After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, about 1/3 of its nuclear weapons were based in the Ukraine. People started getting worried about “loose nukes” and somehow Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for a US “security guaranty”. (Experience has shown the US to be an unreliable ally – just ask the Kurds)
After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, about 1/3 of its nuclear weapons were based in the Ukraine. People started getting worried about “loose nukes” and somehow Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for a US “security guaranty”. (Experience has shown the US to be an unreliable ally – just ask the Kurds)
================================================
You leave out lots of facts. Ukraine was not a stable country in 1991. There were to many nukes that could fall into the hands of terrorists. Also it was not just a US “security guaranty” - the UK and Russia also agreed to the “security guaranty”.
The US would not have made Ukraine an exception when it came to the denuclearization of other post-Soviet states such as Belarus and Kazakhstan.
By 1996, Ukraine transferred all Soviet-era strategic warheads to Russia.
Ukraine received extensive assistance to dismantle ICBMs, ICBM silos, heavy bombers, and cruise missiles from the US funded Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. ICBM silos were destroyed by 2002, ICBMs were dismantled or transferred to Russia, and heavy bombers were eliminated by 2001.
Now whether it’s in the US interest for Pakistan or North Korea to have nuclear weapons is another issue.
intercst
The US has always tried to limit the number of nations that have nuclear weapons. Early Cold war they made a deal with Canada that in return for not building our own they would loan us some of theirs but of course they came complete with their own entourage of US military police.
Not long after I first arrived in Germany circa early 1966 my infantry platoon spent a week providing outer security/quick reaction for the storage site for the warheads. The last ones were the AIR-2 Genie air to air missile carried by the VooDoo that we still had when I started aircrew training in 1970. Somewhat interestingly there was a nuclear depth charge that the Sea King was equipped to carry on one of our stores mounts. We trained dry on the procedure but quickly realized in the simulator that dropping it was not survivable for the aircraft or crew. Seriously they told us to track the sub, then cut the sonar cable drop the thing and climb like hell … according to two of my pilots the math didn’t work! We didn’t actually have the nuclear depth charges but were assured they would be available when needed! There was a place to store them on the ship.
We trained dry on the procedure but quickly realized in the simulator that dropping it was not survivable for the aircraft or crew. Seriously they told us to track the sub, then cut the sonar cable drop the thing and climb like hell … according to two of my pilots the math didn’t work! We didn’t actually have the nuclear depth charges but were assured they would be available when needed! There was a place to store them on the ship.
I wonder if a better chance for survival would be to drop the depth charge and then fly like he11 laterally, to put more water between yourself and the explosion. But that’s just me, not that I’d want to experiment.
Thank you for recommending this post to our Best of feature.
-------------------------------------------- I wonder if a better chance for survival would be to drop the depth charge and then fly like he11 laterally, to put more water between yourself and the explosion. But that’s just me, not that I’d want to experiment.
Bill
Fortunately we were never in a position to test either version. One of our USN exchange pilots when asked told us it was classified US only … information … which means he didn’t know either.
Fortunately we were never in a position to test either version. One of our USN exchange pilots when asked told us it was classified US only … information … which means he didn’t know either.
Found this, the Brits took theirs to the Falklands War … who knew? Variable yield, don’t recall mention of that in the training. I was in Portsmouth when the Brits were packing up to head south with the NATO fleet. The sparkling modern British Destroyer that was also assigned to the fleet was taken away and they tossed us an old Dido class frigate to take it’s place.
A nuclear depth bomb is the nuclear equivalent of the conventional depth charge, and can be used in anti-submarine warfare for attacking submerged submarines. The Royal Navy, Soviet Navy, and United States Navy had nuclear depth bombs in their arsenals at one point.
Due to the use of a nuclear warhead of much greater explosive power than that of the conventional depth charge, the nuclear depth bomb considerably increases the likelihood (to the point of near certainty) of the destruction of the attacked submarine.
Some aircraft were cleared for using these, such as the P2V Neptune, but none were used against any submarines.
Because of this much greater power some nuclear depth bombs feature a variable yield, whereby the explosive energy of the device may be varied between a low setting for use in shallow or coastal waters, and a high yield for deep water open-sea use. This is intended to minimise damage to peripheral areas and merchant shipping.
During the Falklands War, Britain’s naval task force carried 31 nuclear depth charges.
Thank you for recommending this post to our Best of feature.
. . . when asked told us it was classified US only … information …
+++ +++
Yup! The Oh-Fish-ull DoD nomenclature for such info was “NOFORN” meaning No Foreign dissemination.
sunrayman multi-time NATO veteran (in prev century)
Some of the codes could be shared for operational uses and had such things as CANUKUS on them.
I was a NATO baby born in 1947 the same year as NATO, joined the Canuck army at barely 17 and served in Infantry, Aircrew (4 engine sub-hunters 2 tours) and as Sea King Helo (AESOp) “systems operator” (four tours) 2 on Navy ships, 1 in base test and evaluation and one as an instructor in the training squadron. Finally I was told I needed a break and they trained me and sent me to the NATO base in Geilenkirchen Germany as an AOCP programmer on the NATO AWACs. I must have done something right because two different organizations on base wanted to hire me (including the one I was working for), I chose the other one. After ten years as a NATO Civilian programmer making an outrageous tax free salary my wife decided 13 years there was enough and she wanted to go home.