Nuclear weapons by country!!! Nukes on move..Russia moving some to Belarus, US moving nukes to UK…Russia send to Iran after they form new defense bloc
- Thread starter Mask
- Start date
Naw... between 2 & 5
http://www.nucleardarkness.org/nuclear/nuclearexplosionsimulator/
My city,and especially the part where i live..
My city,and especially the part where i live..
Too Bad Ukraine Didn’t Keep Its 2,000 Nuclear Weapons
In 1994, through an accident of fate, the newly independent country of Ukraine found itself in possession of the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal.
At first, Ukraine planned to keep its nuclear weapons. But, at the insistence of the two strongest powers in the world — Russia and the United States — Ukraine agreed to give up their nukes in exchange for perpetual guarantees of sovereignty and territorial integrity.
This supposedly ironclad treaty, signed 20 years ago, was the Budapest Memorandum.
The world was a different place then. The Soviet Union was breaking up, and many of the former Russian satellite states in Eastern Europe were becoming independent countries.
Why not give up their nukes? Russia was their protector and would always be there, and the U.S. lived up to its treaties. Ukraine didn’t need nuclear weapons. The Treaty was signed by Bill Clinton, Boris Yeltsin, John Major (of England) and Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma.
All of these leaders agreed to protect the sovereignty and “territorial agreement” of Ukraine, meaning any Russian support for Crimean independence would be in violation of Russia’s international obligations.
The three powers committed to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.”
I guess Ukrainians learned their lesson: Things change.
You can be sure that Vladimir Putin wouldn’t have seized Crimea if Ukraine had kept their nuclear weapons.
What lesson has this taught the other nuclear countries that still have the bomb: India, Israel, South Africa, Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, France, England and, maybe, soon-to-be Iran?
What Should the U.S. Do Now?
The past is the past. The key question now is: how important is Ukraine’s regional crisis to worldwide geopolitical interests?
If the end goal of the U.S. is to isolate Russia by prying away its former Eastern European satellites, and destroy Russia’s economy further, tough talk and sanctions are the way to go.
But, this is very dangerous and may lead to unanticipated consequences.
Putin, a fervent nationalist, has been feeling under attack by pro-U.S. influences and economic power for some time now. The ring of pro-Russian countries that buffered the Soviet Union is almost gone. NATO is closing in on Russia’s territory. Twelve former Warsaw Pact nations and republics have joined NATO, a military alliance historically directed against Russia:
Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
There is no Eastern Bloc left anymore. East Germany, where Putin was posted as a KGB agent for five years until the fall of Berlin in 1989, has been swallowed whole. This increasing Russian isolation and fear of losing its influence and markets is what prompted Putin to offer $15 billion to the Ukraine earlier this year to keep up a Russian Trade Agreement.
Russia feels it is being slowly put into a cage, and humiliated. Putin — supported by a majority of the Russian people — doesn’t like it. Remember what happened after World War I, when Germany felt besieged and belittled on all sides? Its ethnic German territories, with millions of German nationals, were gobbled up and incorporated into neighboring countries. German currency became worthless because of hyper-inflation. The German economy was hobbled by the reparations it was forced to pay to the Allies.
We all know what happened. Resentment, fear, and anger led to the growth of right-wing German nationalism — with horrific consequences.
Of late, the New York Times and theWashington Post have been beating the drums of war and, of course, we don’t want to pull another Neville Chamberlain and applaud the creation of many mini Russian Sudetenlands.
But do we really want Barack Obama to put all our geopolitical marbles on what is essentially a regional conflict?
We should look carefully at what is at stake from a global perspective. The U.S. and the West need Russia’s cooperation on a number of large-scale macro issues:
— The fight against Islamic terrorists is of paramount importance to both superpowers. Russia is under siege in the Caucuses, Chechnya, Dagestan and many of its former and present Asian-Muslim Republics. The U.S. is being targeted by Islamic terrorists throughout the entire Middle East, Egypt, Syria, Libya, and Gaza, as well as large swaths of North Africa.
