Ukraine had nuclear weapons stationed in its territory but did it actually control and had the capacity to use them? From what I understood that would have required significant investment which probably was politically and financially infeasible in the early 90s.
This arguments get used again and again but it does not make sense. The hard part of building nuclear bomb is the enrichment process. Ukraine inherited ready to use ICMBs and bombers. What they did not have was the launch codes / devices. This could have been manufactured.
Ukraine had huge arms and aerospace industry. They would have capacity to replace detonator units. See [0][1][3], they designed and built quite a lot of ICBMs. Saying they would not have control over missiles they designed and manufactured does not make sense.
> did it actually control and had the capacity to use them
A major worry at the time was that individuals in Ukraine could sell those weapons and the know how to the highest bidders.
It wasn't an unlikely prospect - China, Pakistan, and India all bought defense IP from individuals in Ukraine during the collapse of the USSR and before post-Soviet states governance were formalized (eg. China and India can now manufacture Aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, and turbofan jet engines because of IP they bought using questionable methods in Ukraine in the 1990s)
As well as this co-investigation by the SIPRI and Reuters [0] into Ukrainian defense IP sales to China.
What are the "accusations" of mine that you would call wild? I can give citations for all that are needed. I just sometimes don't on HN because citations take time.
