sold on the black market and fall into the hands of a terrorist group, which if used, could be linked back to the nation from which it was stolen. Ukraine wanted nothing to do with nuclear weapons at the time, and for good reason I commend the Kyiv Independent for accurately reporting that it was a political agreement, not a military treaty. People often attempt to claim that it was a military treaty, when it could not possibly be one. It was, however, not a security guarantee, but rather an agreement that required the parties to respect Ukraine's independence and sovereignty.
It was political and economic pressure that forced Ukraine to give them up. But they absolutely had the ability to make them serviceable again if they wanted to. They just didn’t have the cash at the time and were being blackmailed from both sides to give them up or suffer economic ruin.
@ that is untrue, Ukraine wanted absolutely nothing to do with them. Should you disagree, please quote anyone at the time that said what you just claimed
So if Ukraine had 'borrowed' plutonium and uranium from the USSR missiles before getting rid of them they could, within 2 years, have been able to produce atomic weapons.
They can mine the uranium themselves. The largest deposits in Europe. Something tells me that is one reason Putin wants Ukraine. Just the land, he doesn't give a sh*t about the people.
They would not even need to extract the pits out of the weapons. Just replace the fusing and refill the tritium tank. Months, not years.
@@stupidburp Tritium is not so easy to make, and a full-blown H-weapon would be overkill IMO.
@@bobjohnbowles It is easy to make. Nuclear power plants make it in normal operations, But it is a challenge to isolate from solution in water.
@stupidburp exactly my point. You don't make tritium, you collect it, and therein lies the fun.
Ukraine per se had no nuclear weapons. Ukraine declared its independence from the Soviet Union on August 24, 1991, following a failed coup attempt in Moscow by hardline Communist leaders. This declaration was later confirmed by a nationwide referendum held on December 1, 1991, in which over 90% of Ukrainian voters supported independence.
The Soviet Union officially dissolved on December 26, 1991, after the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus signed the Belavezha Accords on December 8, 1991, declaring the USSR ceased to exist and establishing the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in its place. The dissolution was finalized when the Soviet Supreme Council formally voted to dissolve the USSR. The USSR (which still existed when Ukraine became independent), had nuclear weapons, stationed on Ukrainian soil. Since Russia was the legal successor state to the USSR, those weapons then became Russian. Its utterly as simple as that.
Happy to see sense people here
@innerlotuslight Ah but defenders of Russia always have a BRILLIANT answer to this: "Ukraine didn't have the codes so the weapons were useless". If they were useless... Why the interest in disarming Ukraine? 1. Avoid the possibility of a black market for Ukraine's nuclear material and make it impossible for groups/states to have access to that material. 2. well ... AVOID UKRAINE'S HAVING THE NUKES AS THEY ALWAYS REPRESENT A MAJOR FACTOR IN BALANCE POWER. Russia and everyone else knew that Ukraine could have very easily created its own control and delivery systems!!!
The purpose of this line of argumentation is to downplay the enormous step taken by Ukraine towards peace with brotherly nation Russia, and how enormously unfair is the current state of affairs in which Russia annexes its land and the guarantors of the memorandum drag their feet with the deliverance of military equipment.
@@gomersimpson777ram "Russia desperately wanted those imaginary weapons that Ukraine never had and for which never could have created control systems being a technically proficient country ". Love SENSE PEOPLE!!
@@cadicamo8720 man you need to learn what is to be a republic in USSR, what does it mean, because there is other sense in being part of ussr than you pretend....................................................................................................
Why did Russia then negotiate with Ukraine in the Budapest Memorandum to take over those nuclear weapons if they belonged to Russia in the first place? Belonged the Soviet Black Sea fleet to Russia too? Why did Russia then make a deal with Ukraine to split it between the two countries? And what about all those Russian planes, tanks and other vehicles which Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan kept?
According to Wikipedia/an Ukrainian think tank, the plutonium route would be possible:
"On 13 November 2024, a report by a Ukrainian think tank that advises the Ukrainian government stated that Ukraine could construct a crude nuclear device "within months" if President Trump cut aid to Ukraine. Such weapons would use plutonium extracted from spent fuel from Ukraine's nuclear power plants."
IMO the plutonium is a red herring. Commercial power plants are not designed to operate as plutonium breeders. Not saying it can't be done, just not efficiently. Enriched uranium is another story.
@bobjohnbowles
What should I believe: Ukrainian experts who have access to nuclear plants and waste - or to your opinion?
