alt Hacker News> Ukraine is the perfect example of what actually happens when a country discards its nuclear arsenal.
That's silly. Ukraine never had a nuclear arsenal. Ukraine had nuclear weapons on their soil, but they were managed, and controlled by forces loyal to Moscow. Had forces loyal to Kyiv tried to force their way into the silos they would have been repelled and a war would have broken out there and then.
Ukraine had a nuclear arsenal as much as Turkey has a nuclear arsenal because the USA stores nuclear warheads in Incirlik.
I agree that Ukraine was not a nuclear power even while they had warheads on their territory after the USSR fell apart, but I believe it was very feasible for them to become one.
Posession is nine tenths of the law, after all-- it would've been quite possible to just lock down a few silos and refuse to hand the weapons over. Russia as a state was highly disrupted at that point, and would've had a hard time opposing this effectively.
I'm not disputing that this would've been a very costly move for an already poor nation (in potential economical sanctions and also maintenance of the arsenal itself). Maybe the external political/economical pressure resulting from this would've ripped Ukraine apart some other way.
But I'm highly confident that Russia would not have risked annexing territory from an country with a few nuclear ICBM silos. No need even to have full control/launch capability, as long as there is sufficient doubt (on Russias side).