UA-RU-NATO War | Discussions | Jun. 1st/Sep. 13th 2025

[NuclearID]

Ukrainian scientists designed the missiles and weapons of the Soviet Union. I'm sure they could have stripped the warheads down and re-engineered them, or simply used the fissile material present there to develop their own weapons. They surely had the scientific acumen and the knowledge.

Some argue they still possess those capabilities. Ukraine has continued operating nuclear reactors since the Soviet era, retaining much of the technical infrastructure and know how.

With uranium mines already in their possession & active, the ability to refine the ore, and the capacity to run nuclear reactors, they’re already halfway there.

Only a few additional steps would be needed to produce a fission bomb followed by the potential to develop thermonuclear weapons pretty quickly.

Japan and South Korea are often considered to be in this same gray area. Both have advanced civilian nuclear programs and the technical expertise to produce nuclear weapons rapidly if they chose to without any outside assistance.

 

[NuclearID]

Only a few additional steps would be needed to produce a fission bomb followed by the potential to develop thermonuclear weapons pretty quickly.

However Ukraine or any other country would be hard pressed to hide it. Essentially if not outright impossible to hide your building nuclear weapons. Especially for Ukraine for many reasons.

 

[Torch]

Ukrainian scientists designed the missiles and weapons of the Soviet Union. I'm sure they could have stripped the warheads down and re-engineered them, or simply used the fissile material present there to develop their own weapons. They surely had the scientific acumen and the knowledge.

The PAL can be easily stripped by almost any nation state given : time and no need to use it (alternate arming fusing scheme) The lack of arming codes would be a laughable small problem for a country with hundreds or even thousands of warheads and delivery vehicles. The bottle necks are:

1) Enrichment. Easily understood, requires only time and space - UA had that covered

2) Assembly. IMO (a minority opinion to be fair) the hardest challenge facing the UA due to an embarrassment of riches. They would probably want to deploy the weapons as thermonuclear (Fusion)
This would require advanced fusing and triggering usually gain only through trail and error. It would be far far easier to strip for the pit and employ them as Fission bombs immediately, enhanced fission later.

3 Delivery Systems. Without an Airforce capable of reliable penetrating Russia airspace, the UA is reduced to missiles, which they have and alternative means which they seem comfortable employing ie VeBAD’s and SeBAD’s ( I have no idea if that’s correct terminology. However it is now. It all I’m using. Way to cool a name to pass up)


Anyways a multi kiloton device would have already melted the Crimean Bridge. Kiev would hold Moscow at risk and Putin would pull out or be served tea on his flight from 17the floor to the sidewalk.
Again IMO.

Opinions vary, please post your thoughts.

 

[Torch]

However Ukraine or any other country would be hard pressed to hide it. Essentially if not outright impossible to hide your building nuclear weapons. Especially for Ukraine for many reasons.

Not hiding production is part of the deterrence IF you already have some ready to go. In this scenario, Ukraine would.

 

[Sentry]

2) Assembly. IMO (a minority opinion to be fair) the hardest challenge facing the UA due to an embarrassment of riches. They would probably want to deploy the weapons as thermonuclear (Fusion)
This would require advanced fusing and triggering usually gain only through trail and error. It would be far far easier to strip for the pit and employ them as Fission bombs immediately, enhanced fission later.

Isn't this a solved problem for the Ukrainians? They inherited thousands of nuclear warheads from the USSR and as I mentioned did design and possess the technology. They already had the warheads as well! Just had to strip the PAL systems.

Secondly, Ukraine did inherit a decent chunk of the Soviet bomber forces, pretty sure those could've been used as nuclear delivery systems. A lot of the ICBMs were also physically present on Ukrainian soil. The Antonov design bureau is Ukrainian!
Russia has had lots of problems designing missiles ever since the fall of the USSR because a lot of that expertise was Ukrainian.

We underestimate them!

 

[GBS61]

MESSAGE FROM THE UKRAINIANS:

"Stop your fake partisanship, you elected a president who wants to screw us! Go fuck yourself, Americans."