— The need to prevent further nuclear proliferation and speed up disarmament is essential. Iran must be dissuaded from developing a nuclear capability. Japan, South Korea, Egypt, Syria, Turkey must be convinced that they don’t need nuclear weapons, just because their enemies have them.
— The U.S. needs Russia’s help in keeping the Middle East from blowing up, particularly in Syria. Putin is supporting the Assad regime because he thinks that the alternative would be a Jihadist victory — not such a farfetched possibility. Russia did encourage Assad to give up his chemical weapons.
— North Korea and the China seas is another particularly sensitive area. We need Russia to exert a stabilizing hand there, so that the risk and temptation to use nuclear weapons is minimized with eventual disarmament.
Russian Crimea is a fact and we ought to get over it.
The U.S. must also recognize that Russia will not allow the U.S. or the European Union to gain influence over any more immediate Russian Border States and enclaves — no more than JFK would allow Russia to put missiles in Cuba in the 1960s. We know what Russia is capable of when backed into a corner. We don’t want another invasion of 500,000 Russian troops, as happened in Czechoslovakia in 1968 or Hungary in 1956.
Russia has its own version of the Monroe Doctrine and is not going to give up hegemony over any more neighboring Russian ethnic groups.
If the saber rattling continues, without any means of backing it up, things might not turn out the way we want them. The repercussions are unknowable. Who could have predicted that the U.S. would end up killing 300,000 Iraqi civilians in our efforts to liberate them from a dictatorship?
There is another path.
The U.S. should tone down the rhetoric and concentrate on the core issues for worldwide peace and accept the Crimean reality. The solution will evolve slowly, if we let it. Something like the semi-autonomous Russian populated regions in Georgia. South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which are populated with Georgian citizens who have Russian passports but are still technically residing in the country of Georgia.
An odd situation, but it seems to be working now — there has been no large-scale violence for several years.
The world today is a dangerous tinderbox. This is not the time to speak loudly and carry no stick. We should not be throwing down gauntlets and drawing red lines in the the sand. Obama’s patience, and proclivity to lead from behind, should be applauded.
The E.U., while condemning the Crlmean takeover, has been reluctant to use harsh rhetoric or to adopt stringent sanctions. They know how volatile things can become.
The old order is passing. With this re-balancing of global power from decades of cold war peace and predictability, the U.S., more than ever, needs the cooperation of Russia on many international fronts where we have common interests. What we don’t need is to force Putin into a diplomatic and economic corner with increasing sanctions. A weakened and desperate Russian bear will be unpredictable, which will have a destabilizing effect on too many critically important matters that we dare not neglect.
In 1994, through an accident of fate, the newly independent country of Ukraine found itself in possession of the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal.
At first, Ukraine planned to keep its nuclear weapons. But, at the insistence of the two strongest powers in the world — Russia and the United States — Ukraine agreed to give up their nukes in exchange for perpetual guarantees of sovereignty and territorial integrity.
This supposedly ironclad treaty, signed 20 years ago, was the Budapest Memorandum.
The world was a different place then. The Soviet Union was breaking up, and many of the former Russian satellite states in Eastern Europe were becoming independent countries.
Why not give up their nukes? Russia was their protector and would always be there, and the U.S. lived up to its treaties. Ukraine didn’t need nuclear weapons. The Treaty was signed by Bill Clinton, Boris Yeltsin, John Major (of England) and Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma.
All of these leaders agreed to protect the sovereignty and “territorial agreement” of Ukraine, meaning any Russian support for Crimean independence would be in violation of Russia’s international obligations.
The three powers committed to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.”
I guess Ukrainians learned their lesson: Things change.
You can be sure that Vladimir Putin wouldn’t have seized Crimea if Ukraine had kept their nuclear weapons.
What lesson has this taught the other nuclear countries that still have the bomb: India, Israel, South Africa, Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, France, England and, maybe, soon-to-be Iran?
What Should the U.S. Do Now?
The past is the past. The key question now is: how important is Ukraine’s regional crisis to worldwide geopolitical interests?
If the end goal of the U.S. is to isolate Russia by prying away its former Eastern European satellites, and destroy Russia’s economy further, tough talk and sanctions are the way to go.
