ConservagameR said:
"After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine held about one third of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, the third largest in the world at the time, as well as significant means of its design and production.[2] 130 UR-100N intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) with six warheads each, 46 RT-23 Molodets ICBMs with ten warheads apiece, as well as 33 heavy bombers, totaling approximately 1,700 warheads remained on Ukrainian territory.[3] Formally, these weapons were controlled by the Commonwealth of Independent States.[4] In 1994, Ukraine agreed to destroy the weapons, and to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)." Ukraine and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia So the country who's made a terrible decision, who shouldn't have all the weapons because they're unnecessary, should give a bunch to Ukraine to help, but the country who had the means to defend themselves, gave up those means, which made them virtuous and civilized and was the right decision? |
Having a lack of Nuclear Weapons doesn't mean you will be invaded.
Australia has never been invaded since it federated in 1901.
There are probably dozens of countries without Nuclear weapons that have never been invaded.
And on the flip-side, having Nuclear weapons doesn't mean you won't be invaded... The invasion of Iraq was based on the idea that the nation had weapons of mass destruction.
Argentina attacked Britain in the Falklands war.
Israel is another... India, Pakistan and China engage in various skirmishes.
So essentially... Having a big stick means absolutely nothing.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
