Trump has stated he will cut American aid to Ukraine, which makes a majority of total aid. Recently Zelensky stated that if Ukraine’s only hope for sovereignty is its own nuclear arsenal, they will build it.

  • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
    192·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
      321·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
        6·
        2 months ago

        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:

        The Prydniprovsky Chemical Plant in the city of Kamianske in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast processed uranium ore for the Soviet nuclear program, preparing yellowcake, an intermediate step in the processing of uranium ore.

        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:

        Robert Kelley, an engineer with over 35 years of experience in the U.S. Department of Energy’s nuclear weapons complex, said that it would be possible for Ukraine to create a primitive uranium fission bomb within five years.

        “It’s a fairly simple thing to do in the 21st century,” he told the Kyiv Independent.

        It would be much more difficult for Ukraine to build a plutonium fission bomb, and it would be harder to hide, Kelley argued. It would take five to 10 years to build a plutonium reactor, he added.

        In contrast with a fission bomb, a “hydrogen bomb would be incredibly complicated,” Kelley said. “No way in the world would (Ukraine) be able to create it,” he added.

        Kelley also said that Ukraine might be able to create a crude nucleardevice without assistance from other countries. For a more complex nuclear weapon, it would have to buy technology abroad, he added.

        A Russian nuclear expert and a Ukrainian nuclear expert both confirmed to the Kyiv Independent that Ukraine is capable of producing a nuclear bomb, adding that it would likely take years. The Russian expert was speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals, and the Ukrainian expert was not authorized to talk to the press about the issue.

        “Ukraine would certainly have the knowhow and resources to become a nuclear weapons state if it made the political decision to do so,” Lavikainen said. “The technology required is not out of reach for many countries, and certainly not for Ukraine since it housed crucial elements of the Soviet nuclear weapons complex when it was still part of the USSR.”

        “Ukraine could develop both nuclear warheads and carrier vehicles since it possesses the necessary military industry, uranium deposits, and nuclearenergy sector,” Lavikainen continued.

        Nikolai Sokov, a senior fellow at the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, was more cautious, saying that creating a nuclear bomb “is not impossible” for Ukraine. But, it “will take years, a lot of money, and most likely external support, at least on the equipment side.”

        “Ukraine does not have the industrial capacity to manufacture and maintain a nuclear arsenal; it does not have fissile materials, enrichment capacity, plutonium production, most of the elements that go into a nuclear weapon capability,” he added.

        Liviu Horovitz, a nuclear deterrence specialist at theGerman Institute for International and Security Affairs, also said that Ukraine faces challenges if it decides to create a nuclear bomb.

        “Ukraine surely has the scientific prerequisites for a nuclear weapons program,” but “acquiring the necessary fissile materials is neither cheap nor fast nor very easy to do in secret,” he added.

        The nuclear weapons expert who spoke on condition of anonymity said that the most primitive nuclear bomb program focused on uranium centrifuges could cost around $100 million. A plutonium bomb program would cost around $1 billion, he added.

        • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
          2·
          2 months ago

          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.

          • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
            2·
            2 months ago

            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.

            • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
              1·
              2 months ago

              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.

              • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
                3·
                2 months ago

                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.