But, this is very dangerous and may lead to unanticipated consequences.
Putin, a fervent nationalist, has been feeling under attack by pro-U.S. influences and economic power for some time now. The ring of pro-Russian countries that buffered the Soviet Union is almost gone. NATO is closing in on Russia’s territory. Twelve former Warsaw Pact nations and republics have joined NATO, a military alliance historically directed against Russia:
Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
There is no Eastern Bloc left anymore. East Germany, where Putin was posted as a KGB agent for five years until the fall of Berlin in 1989, has been swallowed whole. This increasing Russian isolation and fear of losing its influence and markets is what prompted Putin to offer $15 billion to the Ukraine earlier this year to keep up a Russian Trade Agreement.
Russia feels it is being slowly put into a cage, and humiliated. Putin — supported by a majority of the Russian people — doesn’t like it. Remember what happened after World War I, when Germany felt besieged and belittled on all sides? Its ethnic German territories, with millions of German nationals, were gobbled up and incorporated into neighboring countries. German currency became worthless because of hyper-inflation. The German economy was hobbled by the reparations it was forced to pay to the Allies.
We all know what happened. Resentment, fear, and anger led to the growth of right-wing German nationalism — with horrific consequences.
Of late, the New York Times and theWashington Post have been beating the drums of war and, of course, we don’t want to pull another Neville Chamberlain and applaud the creation of many mini Russian Sudetenlands.
But do we really want Barack Obama to put all our geopolitical marbles on what is essentially a regional conflict?
We should look carefully at what is at stake from a global perspective. The U.S. and the West need Russia’s cooperation on a number of large-scale macro issues:
— The fight against Islamic terrorists is of paramount importance to both superpowers. Russia is under siege in the Caucuses, Chechnya, Dagestan and many of its former and present Asian-Muslim Republics. The U.S. is being targeted by Islamic terrorists throughout the entire Middle East, Egypt, Syria, Libya, and Gaza, as well as large swaths of North Africa.
— The need to prevent further nuclear proliferation and speed up disarmament is essential. Iran must be dissuaded from developing a nuclear capability. Japan, South Korea, Egypt, Syria, Turkey must be convinced that they don’t need nuclear weapons, just because their enemies have them.
— The U.S. needs Russia’s help in keeping the Middle East from blowing up, particularly in Syria. Putin is supporting the Assad regime because he thinks that the alternative would be a Jihadist victory — not such a farfetched possibility. Russia did encourage Assad to give up his chemical weapons.
— North Korea and the China seas is another particularly sensitive area. We need Russia to exert a stabilizing hand there, so that the risk and temptation to use nuclear weapons is minimized with eventual disarmament.
Russian Crimea is a fact and we ought to get over it.
The U.S. must also recognize that Russia will not allow the U.S. or the European Union to gain influence over any more immediate Russian Border States and enclaves — no more than JFK would allow Russia to put missiles in Cuba in the 1960s. We know what Russia is capable of when backed into a corner. We don’t want another invasion of 500,000 Russian troops, as happened in Czechoslovakia in 1968 or Hungary in 1956.
Russia has its own version of the Monroe Doctrine and is not going to give up hegemony over any more neighboring Russian ethnic groups.
If the saber rattling continues, without any means of backing it up, things might not turn out the way we want them. The repercussions are unknowable. Who could have predicted that the U.S. would end up killing 300,000 Iraqi civilians in our efforts to liberate them from a dictatorship?
There is another path.
The U.S. should tone down the rhetoric and concentrate on the core issues for worldwide peace and accept the Crimean reality. The solution will evolve slowly, if we let it. Something like the semi-autonomous Russian populated regions in Georgia. South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which are populated with Georgian citizens who have Russian passports but are still technically residing in the country of Georgia.
An odd situation, but it seems to be working now — there has been no large-scale violence for several years.
The world today is a dangerous tinderbox. This is not the time to speak loudly and carry no stick. We should not be throwing down gauntlets and drawing red lines in the the sand. Obama’s patience, and proclivity to lead from behind, should be applauded.
