Trump has stated he will cut American aid to Ukraine, which makes a majority of total aid. Recently Zelensky stated that if Ukraine’s only hope for sovereignty is its own nuclear arsenal, they will build it.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    5 days ago

    Yep.

    The US won’t be there for them anymore once trump takes the reins.

    Ukraine, and potentially anyone in NATO as well, will have to fend for themselves.

  • njm1314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    There’s really no question that any nation that wants actual security should have a nuclear weapon. It’s one of the only things that keeps you safe. This has been proven time and time again. Treaties are all just paper that can be ripped up at a moment’s notice and disregarded as is needed. Nuclear weapons are the only thing that actually protects sovereignty.

  • lucullus@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    6 days ago

    It will surely help significantly preventing a tactical nuclear strike from russia, though it won’t end the war. It is an absolute last resort trigger. Ukraine will be annihilated after they use it (Russia has way more nuklear weapons).

    So somewhat good for them and OK to do so, though no solution and no substitution for western military aid.

    • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      The reluctance to authorize long range missile strikes into Russia is based on the fear of nuclear strikes on the US/authorizers. The war was always meant to keep oil prices high and trickle through weapon sales until the last Ukrainian.

  • rayyy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    Yes. Yes. Yes. DO IT NOW! Buy the equipment and technology from whoever they can. Even if they do it illegally. Countries that do not have nukes are subjects to those that do.

    • Doomsider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 days ago

      I think you are missing something important. Oh yeah, they gave their nuclear arms back to Russia for peace. Who would have thought their brothers and sisters would betray them, after all they are practically the same people.

      This is what makes the whole thing just fucking crazy. It would be like if Puerto Rico voted to be an independent nation and signed a peace treaty with the US. Then less then a couple decades goes by and the US starts attacking them when there are more Puerto Rican’s in the US than in Puerto Rico. It does not make any sense.

      • yrmp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        Your analogy doesn’t work because Trump people hate latinos and it absolutely would make sense for a Trump/GOP controlled USA to go back on an agreement like that.

        Hell they’d probably even start using PR for nuclear testing again if the fallout would blow over other Latin countries. After all, it’s just “an island full of garbage in the ocean.”

        /s (I knew what you meant I just hate all of it)

  • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 days ago

    Ukraine is fighting two nuclear armed states… But nahh bro, Ukraine doesn’t need nukes 🤡

    • BluesF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      Idk how easy it easy to just build a nuke… I feel like the long range missile is the hard part, right? The actual nuclear part isn’t quite so complex. Maybe I’m wrong.

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        He said they could make a bomb in a couple weeks if needed. No specifics on delivery or quality.

        Edit: sounds like kyiv is denying the claim made by some insider. So guess this isn’t likely true.

      • carpelbridgesyndrome@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 days ago

        They have a lot of the Soviet weapons design bureaus. Not sure how many of the original designers are still around. The tricky bit will be refining enough uranium or plutonium in a war zone.

  • pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    6 days ago

    wow Putin’s bitch stopping aid to Ukraine? never could’ve seen this coming.

    no kidding though, it took a while but Russia finally did it. they are the superpower now. good news, Europe!

  • 😈MedicPig🐷BabySaver😈@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    Sadly, they don’t have enough time to build a defense. Trump is going to put them out for slaughter.

    Numerous other entities are at high risk in the immediate future, eg: Palestinians, Taiwan, Japanese islands… etc.

    Trump and Repugnants are not just the end of the U.S., but, also the World as we know it.

    I wish y’all the best and I apologize for the ensuing insanity.

  • Oaksey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 days ago

    If they get used it is obviously really going to be a bad time for all but one thing in their favour is that the prevailing wind goes from west to east.

  • rsuri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    Obviously. Instead of building one themselves though, they should probably buy it from France or the UK, or team up with Germany/Japan/South Korea on a joint program. Since their future looks unreliable too.

  • anticurrent@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Every country should have the freedom to build their own nukes while we are at it.

    The only country who dared used their bombs, and twice, is the US, and did it while there was no need for it. so I don’t see how some countries are taking the moral high ground about who should and shouldn’t have nukes, it is mostly about about who should and should impose their imperialism with the help of nukes.

    • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      dumb ideas that could end the world.

      Imagine if your neighbor 20 miles away decided they were going to build the world’s largest nuclear warhead.

      They’re doing it in their home. It doesn’t impact you, right?

  • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    7 days ago

    No. Nuclear weapons should not exist.

    Kurzgesagt recently made a video on the nuclear arms race. The end of the race was when the guy who invented the hydrogen bomb invented a bomb that could destroy the entire planet. The bomb wouldn’t even need to be dropped onto your enemy. It could be built inside your own country and detonated any time at all to end humanity. He thought of it as the biggest deterrent to war. Nobody else did. Politicians and military leaders threw out the idea entirely. Why would anyone detonate a nuclear bomb inside their own country??

    The size of that bomb pales in comparison to the size of all nuclear weapons in existence today. We built that bomb. It’s just not one giant bomb, but split into 12,000 parts and spread over the world. Is it any different? If you cannot justify building a nuclear weapon that would destroy your own country to destroy another, how can you justify building any nuclear weapons at all?

    • demesisx@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      Thanks. This is the only reasonable reply in here.

      People are such fucking military industrial complex tech bro lemmings on world.

    • Miles O'Brien@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      In theory, I agree. Nuclear weaponry should never exist. The power to erase millions of people with a single push of a button is absolute insanity.

      In practice, the world isn’t going to suddenly decide to de-arm itself and dismantle every nuke. So if they aren’t giving up theirs, refusing to make my own over that just leaves me another corpse on the moral high road.

      Sometimes I wonder if the world would be a better place had the Manhattan project been sabotaged by the scientists and nuclear weapons were deemed unfeasible. I’d like to think so.

      • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        It’s the same outcome either way. You don’t have nukes and another country decides to nuke you? Your country doesn’t exist anymore! You do have nukes and another country decides to nukes you? Your country doesn’t exist anymore! What changes?

        People say deterrence, but what is the deterrence? You built something that you’ll never use? What’s the point?? Oh you will use it? Great! You’ve decided there’s some event that is so bad you’d end the world if it happened. I’m not sure what event that is. Maybe you have one in mind? China attacks India? The world should surely be destroyed then! No? Too bad! You don’t get a say! China and India decide if humanity gets to continue! They definitely wouldn’t do that though.

        They built their nukes to never use them. Which is the same as not having nukes, but having nukes is required so that nobody uses them, which is the same as never building them, but they need to be built so they won’t be used!