I agree with them; they are indeed angry.

 

[Snowfall]

Ukrainian scientists designed the missiles and weapons of the Soviet Union. I'm sure they could have stripped the warheads down and re-engineered them, or simply used the fissile material present there to develop their own weapons. They surely had the scientific acumen and the knowledge.

But they still have/had that capability and chose to not do so. They would’ve been invaded between the time they chose to not give up those weapons and the time they could’ve taken control of them. There would not be an independent Ukraine today if they chose to not give up those weapons. The other issue is they were so poor at the end of the Cold War they had to make a choice between helping their population and maintaining a nuclear arsenal. Their economy would’ve looked much more like North Korea or Iran today if they had continued that path

 

[Publius]

And how many more weapon shipments do they think Ukraine will need when they have to fucking abandon their well built and entrenched defensive positions because Trump thinks it's smart to GIVE territory that YOU control. TO THE FUCKING COUNTRY YOU ARE BEING INVADED BY. NOT EVEN FOR A LASTING PEACE BUT FOR A DAMN CEASEFIRE. Flip the coin, The Usa has been invaded by China. the West coast has fallen, and we are fighting a bitter war of attrition. Our allies that have been helping us fight for our existential right to exist since the beginning, have now seen it as more important to keep their stocks plus instead of BOLSTERING capacity to produce equipment. Leaving us in the dust, and then coming to our front door after a dwindling supply of aid, and FORCING you to come to the negotiation table. All after those countries met with China and already decided the fate of the USA. All at the disdain of US citizens. If you refuse to put yourselves in their shoes and see the absolutely absurd nature of this "PEACE DEAL" then you are blinding yourself to the consequences that this will bring. Russia cannot be trusted to hold a fucking ceasefire. And giving them the frontline will absolutely lead to the second invasion of Ukraine, and this time it will not be with a diminished Russian Armed forces. It will be with the full force and ire of a modern country mobilized with ww2 production numbers. This is absolutely mind boggling that some see this as a legitimate strategy.

And who has been demonizing Defense production and military stockpiles for decades and who is changing the budgetary goals and procurements of defense stockpiles?

 

[Publius]

Saying Ukraine was a founding member of the soviet union willingly ignores the history leading up to them becoming a part of said union. It was not voluntary. And those who resisted were imprisoned, killed, or just simply disappeared. Ukraine was independent after the collapse of the Russian Empire. Left deeply divided along ethnic lines and vying for independence while surrounded by neighbors who wanted to eat their land. An entire famine was manufactured to kill dissent in Ukraine. Ukraine was never our enemy, they were subjugated to the Soviet Union through the threat of violence and death. If anything, since the fall of the Soviet Union, Ukraine has shown that they want to be a part of the European community, want to be our strategic allies, and are willing to hold the line against the Russians. To throw all of that away without taking into account the morality of forcing a country to give land to their invaders, would be moronic. And a waste of billions of dollars that we have already invested in Ukraines success. Once again, why is the strategy of our government when it comes to military procurement favor the status quo over fulfilling quotas or deficits? Because it allows these wars to take place. It allows countries to be gobbled up, turned into chaos, gives a reason for them to shit out some new high tech super tools that will have 5 total made meanwhile our artillery shells are maybe enough for a couple weeks. It's pathetic that they think people are blind to what they are doing. Acting like they care about how many Ukrainians have died while ignoring how many more will die when Russia is confident they CAN take the entire country. What will they say of the civilians when the UFA have no weapons to defend, and Russia starts putting Ukrainians on trains back to Russia, all the while Kyiv becomes free real estate for Russian colonials just like so many other Ukrainian cities under occupation have?

All true, so will another 31/2 years of arms flow to Ukraine defeat Russia? I don’t know, maybe. It’s basically a stalemated war.
Negotiate before more of Ukraine is lost to Russia.
Continue the military buildup of NATO’s eastern flank to ensure Russia doesn’t try this again.
Future Russian aggression or encroachment is not a certainty. It’s only a forgone conclusion if NATO forgets the lessons learned of NOT meeting their defense commitments and positioning troops on the wire.
Remember who sent lethal aid to Ukraine first and why Russia decided to wait till they were out of office to commence their buildup and eventual invasion.