The E.U., while condemning the Crlmean takeover, has been reluctant to use harsh rhetoric or to adopt stringent sanctions. They know how volatile things can become.
The old order is passing. With this re-balancing of global power from decades of cold war peace and predictability, the U.S., more than ever, needs the cooperation of Russia on many international fronts where we have common interests. What we don’t need is to force Putin into a diplomatic and economic corner with increasing sanctions. A weakened and desperate Russian bear will be unpredictable, which will have a destabilizing effect on too many critically important matters that we dare not neglect.
Why aren't all the countries willing to give up their nuclear weapons? - Quora
Because of two very obvious questions:
1. Who goes first?
If you're in a Mexican Standoff and the other guy tells you to drop your gun, are you gonna do it? HELL no. You know if you do he'll just shoot you. You'll tell him to drop HIS gun first. But he knows you'll shoot him if he does, so he won't drop his gun either.
The exact same thing applies to nuclear weapons. No one wants to give up their nukes before their enemies (whether political or military enemies) surrender their own. India is not going to give up its nukes before Pakistan does, and Pakistan is not going to give up their nukes before India does. The result is neither nation gives up their nukes.
2. How do we know when everyone has given up all their nukes?
Even if you somehow could convince every nation known to have nuclear weapons to give them up...how do you know when they're all gone? The exact number and location of a country's nuclear weapons is generally top-top-top-secret information. So even if you could convince them, how do you know that China or Russia or even the United States doesn't have a secret store of nukes that it officially denies the existence of? Answer: You can't know. So from the perspective of every nuclear power on the planet, giving up your nuclear weapons is just asking to be nuked by some schmuck who kept a hidden cache of nuclear bombs where nobody was looking.
Because of two very obvious questions:
1. Who goes first?
If you're in a Mexican Standoff and the other guy tells you to drop your gun, are you gonna do it? HELL no. You know if you do he'll just shoot you. You'll tell him to drop HIS gun first. But he knows you'll shoot him if he does, so he won't drop his gun either.
The exact same thing applies to nuclear weapons. No one wants to give up their nukes before their enemies (whether political or military enemies) surrender their own. India is not going to give up its nukes before Pakistan does, and Pakistan is not going to give up their nukes before India does. The result is neither nation gives up their nukes.
2. How do we know when everyone has given up all their nukes?
Even if you somehow could convince every nation known to have nuclear weapons to give them up...how do you know when they're all gone? The exact number and location of a country's nuclear weapons is generally top-top-top-secret information. So even if you could convince them, how do you know that China or Russia or even the United States doesn't have a secret store of nukes that it officially denies the existence of? Answer: You can't know. So from the perspective of every nuclear power on the planet, giving up your nuclear weapons is just asking to be nuked by some schmuck who kept a hidden cache of nuclear bombs where nobody was looking.
Yup it won't take much to fuck the world
Last edited:
So people expect every country to give up theirs when we got thousands in US lol
I don't blame these countries one bit for protecting themselves
Especially when we're the only fools to drop one...
A nuke war between Pakistan and India's lil nukes halfway around the world would be enough to destroy all life on this planet.
And they stay at each others throats...
Scary shit
And they stay at each others throats...
Scary shit
I would love to see the u.s. military get their ass handed to them like those marines in black hawk down.
I love thst movie! Mufukkaz got fuuuuuucked up! Supa bad.
China, North Korea, & Russia vs the US.
I hope the U.S. military looses every illegal occupation/ war/ invasion it participates in.
I love thst movie! Mufukkaz got fuuuuuucked up! Supa bad.
China, North Korea, & Russia vs the US.
I hope the U.S. military looses every illegal occupation/ war/ invasion it participates in.
Interesting.
The nukes were dropped to hasten the end of the war. When the Japanese lost their advantages, supply lines shut off they still refused to surrender. The US didn't want to risk more American lives fighting guerilla style warfare within their cities. I think they anticipated over another half million more casualties if they sent troops into the cities. With that possibility I can kind of understand dropping the nukes. Plus they really wanted to drop those nukes.