@@Here0s0Johnny you can believe what the hell you like. Just giving my opinion. Admittedly my opinion is based on previous knowledge of the nuclear industry in UK from 50 years ago. I'm sure Ukraine has a different situation, but it doesn't make my personal opinion any less valid.
@@bobjohnbowles Yes, it does! You may understand the physics and engineering challenges very well, like the guest on this video, but this statement was made by whatever experts were tasked with answering this question by the Ukrainian government! They didn't just have some physicist sitting in an armchair give his opinion, they probably asked a group of experts to gather relevant data, analyze it, and calculate different scenarios.
The tritium is not essential in the fission stage of the bomb. Even without the fusion part, you could detonate the fission stage that would be comparable to to early bombs used against Japan.
You can also refill the tritium, that is part of normal maintenance procedures.
@@stupidburp correct. And that specific design requires tritium.
Oleg Sukhov is a former Moscow Times editor and reporter and a graduate of Moscow State University.
So
@@felipe-vibor a fact.
@@Pitometsu ok. Still I don't know how to relate with the video
@@felipe-vibor ok =)
This video does have a pro Russian vibe.
Why go through painstaking negotiations to make them give them up if they were useless? Doesn't make sense to me
Radioactive material. The uranium or plutonium could be used as a dirty bomb if.....
Because they weren’t useless. They were merely inactive and capable of refurbishment.
Nonsense. Who is this so called expert? Ukraine was the brain trust of the Soviet Union. Ukraine could absolutely have remanufactured or refurbished the nuclear weapons they had. The tritium for example would have simply been refilled as it is normally done with nukes in inventories all over the world. Obtaining tritium is easy especially when you have nuclear power plants around. Ukrainians helped to build the nukes of the Soviet Union. They could rebuild them into practical weapons of the same or similar type using the skills and resources they had. This nonsense about building from scratch is not even remotely relevant. They had full up weapons already. They just needed maintenance and replacement of some fusing components. In the meantime they could have kept them in inactive status. Ukraine was in an ambiguous position in the NPT because they already had nukes at an early stage and could justifiably be considered one of the existing nuclear powers grandfathered in. Ukraine could absolutely build their own new devices using technological knowledge available to them and with some nuclear material in at least limited supply. This would be extremely useful for deterrence against Russia attacking Ukraine with nukes even in small numbers. This guy is an idiot.
Since you are a genius you can single hand build one and show us how to do it
I probably could manage to build one but wouldn't. I certainly wouldn't ever share how to do it with random Russian trolls on the internet.
The weapons were never the property of Ukraine. It was owned by Russia, the successor stae.
NATO Transferring nuclear weapons 🚀 to Poland could provide Ukraine with similar benefit without cost, risk associated with development of independent Ukrianian nuclear program until Ukraine joins NATO.
🇺🇦
🇺🇲
🇬🇧
🇫🇷
Ukraine will never be joining NATO. The only way that would happen is if Russia joins first. Back in 2000 maybe but it would take 20 years to get Russia to join.
Making U-235 bombs is a dead end. Too expensive, too limited supply of raw materials. AFAIK no country currently has any U-235 bombs. They're all plutonium implosion devices. Maybe Ukraine could make a bomb like Little Boy. So, in desperation, they can threaten to explode it. Then what?
A plutonium weapons program can be started from small beginnings. DPRK did it. But when you're already under attack by a larger country, it miiiight not be the best use of limited resources.
We have RBMK reactor in Chernobyl which is dual purpose reactor and can produce plutonium. Chernobyl was closed and abandoned but we can build a new one, specifically for breeding plutonium, somewhere underground. Nukes are the best "guarantees".
Sweden went straight to plutonium for their secret nuclear weapons program with good reason.
duh ... U has all the parts to build 'Dirty-Bombs' ... and the means to deliver them.
Does that mean the 'tritium' in Russia's nukes has also deteriated ??
why come over here and whine about giving them away if in a few years the weapons would become useless? logic
cuz whining about it was on the propaganda agenda for last 3 years.
So called "expert" should learn the fact, that Ukraine did not have any nuke even for one second... Expert means liar nowadays....
Yeah but your dumbassss knows the whole truth, listen to one silly comment on youtube and take it in as the holy bible, tell me one thing why did so called russia aka muscovites recruit ukranians to maintain their nukes until the war started??? But Ukrainians didn't have the technology to build nukes even though the majority of nukes got produced in Dnipro
@@mirekslechta7161 The expert is right and u clueless about this. Ukraine had nukes for a little bit more than a second.
