John Donald O'Shea: Edging closer to nuclear weapons in Ukraine
Is Ukraine really "months away" from having its own nukes?
Anybody who has read my op eds knows that I have found little to like about President Biden and his administration. But in his support for Ukraine, I think he has been essentially correct.
Like Biden, I do not believe that Putin merely wants a subservient Ukraine along Russia's border. His invasion of Ukraine, and his prior invasions into Georgia and Crimea demonstrate Putin's larger goal is to reconstitute the old USSR.
We can quibble about whether clearer Biden administration statements before Putin's invasion might have forestalled the invasion, whether U.S. F-16s should have been made available to Ukraine sooner, or whether the limitations of use that be Biden administration placed upon the use of the weapons we have supplied should have been less restrictive. But what Biden has done, has been essentially correct — to keep Putin from devouring a peaceful neighboring state.
President Trump is now on the verge of taking office. He has stated he will cut military aid unless Ukraine engages in peace talks. Trump has warned President Zelensky, "You're 38 days from losing your allowance." Presently, we don't know what Trump has told Putin.
At present, Russia is making slogging advances in the war. But the cost to Russia in dead and wounded Russian soldiers has been awful. Now, each side is upping the ante. Russia has put N. Koreans into the war zone. Ukraine has seized some Russian territory, and is now manufacturing/using very effective drones.
Russia has frequently warned that it might use its nuclear weapons.
But now, according to a briefing paper prepared for the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, Ukraine could develop a rudimentary nuclear bomb within months if President Trump withdraws U.S. military assistance. That also suggests Ukraine could develop a nuclear bomb whether or not the U.S. withdraws military assistance. The Times writes, quoting from the briefing paper:
"The country would quickly be able to build a basic device from plutonium with a similar technology to the "Fat Man" bomb dropped on Nagasaki in 1945. ... "Creating a simple atomic bomb, as the United States did within the framework of the Manhattan Project, would not be a difficult task 80 years later."
"Ukraine still controls nine operational nuclear reactors and has significant nuclear expertise despite having given up the world's third largest nuclear arsenal in 1996.
"The weight of reactor plutonium available to Ukraine can be estimated at seven tons ... A significant nuclear weapons arsenal would require much less material ... the amount of material is sufficient for hundreds of warheads with a tactical yield of several kilotons."
President Biden's great fear has always been that if Russia starts to lose the war, it will use nuclear weapons. He has, therefore, placed limits on use of the weapons we have supplied Ukraine. I am guessing that President Trump has the same fear, and wants to negotiate a Russian/Ukraine peace before Ukraine gets its own nuclear bombs and delivery systems.
If Russia has a "red line" which will trigger its use of nukes, things get more dangerous when Ukraine has its own nukes and its own "red lines."
The notion that the country that once had the third largest arsenal of nuclear weapons can't quickly build enough rudimentary nukes to take out Moscow, St. Petersburg and a half-dozen other major Russia cities is wishful thinking.
If Trump can negotiate an end to the war it will (1.) save the U.S. billions; and (2) reduce the threat of a Russian/Ukraine nuclear war with all that entails.
John Donald O'Shea, of Moline, is a retired circuit judge and a regular columnist.