Africa niggas made all the nukes in the world.
Correctamundo I fully expect it will be one of the terrorist groups that will eventually put something together and detonate it.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...orrectamundo&usg=AOvVaw1Eqvc2x_vM40C9GZx5g4kf
South Africa did Built Nuclear Weapons and Then Gave Them Up. Mostly likely the Israel purchase with blessing from USA.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/b...uilt-nuclear-weapons-and-then-gave-them-89111
Israel doesn't need them as long as the U.S. remains it's attack dog. They're good.
Not even near that more like 4 to 8 warheads.South Africa was in the 50-100 range. The ANC let the boers destroy the nuclear plants, destroy all documents and remove all uranium out of the country
Why u say that folks
Damn Pakistan is the Only All Muslim Islamic Nation to have its hands on the button.
Quite a few, I would estimate about 15 would destroy the world. Not the bombs themselves, but the aftermath is what would kill the world.
The bigger problem is that everyone is "linked" by these nukes. So if the US shoots one off & doesn't give a justification, everyone else basically is going to toss theirs up in the air as well. Add to that that you have nations that have pacts with non-nuclear nations & if that non-nuclear nation gets nuked, WWIII gets started...just like WWII did.
Let me also add that there are fusion bombs as well, they are just experimental & still classified. Those are about a few Tsar nukes worth of power.
Guess time to wonder what these numbers look like
even tho one or two would fuck us royally
Hope the stories they say about aliens stopping bombs in the past is true.
Otherwise
Otherwise
US to station nuclear weapons in UK to counter threat from Russia
Warheads to be housed at RAF Lakenheath for first time in 15 years, Pentagon documents reveal, as Moscow warns of 'escalation'
Tony Diver, US Editor26 January 2024 • 7:00pmThe United States is planning to station nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years as the threat from Russia increases, Pentagon documents seen by The Telegraph reveal.
Procurement contracts for a new facility at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk confirm that the US intends to place nuclear warheads three times the strength of the Hiroshima bomb at the air base.
The US removed nuclear missiles from the UK in 2008, judging that the Cold War threat from Moscow had diminished.
The disclosure comes in the wake of warnings that Nato countries need to ready their citizens for war with Russia.
Last week, Adml Rob Bauer, a senior Nato military official, said that private citizens should prepare for all-out war with Russia in the next 20 years that would require wholesale change in their lives.
General Sir Patrick Sanders, the head of the British Army, went on to warn that the public would need to be called up to fight if there was war with Russia because the Army was too small. His comments forced Downing Street to rule out conscription.
Boris Johnson on Friday night backed Sir Patrick’s call for a citizen army, as he pledged to sign up if the UK went to war with Russia.
The US navy secretary, Carlos Del Toro, then urged Britain to “reassess” the size of its armed forces. On Friday, No 10 defended the Government’s military spending, pointing out that “the UK is the second biggest defence spender in Nato and the largest in Europe”.
The return of American weapons to the UK is part of a Nato-wide programme to develop and upgrade nuclear sites in response to heightened tensions with the Kremlin in the wake of the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
Russia has stated that the placement of US weapons in Britain would be viewed by Moscow as an “escalation” and would be met with “compensating counter-measures”.
As well as the conflict in Ukraine, the West is facing rising challenges from Iran and North Korea, which have both grown closer to Moscow in recent years.
On Friday, Britain, France and Germany condemned Iran for launching a new satellite to guide long-range missiles. Tehran is enriching uranium for possible use in developing nuclear weapons.
The US and UK have also been carrying out air strikes in the Red Sea against Yemen’s Houthi rebels, the Iran-backed militia which have been attacking container ships in purported retaliation for Israel’s military offensive in Gaza.
Echoes of the Cold War
Unredacted documents on the US department of defence’s procurement database reveal plans for a “nuclear mission” that will take place “imminently” at RAF Lakenheath, where nuclear weapons were stationed during the Cold War.The Pentagon had refused to comment on speculation that a new “surety dormitory”, first revealed in budget documents last year, was intended for the base, which is run by the US Air Force under British regulations and laws, to allow the US to house tactical nuclear weapons that can be deployed by F-35 fighter jets.
