5

Some 25 nations were on the call and all said they would continue to contribute aid, some saying for the first time their support will include lethal assistance. NATO was also represented.

In addition, two other countries that could not make the conference said separately that they would donate support, Sky News understands.

https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-28-nations-agree-to-give-more-weapons-and-military-aid-to-country-after-russian-invasion-sky-news-understands-12551824

Earlier I used to believe that no countries would interfere as that could cause WW3.But after reading this news I have a question that instead of giving fighter jets,guns,bulletproof vests why doesn't any country share the nuclear arsenal/umbrella(as some countries do share nuclear umbrella) or the codes,which in turn may result in the end of the war?

Improve this question
11
  • @Trilarion Then why Russia is not attacking the countries who are delivering the weapons?
    – user42212
    Mar 4, 2022 at 6:31
  • 7
    @AbhinavLenka Everything you suggest would only start a nuclear war. Avoiding that seems to be one of the major policy objectives of the west. Nuclear wars are bad.
    – Denis Nardin
    Mar 4, 2022 at 6:35
  • 14
    I feel like pointing out that a nuclear weapon is not like a rifle or a hand grenade. Nuclear weapons require support, maintenance, special delivery systems, and technological expertise that Ukraine doesn't have to hand. It would require sending in an entire team to handle it, and a decent-sized military cohort to protect the team and the weapon. And all that being said, it's a bit like giving someone a single bullet. A single bullet is ok if you're a good shot and you're only facing one bear; otherwise using your bullet leaves you with an empty gun and a bunch of pissed-off bears.
    – Ted Wrigley
    Mar 4, 2022 at 7:46
  • 2
    @AbhinavLenka: Multiple downvotes create a judgement call. It can mean (1) that you wrote a bad question, or (2) that you wrote a good question that people don't like. In this case, I think people are downvoting because the question implies an escalation of the war towards nuclear combat (which strikes most people as wrong-headed) and that the "give 'em a nuke" idea seems oversimplified (which makes answering difficult). If it were me, I'd probably delete unless I could think of a way to rewrite it to be more sophisticated and less triggering. But I'm a bit of a perfectionist...
    – Ted Wrigley
    Mar 4, 2022 at 14:51
  • 1
    @AbhinavLenka Your question, as asked, is very answerable: it's a bad idea to give Ukraine some nukes. o.m.'s answer is spot on and applies to a number of other suggestions being made left and right, including by senior politicians. I didn't join the downvotes however and I feel that they are all too indicative of users venting frustration at what they perceive to be questions they wouldn't have asked "because they know better". Rather than just answering the question factually. I am not going to upvote in sympathy either, but, yeah, not impressed with this tendency to punish.
    – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica
    Mar 4, 2022 at 19:07

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
23

This 'suggestion' is grasping at straws which do not exist. If the West wants to defend Ukraine and thereby risk WWIII, they can do it by directly fighting for Ukraine. If they don't want to risk WWIII, they must observe limits to their support for Ukraine.

The same applies to suggestions for immediate NATO membership, or immediate EU membership, or a no-fly zone. One can debate going to war over Ukraine, but please do it with open eyes.

Improve this answer
7
  • 2
    While I get what you are trying to say, Cuban Missile Crisis doesn't work as an example here. The missiles were to be stationed in Cuba. I don't think that meant that Cuba would have been able to launch them. It was more akin to what Russia is planning to do in Belarus now.
    – Dmitry Rubanovich
    Mar 4, 2022 at 7:18
  • 3
    @DmitryRubanovich, President Kennedy declared that he would consider any missile launched from Cuba as a Soviet attack, without looking into command and control issues. President Putin has made a somewhat less clear declaration warning against interference in Russian operations.
    – o.m.
    Mar 4, 2022 at 7:20
  • Ok, but that's an independent issue. How it would be treated vs how it was actually set up were different issues. During the Cuban Missile Crisis there was no reason to think that the USSR was actually going to fully give up control of those weapons. Cuba was considered a protectorate of the USSR. Unless Ukraine becomes a protectorate of another state and becomes a host for that state's missiles, the situations are not analogous.
    – Dmitry Rubanovich
    Mar 4, 2022 at 7:30
  • 2
    @AbhinavLenka, as I see it you asked about an extremely implausible scenario. Right now, there are downvotes ("not relevant") but no close votes ("don't ask here").
    – o.m.
    Mar 4, 2022 at 11:08
  • 4
    I can see at least 3-4 other recent questions where One can debate going to war over Ukraine, but please do it with open eyes. and this answer in general deserves to be copy-pasted into the answers. Though maybe the community shouldn't downvote naive newcomers' questions so aggressively.
    – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica
    Mar 4, 2022 at 17:28
4

There can never be a full certainty that Ukraine would be in full and sole operational control of a nuclear weapon given to Ukraine by another nuclear power.

So if the weapon were to ever be used, it would be considered an attack by both Ukraine and whoever gave Ukraine the weapon.

In fact, this is such a sticking point that it was one of the main hurdles to signing of the intermediate-range missile control between the US and the USSR.

US-made Pershing 1a missiles were stationed in the West Germany and were "owned" by the West Germany. But the USSR would not even consider negotiating the treaty unless the German missiles were part of it. I don't know if it was known at the time, but according Wikipedia the assumption made by the USSR was correct. While Germany had launch control, the warheads were under the US control.

Improve this answer
0

I like the other answers and see for example lots of technical difficulties, but the logic of nuclear deterrence would still apply here in principle.

A thought experiment:

  • Say France or Britain hands one of their nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine with nuclear warheads over to Ukraine including the launch codes. (Extremely risky but for the sake of the experiment they do it.)
  • The submarine does not get detected. (Not sure how likely this is nowadays.)
  • Then Ukraine reveals the deal and tells Russia: We have nothing to lose, stop fighting immediately or we destroy as many major Russian cities as we can.
  • Would Russia continue to attack or not?

All this of course only works if Ukraine has indeed control of nuclear weapons because the threat is more potent if you are in a weak position actually. I guess that is the reason that so many countries (especially autocracies) would really like to get their fingers on nuclear weapons.

It's unlikely for the reasons given in the other answers but I think it at least would follow the logic of nuclear deterrence.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.