• Pennomi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    13 days ago

    I have a suspicion that Trump is accelerating the plans for Ukraine to build nukes. They simply cannot wait for aid to slowly come in any more.

      • BrundleFly2077@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 days ago

        Who can build a nuclear weapon in two weeks? I’ve hunted for a source on this and can’t find one. Can you help a guy out?

        • skyspydude1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          12 days ago

          From scratch it’s obviously not feasible, but having been a former Soviet state I’d imagine a good majority of the resources needed are floating around.

          The main challenges with nuclear weapons are 1. procurement of the fissile material, 2. yield efficiency, and 3. miniaturization. Once you have the first part done, as Ukraine very likely has the nuclear fuel processing facilities to do so, the second part is less important if you just want a bomb. Just look at the fact that they were so confident the Little Boy would work they didn’t even bother with a prototype, even if its yield ratio was quite low. It needed about 60kg of uranium for its 15kT yield, while Fat Man managed 21kT with only about 5kg of plutonium.

          So, it’s a tradeoff where if nuclear material is hard to come by and you need to get the bomb somewhere far away, making something really efficient is pretty important. However, if you have sufficient material and just want a decently big boom in the middle of a field, it’s quite literally something you could feasibly manage in a home workshop.

          The one other note on the importance of efficiency is in regards to fallout. Anything that isn’t used in the detonation is blasted every which-way, and isn’t really something you want as a normal military, since a nuclear wasteland isn’t strategically very useful. But, if you’re just trying to fuck up someone else’s day, then its less important and you can get into really “fun” stuff like dirty and cobalt bombs.

        • model_tar_gz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          12 days ago

          All you need is a brilliant high school student with a knack for nuclear physics, a rebellious streak, and a desire to prove their intellectual superiority. As shown in the 1986 documentary, The Manhattan Project, even a resourceful teen can assemble a nuclear weapon in a matter of weeks if they manage to access the right materials. Just look for someone with the right mix of ambition, genius, and a little disregard for the rules, and you’ll have yourself a homemade nuclear device in no time!

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          13 days ago

          Lockheed, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, basically any nation state with the money, materials, and knowledge to do it now that people outside Los Alamos know.

          Dude a boy scout named David Hahn built a nuclear reactor and a neutron gun, it can be done.

    • Rubanski@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      12 days ago

      Do you think that is also plan B for Taiwan? My guess is they would be able to build a nuke as well

      • Pennomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        12 days ago

        I haven’t heard anything on that front but it would be a damn good idea for Taiwan.

      • TassieTosser@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        12 days ago

        Taiwan has “nukes” they have missiles they claim can reach and breach the Three Gorges Dam. It’s like an environmentally friendly nuke!

  • Foni@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    13 days ago

    Realistically, if Ukraine only has to give up Crimea, it’s not a bad deal. I’m not saying I like it, just that getting 100% of the territory back may not be achievable.

    • bouh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      12 days ago

      Crimea is easier to take back than the dombass. Realistically, the dombass will be almost impossible to take back by force, but Crimea is a very realistic objective, although it’s also the most precious to russia.

      Saying that Ukraine should forget about Crimea is saying that Ukraine should abandon all territories held by Russia today.

      • Foni@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 days ago

        I don’t know, it could be, my experience in military strategy is summarized in having lost many times in the Europa Universalis. What I do understand a little more about is politics and international relations and I know that if Russia presented itself to negotiate with a deal that said “if you give me Crimea I won’t ask for anything else” Ukraine should accept without hesitation.

    • iopq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      12 days ago

      Only if it gets 100% of Donbass. This Novorossiya shit needs to die

      • Foni@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        12 days ago

        I completely agree, I wanted to say if they ONLY give up Crimea and absolutely nothing else. Neither territory nor other things like NATO. Unfortunately, seeing the feedback from my previous comment, many see other better options as realistic, maybe they know more than me.