US in 90s says nukes in Ukraine stay. US pays for upkeep, and Russian "peacekeepers" work security.
After 2014 Russians kicked out, and a UN body takes over.
2022 Russia spooked Ukraine now has full control of nukes, and launches same failed blitzkrieg.
At what point would it be "proper" for Ukraine to use nukes?
After a major Russian nuke being deployed. Realistically noone is gonna deploy nukes anytime soon. Pipe dream
Edit: yes immediately. Uktaine is being attacked. Nuclear reply technically justified
According to doctrine? Right away.
But luckily we've never been at a point where a nuclear power's nuclear doctrine was triggered so who knows, in theory nukes are most useful as deterrents.
Also if Russia knew about Ukrainian nukes I doubt they'd do the same retarded Blitzkrieg
Russia wouldn't attack Ukraine because of nuclear deterrence. This is partly why Ukraine has so much support in the west, it did as much as it could to appease Russia while keeping its own independence and they still attacked them.
This is the correct answer. You don't just invade a nuclear state. If Putin was really so high on copium that he thought they'd welcome the Russians in I guess Ukraine would say they need to GTFO by xx date or else. Then all bets are off. I have no fucking clue how the world would react to a country using a nuke to defend themselves from a war of aggression.
>I have no fucking clue how the world would react to a country using a nuke to defend themselves from a war of aggression.
Probably by doubling down on fucking over whoever was stupid enough to start a war of aggression against a country that has nukes.
>What are you going to do? Nuke me? -Asks nuked man after breaking and entering
Obama being cucked on Ukraine was unfortunate, given they were convinced to hand the nukes over. The handwringing over weapons is extremely unfortunate and muh rogue nuclear state debt is something that should be paid off with plentiful weapons shipments.
Ukraine doesn't have Nukes, If they did then Russia wouldn't invade.
Weren't all the nukes in Ukraine ICBMs made to target the US, and thus almost completely useless against Russia? Like their minimum range would just barely let them target Vladivostok?
why would it be a problem to reduce the minimum range of a icbm
its a rocket with a computer on it, you can modify them afterwards.
That's not how suborbital ballistics work, Anon.
They gave them up in exchange for guarantees that the nuclear countries would respect theor territorial integrity and sovereignty.
(Yes, they actually believed Russia would honor their word. This is frequently a costly mistake.)
okay, tell me why couldnt they modify them to work, its 60s tech
they have anti-tamper devices that will cause the nuke to detonate if it detects someone unauthorized is opening it
Just use angle grinder
No way it has such device working everywhere
>tactical use nuke on civilian target [under 20 kt]
>tactical nuke use on head of state
>damaging nuclear power plants in such a way as prevents scramming reactors and/or releases spent fuel containment
>dirty bombing of Kherson area to impede advance on Crimea
>tactical use nuke on Crimean advancing forces [any yield] and/or dirty bomb useage
Reciprocating decapitation strike(s), conventional or otherwise. If they really have muh Deadhand Dr. Strangeglove automation, the policy of calling that bluff will oblige Western powers to stop the pearl clutching and hand wringing and get serious about backing Ukes to the nines instead of this trickle shit.
They wouldn't have to. That's the point.
So why couldn't Ukraine keep the nukes? Are they really just completely useless if you don't have the launch codes? Is there anyway Ukraine could circumvent this?
They were expensive and thought to be mostly pointless. Ukraine wasn’t like Poland or the Baltics, right up until 2014 the population had a majority favorable view of Russia.
>At what point would it be "proper" for Ukraine to use nukes?
The very second the delivery system is operational and not a moment later.