Comments by "Emir" (@irongron) on "Europe Goes Nuclear: Is America Leaving NATO? || Peter Zeihan" video.

@Emanon... That's not true, Eamon, I used to think that before I moved here a decade ago, but a Ukrainian General in the rocket forces said they could be over-ridden, in case of loss of communications with Moscow, so they could be launched when WW3 came. Also, the Soviets were so backwards they never had Permissive action links for their nukes like American, British and French ones did.
29
@ownagesniper1 That's not the case. From the article - Deceit, Dread, and Disbelief: The Story of How Ukraine Lost Its Nuclear Arsenal - "In his memoirs Brent Scowcroft noted that then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney vigorously opposed the removal of nuclear weapons from the newly independent states at Russia’s periphery. Ukrainian nuclear weapons will not threaten the U.S. as Russian nuclear weapons do, for the simple reason that Ukraine, unlike Russia, is not a serious potential adversary. It might even prove advantageous to us to see Russian power checked—and Russian nuclear weapons deterred—by a Ukraine with a minimal deterrent. In any case, we hurt ourselves with the Ukrainians by insisting that they be stripped of nuclear weapons while we legitimize those of their powerful neighbor."
23
@garyyoung3179 Oh ok, thanks for wising me up, but that's also useful to dispell this myth, about "the control codes were only in Moscow" as the Soviets were too backwards to even have PAL. Yes the ultimate command to launch came from Moscow, but as I explained to Eamonn in another reply in this thread, as you state, ultimately the commanders in control of that nuke site (subs, bombers, land based etc) could arm the nukes on their own initiative if contact with the centre is lost.
5
@ownagesniper1 cheers, definitely worth the read, it's 5 pages or so. 👍
3
Thorium, molten salt reactors are the way to go with nuclear power, google "Kirk Sorensen Thorium". Can you do a clip on that Peter ?
2
@ownagesniper1 That's not the case. From the article - Deceit, Dread, and Disbelief: The Story of How Ukraine Lost Its Nuclear Arsenal - "In his memoirs Brent Scowcroft noted that then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney vigorously opposed the removal of nuclear weapons from the newly independent states at Russia’s periphery. Though most of their personal papers on the subject remain classified, a memo to the National Security Advisor from March 1992 demonstrated that these disputes did not disappear. National Security Council staffer David Gompert noted three major counterarguments: Ukrainian nuclear weapons will not threaten the U.S. as Russian nuclear weapons do, for the simple reason that Ukraine, unlike Russia, is not a serious potential adversary. It might even prove advantageous to us to see Russian power checked—and Russian nuclear weapons deterred—by a Ukraine with a minimal deterrent. In any case, we hurt ourselves with the Ukrainians by insisting that they be stripped of nuclear weapons while we legitimize those of their powerful neighbor."
2
Forget Uranium, you can just use Thorium in a different type of reactor, Thorium, molten salt reactors are the way to go with nuclear power, google "Kirk Sorensen Thorium".
1
After the brutal Russian invasion in 2022, Bill Clinton was so shocked, he actually apologised publicly for tricking first President of Ukraine Leonid Kravchuk into giving up the nukes. Very rare for any President to apologise for anything.
1
@ownagesniper1 That is not the case, in fact, quite the opposite, from the article "Deceit, Dread, and Disbelief: The Story of How Ukraine Lost Its Nuclear Arsenal" (Google the title if you want to read it all) "In his memoirs and later interviews, Brent Scowcroft noted that then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney vigorously opposed the removal of nuclear weapons from the newly independent states at Russia’s periphery. Though most of their personal papers on the subject remain classified, a memo to the National Security Advisor from March 1992 demonstrated that these disputes did not disappear. National Security Council staffer David Gompert noted three major counterarguments: Ukrainian nuclear weapons will not threaten the U.S. as Russian nuclear weapons do, for the simple reason that Ukraine, unlike Russia, is not a serious potential adversary. It might even prove advantageous to us to see Russian power checked—and Russian nuclear weapons deterred—by a Ukraine with a minimal deterrent. In any case, we hurt ourselves with the Ukrainians by insisting that they be stripped of nuclear weapons while we legitimize those of their powerful neighbor."
1
@ownagesniper1 From the article - Deceit, Dread, and Disbelief: The Story of How Ukraine Lost Its Nuclear Arsenal - "In his memoirs Brent Scowcroft noted that then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney vigorously opposed the removal of nuclear weapons from the newly independent states at Russia’s periphery. Though most of their personal papers on the subject remain classified, a memo to the National Security Advisor from March 1992 demonstrated that these disputes did not disappear. National Security Council staffer David Gompert noted three major counterarguments: Ukrainian nuclear weapons will not threaten the U.S. as Russian nuclear weapons do, for the simple reason that Ukraine, unlike Russia, is not a serious potential adversary. It might even prove advantageous to us to see Russian power checked—and Russian nuclear weapons deterred—by a Ukraine with a minimal deterrent. In any case, we hurt ourselves with the Ukrainians by insisting that they be stripped of nuclear weapons while we legitimize those of their powerful neighbor."
1
@OmegaSupremeWCheese go away, vatnik 🤡
1