@@mirekslechta7161 stop your Z propaganda.
Perhaps naive but appreciate those in Japan that just won Nobel Peace Prize. Sometimes it is hard not to wonder "What if?". Nuclear deterrence theories also how much better the whole world could be if funds for so much war and implements of war were spent on public education, public health, environment. But will never not support any sovereign country to defend itself given unprovoked attack. ✨🇺🇦✨
Why we had to give it up if bombs were “useless “. Facts of history contradicts what this pan is saying . With all respect
Finally someone who is an expert finally telling truth that those nukes were useless without launch codes and maintenance the brain of the nuclear program was in Russia and nowhere else . But Ukraine uses it as a talking point “ we gave up our nukes” They were never your nukes they were just stationed there
Lie's Ukraine built the USSR weapons and still has the factories!
He is talking nonsense. They could have replaced the fusing and refurbished the weapons to make them serviceable again. The Soviets did not use the deep permissive active link countermeasures that the US did. Simply replacing some electrical components and refilling the tritium tanks would have been feasible to make them active again
I can’t believe they allowed this interview on this channel!🤣
I have had debates with a lot of 🤡s online who keep saying that Russia won’t dare use a nuke in Ukraine because NATO will nuke Moscow 🤣🤣.
These people actually think that any of the nuclear powers would trade their own countries for Ukraine.
I hate to break it to you, if a nuke was used against a nato country that doesn’t have its own nukes, there won’t be any nato nuke flying to anywhere in Russia. Article 5 would be worth a toilet paper in a second as countries wouldn’t want to involve in nuclear war. There would only be more sanctions and negotiations!
If you truly want to have security guarantee in today’s world, then you have to own your own nukes and not rely on someone else’s. What makes you think Germany doesn’t want to commit more into the war like the US, UK and France? They don’t have nukes and are not allowed to build one as they are still under occupation since they lost the war.
US isn’t allowing these occupied countries in Europe build their own nukes as that would significantly reduce US influence around the world. I hope these countries knows that the US would back out in a minute if there’s a risk of a nuclear war!
they should be building them and deploying them right now, before trump takes office
Russia would never allow that. Russia would nuke Ukraine if necessary to prevent them from having nuclear weapons. The "disadvantageous peace" the US Army predicted when plotting the current proxy war in 2019 would only end up being even worse for Ukraine.
@@michaelwilson9921 Obviously Ukraine would try to keep the nuke construction site top secret. If Russia discovered it (more likely than not, I'd think), they would first try to destroy the site with a massive bombardment of conventional weapons.
Should USSR nukes be given to Ukraine when breaking off. If they stayed part of Russia? Maybe. Any type of break off means risk of rogue state selling or using nukes. Ukraine corruption is shockingly bad since the break up. Puts other Eastern European countries to shame.
Kyiv independent > United 24 💯💯
No point in building a weapon you can’t use.
That’s the best weapon. A weapon you don’t have to use.
Guarantees that some crazy maniac wouldn't start wage war against you with a reasons he invented himself.
I am not Ukrainian, I am an Albanian from Kosovo and I have met many Ukrainians across Europe. I really feel a lot of love and respect for Ukraine. I also did a DNA test and 9% of me says is also Ukrainian. I wish this war had never started. I wish Russia was more respectful towards Ukraine but my strongest disappointment is with NATO. NATO gave Putin way too much flexibility to start this war. Why allow Putin to gather thousands of soldiers next to Ukraine. The moment you see 5000 to 10000 you go to Putin and tell him that if you keep doing this we will have 500.000 NATO soldiers inside Ukraine. Just don't give Putin the idea that he can have a war on a country because it does not believe in his thug system.
Kosovo was NATOs first criminal act
Russia is not Serbia my friend 😂😂😂😂
@@siphofunnykhosa9871 Very very similar behaviour. Look at Serbia and Russia history. Serbia has attacked and killed Slavic people in the history, so did Russia. Serbia has killed its own people and blamed others, Russia has done the same. Russia never says what they do and always sneak around, same like Serbia. I have been watching so many documentaries from many sides and read a lot of things about these two countries. They are closer than let's say Austria with Germany. I mean their ideology not location.
There is no genetic difference between Ukrainian and Russian DNA. You might be 9% Russian.