Or flip Chamberlin the bird and send NATO troops into Ukraine and start killing Russian today.

No one here pretty much, including me likes the possible/likely conclusions to this war.
So we can arm up or ruck up. I don’t see many volunteers to ruck up at this point. (Speaking nation states not individuals)

 

[Publius]

Isn't this a solved problem for the Ukrainians? They inherited thousands of nuclear warheads from the USSR and as I mentioned did design and possess the technology. They already had the warheads as well! Just had to strip the PAL systems.

Secondly, Ukraine did inherit a decent chunk of the Soviet bomber forces, pretty sure those could've been used as nuclear delivery systems. A lot of the ICBMs were also physically present on Ukrainian soil. The Antonov design bureau is Ukrainian!
Russia has had lots of problems designing missiles ever since the fall of the USSR because a lot of that expertise was Ukrainian.

We underestimate them!

The entirety of their stockpiles were removed from Ukraine and their delivery vehicles flew east as well. So no it’s not really a done deal.

 

[Publius]

Ukrainian scientists designed the missiles and weapons of the Soviet Union. I'm sure they could have stripped the warheads down and re-engineered them, or simply used the fissile material present there to develop their own weapons. They surely had the scientific acumen and the knowledge.

30 years ago, yes Ukraine could reconstitute its nuclear program easier than most. But they would still be starting at best just half way. And with the scrutiny of the world and Russia on them.
Russia would use the bombing of Iran to justify any air strike to thwart this.

 

[Publius]

Ukraine won’t give up the position if they don’t want to, if they don’t agree with the U.S. proposal they just won’t implement it. The U.S. has basically already cut weapons shipments and I’m sure they’re not going to turn down money for the defense industry.

In the end will that be enough?

 

[Peter Griffin]

All true, so will another 31/2 years of arms flow to Ukraine defeat Russia? I don’t know, maybe. It’s basically a stalemated war.
Negotiate before more of Ukraine is lost to Russia.
Continue the military buildup of NATO’s eastern flank to ensure Russia doesn’t try this again.
Future Russian aggression or encroachment is not a certainty. It’s only a forgone conclusion if NATO forgets the lessons learned of NOT meeting their defense commitments and positioning troops on the wire.
Remember who sent lethal aid to Ukraine first and why Russia decided to wait till they were out of office to commence their buildup and eventual invasion.

Or flip Chamberlin the bird and send NATO troops into Ukraine and start killing Russian today.

No one here pretty much, including me likes the possible/likely conclusions to this war.
So we can arm up or ruck up. I don’t see many volunteers to ruck up at this point. (Speaking nation states not individuals)

In short I agree with you. I just don't think this settlement is the way to go. Negotiations for a ceasefire should not involve the defender giving up unoccupied land.

 

[Publius]

In short I agree with you. I just don't think this settlement is the way to go. Negotiations for a ceasefire should not involve the defender giving up unoccupied land.

So is it Ukraine unilaterally giving up unoccupied territories.
Or is it a swapping territories?
There is a difference. Obviously Ukraine should not have to withdraw from regions unoccupied by Russia. Without comparable withdrawals by Russia from parts they occupy. This is kind of a common thing in peace settlements of stalemated wars.
I believe this is the crux of today’s dispute.
No I don’t think Ukraine should have to unilaterally withdraw from territories. Unless Russia is willing to withdraw from areas they occupy that are agreeable to Ukraine.
We’re five days from the meeting. The posturing from all sides is going to be insane.

 

[Sentry]

The entirety of their stockpiles were removed from Ukraine and their delivery vehicles flew east as well. So no it’s not really a done deal.

Oh I meant 30 years ago, before this was done.

 

[william]

Here's a novel idea. Let the disputed territories vote on if they want to be part of the russian federation (ussr) or not. Monitored by the EU.

