This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Does that mean they were missing critical technology needed to use the weapons? Or something like on paper the people authorized to use them were all in Russia?
In the absence of the Budapest Memorandum, could Ukraine have become a nuclear state in its own right?
Basically, the troops manning the nuclear weapons were not loyal to Ukraine, and the permissive action links needed to authorize use were not in Ukrainian hands. So "Ukraine" did not have the launch codes, and they also didn't have the guys who would launch the missiles.
Technically, it's not very hard to build a nuclear weapon. If they had wanted, I think they probably could have become a nuclear state relatively easily (even after giving up the nuclear weapons), barring intervention from the US or Russia.
Worryingly, they could pretty easily become a nuclear weapons state now by cannibalizing their nuclear reactors. Zelensky has threatened to do that. And that’s assuming none of the fifty or so Soviet nuclear warheads that went missing aren’t in Ukraine’a possession. Which puts their constant demand for delivery systems that can hit Moscow in a rather ominous light.
You cannot use commercial reactor fuel for weapons (except some kind of dirty bomb). It would be easier to make weapons material from scratch.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, and in fact Zelensky suggested that "all the package decision of 1994 are in doubt" less than a week before Putin declared the "Special Military Operation," and the Russians claimed that Ukraine was looking to acquire them, one of their justifications for the 2022 invasion. Now, maybe Zelensky wasn't thinking of nuclear weapons when he gave that speech (although he hardly could be ignorant of the provisions of the Budapest Memorandum!), but he certainly is now.
ETA – I'm just going to post the full Zelensky quote from 2022 for a bit of extra context:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I am rather curious to whom the troops of the crumbling nominally-Soviet empire were, or were expected, to be loyal to. It may well be that the nuclear folks were distinctly Russian, but more broadly I can't see everyone swearing fealty to Moscow when their families now live in independent nations.
Well, I dunno, if Puerto Rico declared independence I would not expect the US troops stationed there to suddenly have fealty to Puerto Rico.
However, as it happens, we know the answer to your question – they specifically avoided swearing fealty to Ukraine and swore fealty to the Commonwealth of Independent States instead.
See page 25 of this DTRA report.
More options
Context Copy link
Moscow. The Ukrainian and Russian militaries didn't disentangle for over a decade after the 1994 memorandum. There really wasn't even a question about this who the soldiers had loyalty towards.
And even if that wasn't true; if Ukraine had moved to capture and possess those weapons, the Soviet tanks would have rolled across the border right there, maybe even with American support.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link