Maybe if you learn what cause the war, you won't be saying nonsense
He is knowledgeable, but as a nuclear engineer, I think his estimates are conservative. While a Uranium bomb like Iran now has would likely take years, a plutonium bomb such as North Korea developed could be done much faster under wartime pressures. Ukraine already has spent fuel from which plutonium can be extracted chemically, which is much easier than enriching uranium. The design of a plutonium bomb is trickier, but the key ideas can be found on UA-cam and Ukraine has the expertise to convert the ideas to a design. I think Ukraine could do this in months, not years.
Chemical extraction of plutonium from spent fuel is indeed quite simple. Whether it can be used for a fission bomb or not (due to too much Pu-240 and too high a spontaneous fission rate), is not really clear. Some advocate it cannot be used, other disagree. But definitely Ukraine don't need UA-cam to get an idea how to design such a bomb 🙂
@@urbansimoncic8623 Not completely agreed about UA-cam. Using conventional explosive shapes to turn spherically expanded shock waves into spheriically contracting shock waves is not an intuitive idea. It's not as difficult to come up with as the Teller-Ulam (hydrogen bomb) secret - which remains classified in the US even if you think of it yourself - but it's not trivial.
Is nuclear blackmail okay now?
Yes and also thanks to russia, nuclear proliferation is back on the agenda for any state with a bad neighbour or if you want to steal chunks of a neighbouring countrys territory!
Who claimed that, other than you?
@mesel7105 always with the games huh?
@@operator9858 I guess you are playing games since you were completely unable to answer the question, and didn't even try.
@@mesel7105 what else would you call this?
"Its"
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
It was Russian (USSR) nuclear on the territory of Ukraine
@@Ser-Tor-s7t No. But keep trying.
interesting . !
Ukraine never had Nukes. 🤦♂️🤦♂️
Then explain to us what the Budapest Memorandum was about
@ Those Nukes belonged to the USSR not Ukraine and Ukraine never had operational of it. When the USSR splits apart, Russia who leads the USSR took it back to their territory.
@ then why did Russia sign the Budapest memorandum and, in private (now declassified) phone calls with Bush and Clinton, make such a fuss over them?
"russia is not trying to destroy ukrainian cities"??? has he seen photos of frontline ukrainian cities??
That's what happens when Ukraine soldiers garrison themselves in Frontline cities. If Russia wanted to level Lviv or Chernihiv they could've done it already, but they're not at the front.
Common sense.
@@mugenmugen9632let me guess you also believe that putin is djudo master and kadirov is mma champion? Am I right?))
@@homersimpson8955 and what does your weak deflection have to do with Frontline cities getting leveled? Because Chernihiv still standing is a fact... I don't understand if you're trying to embarrass yourself or make a point.
@@mugenmugen9632 my point is obvious, you so mermerized by russian might that you can believe in any bs. The only reason russia didn't destroy something in Ukraine because they simply can't. Due to ukrainian ground forces or air defense systems. Right now russia totally loosing in Syria and their fleet running away. Is it too according to the plan and they simply doesn't want to keep their fleet in Syria?
@@mugenmugen9632 assuming that you knowing ukrainian cities so well, you are obviously russian. So do you really think putin is a djudo mastet and kadirov is mma champion, or maybe they just pretenders?
First time thumb up to Kyiv Independent from me :)
No they cant
Oh yes they can.
Ukrainian scientists were important in developing the Soviet nuclear deterrence.
@ were ☝️
Can Ukraine build a nuke
Well they have Chernobyl
The hardest part out of the way, source of uranium and plutonium
Depends how fast and effectively the can reprocess and separate the left over reactor material
Requires infrastructure, and additional natural resources
Titanium, beryllium, alkalines and akali metals, they have the dead sea so a possible source of deuterium, need helium
Also need reactors, this way you can also manufacture fissile metal from non fissile or less fissionable isotopes
Do they have a thorium deposit
2-3 year is possible and with all the books and data available for purchase and the nuclear scientist running powr stations, because all the hardest work was done during the Manhattan project.
Now atleast in America they build nuclear bombs based on quantum mechanics and not just solely on Einstein based nuclear physics and f=ma2, yes America still produces nukes, they detonate em with supercomputers now thats why you never hear anything from the government, because of lessons learned from manhattan project and information security.
They can skip atomic and go straight to teller-ulam.