 

[Sentry]

Here's a novel idea. Let the disputed territories vote on if they want to be part of the russian federation (ussr) or not. Monitored by the EU.

1) Russia will not respect it.
2) Plays into their hands by putting the territorial integrity of Ukraine into question.
Put it this way. If a hypothetical superpower invaded the U.S. and they take California and Texas, would you as a U.S. citizen want there to be a vote to be held there supervised by a third power? Or would you ask the invaders to GTFO?

 

[Peter Griffin]

Here's a novel idea. Let the disputed territories vote on if they want to be part of the russian federation (ussr) or not. Monitored by the EU.

This would set an absolutely awful precedent moving forward. What about the numerous civilians that have already died in occupied territories, how will they vote? Or their family members from seperate oblasts, do they not get a say in this? What about those forcibly removed from the occupied territories?

 

[Peter Griffin]

So is it Ukraine unilaterally giving up unoccupied territories.
Or is it a swapping territories?
There is a difference. Obviously Ukraine should not have to withdraw from regions unoccupied by Russia. Without comparable withdrawals by Russia from parts they occupy. This is kind of a common thing in peace settlements of stalemated wars.
I believe this is the crux of today’s dispute.
No I don’t think Ukraine should have to unilaterally withdraw from territories. Unless Russia is willing to withdraw from areas they occupy that are agreeable to Ukraine.
We’re five days from the meeting. The posturing from all sides is going to be insane.

I think a core difference from Ukraine to an example like Korea is the fact that Ukraine was a sovereign nation before this conflict. North and South Korea two very fractured sides of the same nation. Sure some might argue that those in the Eastern oblasts of Ukraine want sovereignty, but that is a guise for russian tutelage or annexation. LPR and DPR have always been political tools waged by Putin to undermine Ukraine's internationally recognized sovereignty. I'd also argue that the scale of this war compared to that of Korea in terms of border exchange and the strategic value of Ukraine as pertaining to direct paths to Nato allies is much greater, and should be treated as a complete different level of conflict when weighing the consequences of any potential ceasefire deal and DMZ declaration. This isn't a a north and south Korea DMZ where one side is held to some level of accountability by big brother China, this would be a Semi hot DMZ between a country itching closer to EU membership and as much as some people like to neglect it, a global power. There won't be anyone to hold Russia accountable but us, and Putin will use that to his advantage and test our resilience and responses should Ukraine cede territory and a Nato peacekeeping force be deployed to Ukraine. I do see where you are coming from posturing wise but when they are taking this level of posture already, when Ukraine hasn't even been brought to the table, is completely unreasonable.

 

[Publius]

I think a core difference from Ukraine to an example like Korea is the fact that Ukraine was a sovereign nation before this conflict. North and South Korea two very fractured sides of the same nation. Sure some might argue that those in the Eastern oblasts of Ukraine want sovereignty, but that is a guise for russian tutelage or annexation. LPR and DPR have always been political tools waged by Putin to undermine Ukraine's internationally recognized sovereignty. I'd also argue that the scale of this war compared to that of Korea in terms of border exchange and the strategic value of Ukraine as pertaining to direct paths to Nato allies is much greater, and should be treated as a complete different level of conflict when weighing the consequences of any potential ceasefire deal and DMZ declaration. This isn't a a north and south Korea DMZ where one side is held to some level of accountability by big brother China, this would be a Semi hot DMZ between a country itching closer to EU membership and as much as some people like to neglect it, a global power. There won't be anyone to hold Russia accountable but us, and Putin will use that to his advantage and test our resilience and responses should Ukraine cede territory and a Nato peacekeeping force be deployed to Ukraine. I do see where you are coming from posturing wise but when they are taking this level of posture already, when Ukraine hasn't even been brought to the table, is completely unreasonable.

There is no comparison, Ukraine has gotten screwed. I don’t like it but now it’s a question of what is doable. That Putin this week as far as I can tell has only talked about territory and not EU or NATO membership might be a hint. It’s slim I know this is a process not a done deal.
There has to be some inkling of security guarantees for Ukraine