Former Soviet states keep Soviet era nukes?

It would be interesting as to how this would affect nuclear proliferation around the world. I wonder if aspiring nuclear powers like Iran, or nations with less advanced nuclear stockpiles, would be able to purchase some old soviet nukes from impoverished ex-Soviet states...

Of course, I suppose that if such was possible, the West and Russia would get really angry really quickly.
 

jahenders

Banned
It would be interesting as to how this would affect nuclear proliferation around the world. I wonder if aspiring nuclear powers like Iran, or nations with less advanced nuclear stockpiles, would be able to purchase some old soviet nukes from impoverished ex-Soviet states...

Of course, I suppose that if such was possible, the West and Russia would get really angry really quickly.

Non-proliferation was the primary reason for the US encouraged/supported Ukraine and others getting rid of their nukes. Also, if Russian owns those nukes, then they're counted in START discussions. If, instead, Ukraine owns them but became a Russian puppet state, then Russia would argue those nukes don't count.

That being the case, in 1994 Russia, US, UK made commitments to Ukraine if they signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and got rid of their nukes. Those included:
- Respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine
- Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine
- Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
- Assist Ukraine (as a non-nuclear-weapon country) if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

It seems pretty clear that Russia violated a couple of those and that the US and UK were not willing/able to do anything about it.
 
Non-proliferation was the primary reason for the US encouraged/supported Ukraine and others getting rid of their nukes. Also, if Russian owns those nukes, then they're counted in START discussions. If, instead, Ukraine owns them but became a Russian puppet state, then Russia would argue those nukes don't count.

That being the case, in 1994 Russia, US, UK made commitments to Ukraine if they signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and got rid of their nukes. Those included:
- Respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine
- Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine
- Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
- Assist Ukraine (as a non-nuclear-weapon country) if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

It seems pretty clear that Russia violated a couple of those and that the US and UK were not willing/able to do anything about it.

Right at the end of the cold war, they would be more likely to be angry and respond. Response is less likely the further on you go.
 
Just out of curiosity, has anyone ever done a timeline with a nuclear Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and/or Belarus?
 
From a practical perspective could the non Russian former Soviet republics / states have maintained Soviet Era nuclear warheads without ongoing Russian help ? (I'm thinking in terms of long term maintenance and refurbishment, access to maintenance manuals, design documents etc..)

With the possible exception of Ukraine I'm having a hard time envisioning this, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't have been possible.
 
Top