They would be first to develop a hydrogen bomb without going atomic, and interesting because they also be the first nation to independently produce one,
All other nations used Russian sourced design, which are built from stolen American designs
Thats why Americans dont give away nukes, countries rent them by joining NATO, and need a good reason, and the nukes wont be out of sight or control of the department of Defense
😂
Russia now knows that Ukraine has such intentions and will be actively monitoring power generation and use in Ukraine for any changes as well as movement in and around Chernobyl and will absolutely devastate that reactor site the moment they get the slightest hint that Ukraine is actively developing nuclear weapons.
Russia has already destroyed a lot of Ukrainian cities ( w.o. nukes), Chernobyl has a second working (Breeder) reactor, built during the Soviet era, which can supply "fissionable" material !!
Why did you interview this guy. He is so anti Ukriane.
The Russians in general are excellent chess players, I see all their moves as very calculated and careful,
And this is one of the proofs that their caution and forward thinking in not passing on the knowledge in not allowing nuclear missiles to fall into the hands of the crazy Nazi Zelensky.
🇮🇩❤️🇺🇦
If you want this war to last forever? Keep on talking about nukes!
What alternatives did you have? Gave up on our territories again and again till Ukraine will be a size of a small village?
@@homersimpson8955 Announce that you will position yourselves as a neutral country, i.e., that you will never join NATO.
Remain neutral like switzerland and Iceland
@GodwinGodfather Ukraine was 100% neutral when was invaded at 2014 and lost Crimea. Switzerland doesn't have russian neighbors.
@@homersimpson8955If Ukraine wss neutral in 2014, how did the US choose its government?
If Ukraine does indeed have the capability of building a nuclear weapon, it would be strategic malpractice not to have already done so.
We don't know for a fact they haven't.
It would be prudent for them to keep a small amount of such weapons secret if they had them. Just hint to Russia that they might have them is enough for defensive deterrence.
These were not Ukrainian nuclear weapons, such things never exist but they were placed on Ukrainian territory and belonged to the USSR. Please learn a history first before you start discussing nonsense here.
But that had already dissolved, so that's not history, and if true, even Russia never claimed anything of the sort, or the memorandum wouldn't have been needed, or signed by Russia. You have an interesting understanding of history.
What a joke😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
ukraine never should have given up there nukes russia would not have attacked
But he is telling you that Ukraine never have the access code and they failed to bypass this code plus the Nukes were no longer working
@@siphofunnykhosa9871 With a little effort, they could have reverse engineered some of the nukes, many of the original engineers who actually designed and made them were, in fact Ukrainians!
They didn’t need the codes. Replace the fusing and they could enter their own codes. Physical security measures were only meant to prevent immediate use. Refurbishing the weapons was always feasible.
Valuetainment just dropped a video about the truth of the Ukraine war
You are out of your minds. 🤮🤮🤮
So tell Putin to shut up talking about nukes.
@bobjohnbowles LOL.....Russia has 5580 nukes you fool. They will detect anything that Ukraine launches and will have dozens hitting you back. So stop your nonsense crazy dreams. 🤮
@@bobjohnbowlesare you crazy? Russia has 5480.nukes. You don't think they will be able to launch any?
The Soviets didn't discriminate on where their leaders or engineers were coming from, on like the US with it's BLACK minority. Otherwise the Soviets wouldn't have produced leaders like Stalin nor Edward Schavadnaze from other Soviet REPUBLICS.🇷🇺👍🏾 thus the Ukraine can build NUCLEAR WEAPONS because these engineers were Soviet trained.
False. Soviets didnt produce those leaders, they came in through a coup. Later leaders rose from within, but Stalin was in the same Tsarist prisons as Lenin. And yes, Soviets did discriminate to the lowest levels of society, where far easterners and middle easterners would not get good jobs or leadership considerations. Anyone not white would not even get jobs as cooks in cafeterias. They would do construction, cleaning, driving and etc.
Maybe not discriminate, but they did kill and imprison many Soviet scientists. They literally shot their own rocket program in the foot several times.
Nukes are these morons talking about 😂😂. Can Turkey claim right to USA nukes deployed in its territory if the nato alliance no longer exists ?. The Soviet Union dissolve and Russia toon back all its nukes deployed in former soviet territories like Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan etc… so what’s the problem here 😂😂
Stop this zelensky nonsense
Stop this Putin nonsense, because he started it and only he can end it! (Unless he annoys Trump enough!)
A simple fission device is not difficult to construct. Ukraine had about 38% of the Soviet unions nuclear weapons. I’m sure they have enough leftovers to construct a simple fission weapon.