Login/Sign up

World Association of International Studies

Post Ukraine's Renunciation of Nuclear Weapons, 1994
Created by John Eipper on 02/04/18 4:12 AM

Previous posts in this discussion:


Ukraine's Renunciation of Nuclear Weapons, 1994 (Boris Volodarsky, Austria, 02/04/18 4:12 am)

JE commented on Istvan Simon's post of 3 February: "The former Soviet republics (other than Russia itself) voluntarily gave up their nuclear weapons. And to my knowledge, no one has suspected Ukraine of cheating."

Absolutely correct, but Ukraine has regretted it so many times in the past few years. I am not only mentioning the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances of 1994. The Memorandum signed by the United States, Great Britain and Russia included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine and two other former Soviet republics.

It makes no sense to remind WAISers what happened with the Ukrainian territory of Crimea in 2014 and what is still going on today in Donbass. The document signed by three states who claim they play a certain role in world politics is not worth the toilet paper in the Budapest public WCs.

Now about the discussion on whether it is possible or not to get rid of nuclear weapons. Easy! There are much more powerful and dangerous weapons already tested and ready for use that the great powers, including Russia (which is not a great power but still rather well armed and dangerous), have in their arsenals. The effects of Hiroshima pale in comparison to the potential effects of the new generation of weapons. In the next 8 to 10 years all existing military nuclear devices as we know them will simply become obsolete.

So what's the sense of keeping the old scrap? Today the question is who has made better progress in developing those new weapons. Here I am not sure who is leading.

JE comments: Boris, do the Ukrainians believe that Putin would have left them alone, had they kept their nukes?

A second question:  What can be more powerful and dangerous than the nuclear weapons we already have? Bigger nukes?  More tactically nefarious ones?

Rate this post
Informational value 
Reader Ratings (0)
Informational value0%

Visits: 91


Please login/register to reply or comment: Login/Sign up

  • Psychotronic and Electromagnetic Weapons (Boris Volodarsky, Austria 02/05/18 4:33 AM)
    Briefly answering JE's questions of 4 February:

    (a) "Do the Ukrainians believe that Putin would have left them alone, had they kept their nukes?"

    No, the Ukrainians believe the United States and Britain would not have left them alone had they kept their nuclear arsenal.

    (b) "What can be more powerful and dangerous than the nuclear weapons we already have? Bigger nukes? More tactically nefarious ones?"

    The answer is psychotronic and electromagnetic (EM) weapons. One report, allegedly referring to a secret KGB file, that, of course, cannot be independently verified, stated, "The principle of remote exposure of humans to a psychotronic generator is based on the resonance of frequency characteristics of human organs--the heart, kidneys, liver, and brain. Each human organ has its own frequency characteristic. And if the same frequency is beamed at it by means of electromagnetic radiation, the organ enters into resonance, and the result is either acute cardiac insufficiency, or renal insufficiency, or a person starts to behave inadequately."

    Plans to introduce the super-weapons were announced quietly in March 2012 by the then Russian defence minister Anatoly Serdyukov, fulfilling a little-noticed election campaign pledge by president-elect Putin.

    Mr Serdyukov said: "The development of weaponry based on new physics principles--direct-energy weapons, geophysical weapons, wave-energy weapons, genetic weapons, psychotronic weapons, and so on--is part of the state arms procurement programme for 2011-2020.'

    JE comments: Sheesh.  These weapons are the rayguns of Buck Rogers fame, but scarier.  What about the "delivery" of Remote Organ Failure?  I cannot see how you can protect your own while zapping others.  Perhaps this is what Russia's mad scientists are working on now.

    Please login/register to reply or comment:

  • Post-Nuclear Superweapons: Biological Agents (John Heelan, -UK 02/05/18 4:48 AM)
    JE asked on February 4th: "What can be more powerful and dangerous than the nuclear weapons we already have? Bigger nukes? More tactically nefarious ones?"

    Biological weapons based on disease-producing agents, such as bacteria, viruses, rickettsiae, fungi, toxins, or other biological agents. They can be used as weapons against humans, animals, or plants. They are cheaper to develop (e.g. Genetic Modification) and easier to deliver by using the target population itself.

    JE comments:  Don't we already have these?  Biological weapons go back at least to Cortés and Tenochtitlan.  Cortés delivered a smallpox-infested blanket to his Aztec enemies.  The result was far deadlier than any blade or projectile.

    Please login/register to reply or comment:

Trending Now

All Forums with Published Content (44621 posts)

- Unassigned

Culture & Language

American Indians Art Awards Bestiary of Insults Books Conspiracy Theories Culture Ethics Film Food Futurology Gender Issues Humor Intellectuals Jews Language Literature Media Coverage Movies Music Newspapers Numismatics Philosophy Plagiarism Prisons Racial Issues Sports Tattoos Western Civilization World Communications


Capitalism Economics International Finance World Bank World Economy


Education Hoover Institution Journal Publications Libraries Universities World Bibliography Series


Biographies Conspiracies Crime Decline of West German Holocaust Historical Figures History Holocausts Individuals Japanese Holocaust Leaders Learning Biographies Learning History Russian Holocaust Turkish Holocaust


Afghanistan Africa Albania Algeria Argentina Asia Australia Austria Bangladesh Belgium Belize Bolivia Brazil Canada Central America Chechnya Chile China Colombia Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark East Europe East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador England Estonia Ethiopia Europe European Union Finland France French Guiana Germany Greece Guatemala Haiti Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran (Persia) Iraq Ireland Israel/Palestine Italy Japan Jordan Kenya Korea Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Latin America Liberia Libya Mali Mexico Middle East Mongolia Morocco Namibia Nations Compared Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North America Norway Pacific Islands Pakistan Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Polombia Portugal Romania Saudi Arabia Scandinavia Scotland Serbia Singapore Slovakia South Africa South America Southeast Asia Spain Sudan Sweden Switzerland Syria Thailand The Pacific Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan UK (United Kingdom) Ukraine USA (America) USSR/Russia Uzbekistan Venezuela Vietnam West Europe Yemen Yugoslavia Zaire


Balkanization Communism Constitutions Democracy Dictators Diplomacy Floism Global Issues Hegemony Homeland Security Human Rights Immigration International Events Law Nationalism NATO Organizations Peace Politics Terrorism United Nations US Elections 2008 US Elections 2012 US Elections 2016 US Elections 2020 Violence War War Crimes Within the US


Christianity Hinduism Islam Judaism Liberation Theology Religion

Science & Technology

Alcohol Anthropology Automotives Biological Weapons Design and Architecture Drugs Energy Environment Internet Landmines Mathematics Medicine Natural Disasters Psychology Recycling Research Science and Humanities Sexuality Space Technology World Wide Web (Internet)


Geography Maps Tourism Transportation


1-TRIBUTES TO PROFESSOR HILTON 2001 Conference on Globalizations Academic WAR Forums Ask WAIS Experts Benefactors Chairman General News Member Information Member Nomination PAIS Research News Ronald Hilton Quotes Seasonal Messages Tributes to Prof. Hilton Varia Various Topics WAIS WAIS 2006 Conference WAIS Board Members WAIS History WAIS Interviews WAIS NEWS waisworld.org launch WAR Forums on Media & Research Who's Who