Kyiv could rapidly develop a rudimentary weapon similar to that dropped on Nagasaki in 1945 to stop Russia if the US cuts military aid, it has been suggested
If you read the paper, it states that kyiv is not interested in building nukes itself.
It was written by a Ukrainian think tank that stated that kyiv could build a bomb if it wanted using its remaining nuclear reactors. The report was then given to the Ukrainian government.
Plus i mean its 1 bomb and as soon as they use it Russia turns them into glass. Makes more sense to not use it. Its more valuable as leverage than as a weapon.
China, Russia, and the US don't nuke each other because of the threat of MAD. That's why they try to strike each other through proxies. Even if the proxies were to land direct strikes on Beijing, Moscow, or Washington, it's a risk they're willing to take bc the risk of MAD is zero in that regard.
They're still going to hit each other and even aim for their capitals and heads of states when it gets bad enough, they'll just do it through proxies so they don't have to worry about MAD.
It's the proxies that are going to deal with the assured destruction, after all.
That's what I meant by the threat of MAD is a bigger deterrent than MAD, bc they're still going to strike each other through those proxies.
One nuke is not MAD. Even a few nukes, should Ukraine get them, would not be MAD. They are a deterrence, sure. But MAD means something very specific and unless Ukraine is getting dozens of nukes along with rapid, reliable deployment methods it is, by definition, NOT MAD.
With regards to Ukraine: IHave69xibucks is right. A nuke is more useful as leverage than an actual weapon. Russia will absolutely be more generous to Ukraine during negotiations should Ukraine develop a nuke. 1 nuke in Moscow wouldn't bring down the whole country, but it's not nothing either.
Hence the threat of MAD is used as a valuable tool for leverage during negotiations. Might as well have a nuke to scare Russia into attenuating their strikes and force them to agree to more of Ukraine's demands.
It was written by a Ukrainian think tank that stated that kyiv could build a bomb if it wanted using its remaining nuclear reactors. The report was then given to the Ukrainian government.
And then published in one of the most respectable and globally-circulated newspapers. It's like when "sources" leak info to the press, it's normally done on purpose to get that info out there. To me, this article reads like a threat; if the US stops the aid, Ukraine will be forced to make a nuclear weapon.
I expect we are going to see more doomer predictions regarding the US stopping the funding. All of these articles are literally aimed at Trump. I'm pretty sure he started getting briefings as the president-elect, and that includes media/news briefing. If you want an example of how important the media/news is to Trump, his declared Secretary of Defense pick is Peter Hegseth, a "political commentator for Fox News since 2014 and co-host of Fox & Friends Weekend from 2017 to 2024," Trump watched Fox & Friends religiously while he was president. to the point that the hosts addressed him personally several times.
"Nuclear bomb", "British troops in Ukraine", these are all escalations, and against Trump's stated goals of ending the war quickly.
Liberals are freaking out cause Trump is filling his cabinet with "pro-RU" (but really, anti-UA and anti-war and NATO-skeptic).
None of that means that it isn't a right wing rag that gets laughed it. Is it “more reputable” than the Sun? Probably. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s an utter joke.
If you read the paper, it states that kyiv is not interested in building nukes itself.
It was written by a Ukrainian think tank that stated that kyiv could build a bomb if it wanted using its remaining nuclear reactors. The report was then given to the Ukrainian government.
It's nothing serious.
Plus i mean its 1 bomb and as soon as they use it Russia turns them into glass. Makes more sense to not use it. Its more valuable as leverage than as a weapon.
The threat of MAD is somehow a greater deterrent than MAD itself.
This is, by definition, not MAD
Explain yourself?
The M and A in MAD stand for "mutually assured", where is the confusion?
China, Russia, and the US don't nuke each other because of the threat of MAD. That's why they try to strike each other through proxies. Even if the proxies were to land direct strikes on Beijing, Moscow, or Washington, it's a risk they're willing to take bc the risk of MAD is zero in that regard.
They're still going to hit each other and even aim for their capitals and heads of states when it gets bad enough, they'll just do it through proxies so they don't have to worry about MAD.
It's the proxies that are going to deal with the assured destruction, after all.
That's what I meant by the threat of MAD is a bigger deterrent than MAD, bc they're still going to strike each other through those proxies.
One nuke is not MAD. Even a few nukes, should Ukraine get them, would not be MAD. They are a deterrence, sure. But MAD means something very specific and unless Ukraine is getting dozens of nukes along with rapid, reliable deployment methods it is, by definition, NOT MAD.
I see your point.
With regards to Ukraine: IHave69xibucks is right. A nuke is more useful as leverage than an actual weapon. Russia will absolutely be more generous to Ukraine during negotiations should Ukraine develop a nuke. 1 nuke in Moscow wouldn't bring down the whole country, but it's not nothing either.
Hence the threat of MAD is used as a valuable tool for leverage during negotiations. Might as well have a nuke to scare Russia into attenuating their strikes and force them to agree to more of Ukraine's demands.
deleted by creator
And then published in one of the most respectable and globally-circulated newspapers. It's like when "sources" leak info to the press, it's normally done on purpose to get that info out there. To me, this article reads like a threat; if the US stops the aid, Ukraine will be forced to make a nuclear weapon.
This wouldn't be first nor 1000th time when Times is uncritically reposting nonsense from UA sources.
It seems to be a part of an effort to influence Trump to not to turn off the tap. Another one: Boris Johnson says British troops may have to go to Ukraine if Trump cuts support
I expect we are going to see more doomer predictions regarding the US stopping the funding. All of these articles are literally aimed at Trump. I'm pretty sure he started getting briefings as the president-elect, and that includes media/news briefing. If you want an example of how important the media/news is to Trump, his declared Secretary of Defense pick is Peter Hegseth, a "political commentator for Fox News since 2014 and co-host of Fox & Friends Weekend from 2017 to 2024," Trump watched Fox & Friends religiously while he was president. to the point that the hosts addressed him personally several times.
"Nuclear bomb", "British troops in Ukraine", these are all escalations, and against Trump's stated goals of ending the war quickly.
Liberals are freaking out cause Trump is filling his cabinet with "pro-RU" (but really, anti-UA and anti-war and NATO-skeptic).
This is “The Times”, not “Time”. This is a right wing rag that isn’t respected by anyone.
The Times had an average daily circulation of 365,880 in March 2020; in the same period, The Sunday Times had an average weekly circulation of 647,622.[1] The two newspapers also had 304,000 digital-only paid subscribers as of June 2019.[7] An American edition of The Times has been published since 6 June 2006.[8] Due to its widespread availability in libraries and its comprehensive index, The Times has received considerable use from academics and researchers. A complete historical file of the digitised paper, up to 2019, is available online from Gale Cengage Learning.
None of that means that it isn't a right wing rag that gets laughed it. Is it “more reputable” than the Sun? Probably. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s an utter joke.
Yes. but it is most likely part of Trump's daily news briefing.
Granted, 4chan is probably part of his briefing too. I don't give him any credit to choose non-fascist news sources.
You have to read/follow what the enemy is reading, that helps you learn what they're thinking.