Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Everyone in this thread is talking like they could. Even if the country wasn't mired in a war of attrition, the process of building it takes time, expertise, money, and materials. They only have some of those. And not any money.
It would take them only a few months. Ukraine is filled with Soviet nuclear technology and Soviet nuclear engineers. They have nuclear reactors. Ukraine is richer than North Korea, and they have their own uranium mines. North Korea spent a couple billion on their nukes, but Ukraine's military budget is $82B a year, so they could easily surpass North Korea.
Geopolitics experts agree that Ukraine could build a nuke if they wanted to. The issue is that the west definitely would not want to see a world where countries threatened by Russia turn to nuclear proliferation.
Here's a video from a Danish military analyst talking about the decisions that have to be made on how to secure Ukraine after the war:
https://youtu.be/aTiunvocl5c
It's important to note, Ukraine is willing to freeze the front line now in return for security guarantees. But If the US or the EU don't step up to end the war soon, Ukrainian nuclear engineers will.
That was an interesting watch, but he doesn't put a clear timeline on how long it would take. I found this article that notes that:
It goes on to interview a couple of engineer about what they could be expected to produce, by when, and with what level of discresion:
There’s a really easy way for them to get hydrogen bombs, actually: we give them some B61s.
And no, that’s not a joke.
or just let them join nato instead of proliferating?
You think that’s a realistic scenario at this point? That’ll never happen. The US is going to leave NATO.
Good detail in that article. With regard to plutonium, Sweden had a plutonium breeding reactor disguised as a civilian power plant called Ågestaverket. I think that Ukraine would be able to use an existing reactor for this, or retrofit it. But yeah, any Ukrainian nuclear program would obviously become a huge target by the Russian military, and potentially other nuclear states. Ideally these installations would be underground like Ågestaverket was. Even more ideal would be military guarantees from NATO.
CANDU-like or RBMK-like design could work for this purpose, but i have doubts about VVERs that they have
I don't know anything about the laws limiting transfer of fissile material and may violate issues with NATO membership. I'm not seeing the upside for Sweden to do any of this.
And from a quick search makes it sound like decommissioning of Ågestaverket began in 2020 and should be done in 2025. So the plant would need to be, essentially, rebuilt.
Next, the nuclear program was shut down in 1961 because they didn't have any Pu-240 to refine into Pu-247. Finally, when the program did exist, they had to get their heavy water from Norway. Heavy water allows them to use yellow cake directly for fissile material, but they still use light water but need an enrichment program. So, technically it's a long way still.
It's not confirmed publicly, but Sweden likely ended their nuclear weapons program in the 60s or 70s after pressure from the US. They finally decommissioned Ågestaverket in 2020, though they kept the facility open until then, presumably as a fallback option. Sweden has uranium deposits, so it would have been possible to build nuclear weapons during the Cold War if needed.
Now with NATO membership, they have instead imported American nuclear weapons to keep on Swedish soil. Not sure what will happen with their Swedish-American SOFA with Trump, it's possible that Sweden will fall back on British and French nukes.
But yeah, I mentioned Ågestaverket, since its an example of a civilian reactor that was used for nuclear weapons, something that Ukraine could potentially do as well if the decision came to proliferate.
They could eventually spin it up, but would take longer than the months you first mention. Technical and material issues exist between yellow cake and weapons grade fissile material that the Ukrainian may not have access to (heavy water or plutonium). Even if they do, transforming their current civilian system would take several years optimistically.
Ultimately, that's my biggest issue is time. It's not months but years.
Steal it from the Libyans
Build Delorean
???
~~Profit?~~ Win War?
Go back in time and stop them from selling their original nuclear arsenal
It's all about that flux capacitor.