Ukraine did not give up the inherited nuclear weapons

After the disintegration of the USSR, Ukraine found itself in possession of the world's third largest nuclear arsenal. There were 176 launchers of intercontinental ballistic missiles with some 1,240 warheads on Ukrainian territory. This force consisted of 130 SS-19s, each capable of delivering six nuclear weapons, and 46 SS-24s, each armed with ten nuclear weapons.

An additional 14 SS-24 missiles were present in Ukraine, but not operationally deployed with warheads. Several dozen bombers with strategic nuclear capabilities were armed with some 600 air-launched missiles, along with gravity bombs. In addition, as many as 3,000 tactical nuclear weapons rounded out an arsenal totalling approximately 5,000 strategic and tactical weapons.

From the first days of its independent development, Ukraine affirmed three basic principles -- not to accept, manufacture or acquire nuclear weapons. The West remained concerned with the nuclear aspects of Ukraine's problems with weapons proliferation. Western sensitivity over nuclear issues convinced Ukraine's leaders that they could influence the West by using the nuclear lever.


The Declaration on State Sovereignty adopted by the Parliament of the Ukrainian SSR on 16 July 1990 defined the building of the army as a major task and a natural right of the future Ukrainian independent state. By announcing the right to maintain its own army, Ukraine took a significant step toward independence from the USSR. The military coup in Moscow in August 1991 and fears that Soviet troops on Ukraine's territory would act aggressively against the Ukrainian state led the official leadership in Kiev to subordinate these troops to the control of Ukrainian authorities.


Ukraine also announced as its own the Soviet military property on the soil of the newly independent state. Ukraine initially announced its intention to obtain operational control over the strategic nuclear weapons deployed in its territory. Responding to these intentions, Russian military officials responded that attempts to interfere with, or to damage the command and control systems of, Russian strategic troops located abroad would constitute a direct military threat to Russian Federation.


Originally Ukrainian leader Leonid Kravchuk was "not worried" if nuclear weapons went to Russia for decommissioning. Gradually, however, his worries developed sufficiently to lead to him to reverse his position and on 12 March 1992 to suspend temporarily the transfer of tactical nuclear weapons to Russia. However, in conformity with the 16 July 1990 "Declaration of State Sovereignty" and other agreements signed at the creation of the CIS, by May 1992 Ukraine voluntarily removed all tactical nuclear weapons [approximately 3000] inherited from the former Soviet Union.


The trilateral agreement signed in Moscow on 14 January 1994 by the United States, Russia, and Ukraine was seen as a significant Western success in disarming Ukraine of nuclear weapons. Under the agreement, the Russian Federation undertook to send 100 tons of fuel to Ukraine for its nuclear-power plants. The United States agreed to pay $60 million to the Russian Federation in support of that process. For its part, Ukraine agreed to transfer 200 nuclear warheads over a 10-month period.


As of May 1994, 120 SS-19 Stiletto and 60 SS-24 Scalpel intercontinental ballistic missiles had been shipped out of Ukraine for reprocessing in Russia.


Ukraine announced in June 1996 that all warheads bad been removed from the country. A problem arose in the removal of SS-19s, which use large amounts of a toxic substance known as heptyl. The United States sent storage tanks to hold 2,200 metric tons of the substance. After the SS-19 missiles were removed from combat duty, 19 were re-used in Russia.





What if the Ukraine had kept some of the weapons?
 
No. Independent power, credibly neutral. And MUCH LESS worried about Russia's resurgence.

Baselius, you are probably right, but I would sort of suggest that there might be more Belarusan influence -for better or worse - in Eastern Europe (Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia) and possibly some border issues with Ukraine and possible, Russia. Maybe NATO might look closer at the whole situation & strengthen the smaller states. Might also affect the neutrality of Austria?

Bobindelaware
 
This is a chicken and egg question and we are thinking in egg terms when we should be thinking in chicken terms.

Ukraine keep their nukes for a reason. The why settle our discussion. If they belong to some doomsday cult, good bye.. If they are araid of Russia, well, I'm sure someone can work something out. If they want to sell them to evol arubs (tm), somebody can give them a better offer IMHO....
 
NATO might want Ukraine to join it very badly in this case as they want the guys with nukes on their side. Ukraine on the other hand will have less reason to join NATO and might be independent of everyone.
 
Top