Should we arm the Ukraine with nuclear weapons?

[Anonymous]

I think this is the next logical step. This would guarantee Ukraine’s freedom and back the Russians off.

[Anonymous]

What's up with all these dumb and stupid questions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's up with all these dumb and stupid questions?

Like your? I guess it would be hard for you to actually think at tactical or strategic level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's up with all these dumb and stupid questions?

Like your? I guess it would be hard for you to actually think at tactical or strategic level.

???
Say that again , in English.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think this is the next logical step. This would guarantee Ukraine’s freedom and back the Russians off.

The next logical step for you is to lay off the drugs you are smoking. Seriously. Get help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's up with all these dumb and stupid questions?

It's that last glass of wine that finishes the bottle. About time of the day..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's up with all these dumb and stupid questions?

Asked by the dumb and stupid the Johns and the Karens who can’t memorize that there is no “the” in “Ukraine”.

[Anonymous]

No.

Never has any country given another one of their nuclear weapons. Some have gone so far as to lend nuclear engineers to friendly countries... but never an actual weapon. You don't give another country the magic bullet to shoot you dead, OP.

[Anonymous]

It would be a very good counter when Putin starts to threaten nuclear strikes or talks about targeting US aircraft. Have a senator or congressman appear on Meet the Press and say US needs to supply Ukraine with nuclear weapons. After all we would not be in this mess if the Ukraine had not given up their weapons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No.

Never has any country given another one of their nuclear weapons. Some have gone so far as to lend nuclear engineers to friendly countries... but never an actual weapon. You don't give another country the magic bullet to shoot you dead, OP.

In reality the US supplied the UK with nuclear weapons. The UK initiated a nuclear weapons programme, codenamed Tube Alloys, during the Second World War. At the Quebec Conference in August 1943, it was merged with the American Manhattan Project. In the 1950’s US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement was signed and the US armed the UK with nuclear weapons.

Also NATO member(Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey) and the US share nuclear weapons. France and Israel shared research in the 1950-60 with the US providing technology aid to France in the 1970’s. It is fairly easy to build a one off bomb but making it a practical weapon is a lot harder. Both France and Israel would not have been able to make a practical weapon with a delivered system without the US.

Also the Soviets stole US nuclear technology. Basically the US either supplied nuclear weapons or gave the technology to make nuclear weapons to UK, France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey and Soviet(not willingly).

[Anonymous]

No, I'll pass on nuclear WW3 thanks.

[Anonymous]

If the Ukraine if it survive this may well developed nuclear weapons. They have the reactors and nuclear infrastructure to easily go nuclear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, I'll pass on nuclear WW3 thanks.

Actually based on history a nuclear armed Ukraine would be less unlike to be invaded and therefore start WW3. If China had had nuclear weapons Japan would not have invade in the 1930’s starting WW2.

[Anonymous]

Of course not. Bad enough we armed and taught Afghanistan (again), then quickly and dramatically pulled out, created a power vacuum and Russia ran in. Plus they own Syria.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I'll pass on nuclear WW3 thanks.

Actually based on history a nuclear armed Ukraine would be less unlike to be invaded and therefore start WW3. If China had had nuclear weapons Japan would not have invade in the 1930’s starting WW2.

True. Most Americans do not know Japan invaded China at all.