January 11, 1994 BRUSSELS — “President Clinton on Monday announced agreement with Ukraine and Russia to dismantle Ukraine’s entire nuclear arsenal, hailing the long-sought accord as “a hopeful and historic breakthrough that enhances the security of all three participants.” – The Los Angeles Times.

From the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine had inherited 176 intercontinental missiles aimed mostly at the US and over 1200 nuclear warheads about 600 of which were loaded on bombers. The US and Russia promised security to Ukraine if they would give up their nuclear weapons. The US provided assistance for turning the weapons into fuel for nuclear power plants. Russia agreed to provide fuel rods for Ukraine’s nuclear plants. The world no longer feared Ukraine’s nukes being stolen or sold to the highest black market bidder. Russia no longer had a nuclear armed neighbor.

Some members of the Ukrainian Parliament thought their nation would be more secure if they continued as a nuclear power. Instead, based on assurances from NATO, US President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin, Ukraine unilaterally disarmed and reduced the world’s risk of nuclear conflict.

Vladimir Putin and the Russians have violated the agreement and Ukraine is unable to resist the Russian military. The US and NATO don’t want to risk a major war with Russia. Ukrainians surely don’t want that war fought in their hometowns. The situation raises disturbing questions.   Was Ukraine unwise to give up its nuclear weapons? Had they remained a nuclear power, would Russia have dared to cross their border? Would Ukraine have used nuclear weapons to stop a Russian invasion? How will these events affect decisions by other nations?

Pakistan keeps its nuclear arsenal on the belief that neither India nor anyone else will attack them and face a possible nuclear response.   How will Iran perceive promises that it can be secure without nuclear weapons? Israel won’t admit having nuclear weapons but many experts believe they do. Just that suspicion may deter invasion.

If Russia dismembers or bullies Ukraine, what lesson will be learned by other nations that are vulnerable to larger neighbors? Poland, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and other nations are capable of developing nuclear weapons with less effort and expense than would be required to maintain a large conventional force. If Ukraine is not protected, will other nations decide to develop their own nuclear deterrents?

No one nation has the resources and the will to police the world alone. The UN is structured so that large nations can veto any actions they dislike. NATO seems barely able to agree on economic sanctions, much less military action. This environment encourages more nations to develop their own nuclear weapons – the opposite of what most nations have wanted since nuclear arms were first used.

What shall we do? Do we want a “world police force” that would militarily take on any aggressor? Really? Are we (the US) willing to go to war with Russia to protect Ukraine? Would we bear the cost in lives and dollars to defend Taiwan from a Chinese invasion? Why would smaller nations not do whatever it takes for them to feel secure?

None of us know with certainty the answers to such questions. They ought to be the subject of discussion and planning by our elected leaders in congress, the UN, NATO and around the world.   If just one or two more nations announce their nuclear capability the genie will be out of the bottle and it may be too late to stop others. Then it will be only a matter of time before some nation that is losing a conventional war uses a nuclear weapon in “self-defense” to turn the tide.

Elected leaders seem uninclined to even start the discussion in public but around the world some are undoubtedly having it in private. Failure to assure security for any nation invites it and others to provide for themselves. Nuclear weapons may be seen as “equalizers” that protect small nations from larger neighbors. If that is to be avoided then assuring their security is a high priority international concern. Americans should be asking our elected leaders about it.