>"Why yes, Ukraine should be armed with nuclear weapons again"

>"Why yes, Ukraine should be armed with nuclear weapons again"

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Name one credible person who has suggested this.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I did.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        you ain't credible

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I credited him

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Me. My credentials? NEET with extensive Wizardry experience. This is related because it has a nuke spell so I'm a perfect arbiter for this.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Is it really such a bad idea ? I'd rather see ukraine have a deterrent via nato membership but since that seems off the table why not just give 'em some capability now ?

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    nice selfie OP

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'd trust Zelensky with them.

    A lot more than Putin.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      and how about the guy after zelensky?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Give him thermobaric nukes and show him how to point them at moscow

        Then give him viral weapons to take care of the survivors

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What's funny is chug has denounced their own mascot lmao

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >and how about the guy after zelensky?
        Still more than the guy after Putin.
        At least we know which direction they'll be pointed in.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I'd trust Zelensky with them.
      of course you do, he's an american plant

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I thought he was a human

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          son of a bitch that caught me off guard

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No, he's Israeli.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This war would literally not have happened if they did have them. Nuclear disarmament is a farce

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Give them chemical weapons and weapon izēd viruses to unleash on rumorons too

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ukraine unironically would have been better off if they kept them, but Ukrainians at the time were so demoralized they didn't want them.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nuclear disarmament is retarded

    Nukes are guns but for your entire country

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it could be interesting to see if Ukrainians could capture a tactical missile and TEL intact

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No one should have nuclear weapons.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Take that up with God for creating a universe in which nuclear fission or fusion can be utilized to create an explosive chain reaction. Unless we were to burn all documentation on the process and execute anyone with any level of education on nuclear physics, even total nuclear disarmament is only a few months away from having nukes again at most. And even if we killed everyone who know anything about nuclear physics and scrubbed all record of the technology, just knowing that it is possible and having a general vague idea as to how would probably have us developing them again in a few years.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >And even if we killed everyone who know anything about nuclear physics and scrubbed all record of the technology, just knowing that it is possible and having a general vague idea as to how would probably have us developing them again in a few years

        I haven't studied physics since high school and if I fell through a stargate into an industrialised planet that didn't have nukes and was trusted with a nation's resources, I could have a gun-style nuke up and detonating in a couple of years, it's not even difficult.
        Once you have enough enriched uranium in one place, stopping it from exploding is harder than making it explode.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          My favorite thing about supercriticality is that this post sounds like a gay bragging about how smart he is, but it's ultimately true. Enrichment and refinement would pose more of a challenge than making the nuke itself, if you didn't care about yield efficiency.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Doesn't Uranium require a more sophisticated mechanism? I thought simple gun type nukes only worked with Plutonium.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Doesn't Uranium require a more sophisticated mechanism?
            No, Plutonium does.

            Uranium (235 anyway) detonates slowly, giving lots of time to get things into position, Plutonium detonates rapidly making it harder. Too much U238 in the mix will also cause a problem.

            80% U235 will do a gun-type. You make the bullet a rod and shoot it into a hollow cylinder usually made of stacked rings, this gets the critical mass in one place fast enough.

            The trouble with Plutonium is that it reacts too fast and it's hard to get the bullet into the cylinder fast enough to prevent pre-detonation (fizzle). They say that a plutonium bullet into U235 rings would probably work but that was never done as far as I know.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    obviously
    if they had nukes putler wouldn't dare attack them and my electricity wouldn't be so fucking expensive

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If we were to first strike and exterminate every living russian living in the greated glowing glass desert area (previously known as Russian Federation) we could also have very cheap gas.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Make Ukraine hypermilitarized nuclear state again.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Any nation who wants them should have them, if you disagree you're anti-gun. Iraq would not have been invaded by imperialist murderers if it had real WMD's.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I have a constitutional right to manufacture my own nuclear weapons
      damn right

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You can't give any reasonable explanation for why Russia should be allowed nuclear weapons and Ukraine denied.
    Ideally neither would have them because they serve no purpose other than letting petulant man-children to flippantly flaunt them as threats in a tantrum over getting what they want.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's going to be like Herbert envisioned in Dune
    Countries allowed to keep nuclear stockpiles to preserve sovereignty but never able to use them.

Your email address will not be published.