The term “surety” is used by the Pentagon to refer to the need to keep nuclear weapons safe when they are not being used.
The documents show the Pentagon has ordered new equipment for the base, including ballistic shields designed to protect military personnel from attacks on “high value assets”. Construction on a new housing facility for American forces working on the site will begin in June.
RAF Lakenheath is expected to house B61-12 gravity bombs, which have a variable yield of up to 50 kilotons – more than three times the power of the atomic weapon dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.
Following the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, a Pentagon review of the US’s nuclear posture said it served as a “stark reminder of nuclear risk in contemporary conflict” and warned of “nuclear threats to the homeland and US allies and partners”.
President Joe Biden said that the US would “enhance our force posture in Europe to respond to the change in the security environment”.
The US has already announced plans to station two squadrons of fifth-generation F-35 fighter jets, which have the ability to carry the bombs, with the 48th Fighter Wing at RAF Lakenheath.
In October, US officials requested permission from Congress to begin development of a new B61 bomb with a higher payload, arguing that more powerful weapons would “provide the president with additional options against certain harder and large-area military targets”.
The documents revealing the decision to station nuclear warheads in the UK were posted on a US government procurement website.
One notice, posted in August, requested a private-sector contractor to provide sentry cabins and shields to protect troops in the base’s 48th Security Forces Squadron from “forced entry and ballistic attack” from assault rifles on the nuclear weapons site.
“The 48th Security Forces Squadron upcoming nuclear mission is required to operate under ballistic protection,” it said.
A second contract, published on Tuesday, advertised for hydraulic ramps for unloading vehicles, noting that the new F35s and “the imminent surety support” had “highlighted the need to replace these much-required facilities”.
A US air force F-15C Eagle lands at RAF Lakenheath. The tactical nuclear weapons will be deployed by F-35s Credit: NurPhoto/NurPhoto
In response to a US budget document outlining plans for the $50 million (£39 million) dormitory for surety personnel at RAF Lakenheath last year, Maria Zakharova, a Russian foreign ministry spokesman, said that Moscow would respond to the return of US nuclear weapons on British soil with “counter-measures”.
“If this step is ever made, we will view it as escalation, as a step toward escalation that would take things to a direction that is quite opposite to addressing the pressing issue of pulling all nuclear weapons out of European countries,” she said.
“In the context of the transition of the United States and Nato to an openly confrontational course of inflicting a ‘strategic defeat’ on Russia, this practice and its development force us to take compensating countermeasures designed to reliably protect the security interests of our country and its allies.”
The construction of the site could also be subject to legal challenge by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which argues that the Ministry of Defence did not conduct required environmental impact assessments before approving the development.
The US currently has warheads stationed in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey, under a Nato nuclear-sharing arrangement.
A Pentagon spokesman said: “The United States routinely upgrades its military facilities in allied nations. Unclassified administrative budget documents often accompany such activities.
“These documents are not predictive of, nor are they intended to disclose any specific posture or basing details.
“It is US policy to neither confirm nor deny the presence or absence of nuclear weapons at any general or specific location
This why the US sending nukes to UK
President Alexander Lukashenko said at a meeting of a Moscow-led economic bloc in St. Petersburg that the shipments were completed in October, but he did not give details of how many weapons were sent or where they have been deployed.
Tactical nuclear weapons, which are intended for use on the battlefield, have a short range and a low yield compared with much more powerful nuclear warheads fitted to long-range missiles. Russia said it would maintain control over those it sends to Belarus.
Lukashenko has said that hosting Russian nuclear weapons in his country is meant to deter aggression by Poland, a NATO member. Poland is offering neighbor Ukraine military, humanitarian and political backing in its struggle against Russia’s invasion and is taking part in international sanctions on Russia and Belarus.
Russian troops based in Belarus invaded Ukraine from the north in the war’s opening days, but Belarusian forces are not known to have participated,
Belarus leader says Russian nuclear weapons shipments are completed, raising concern in the region
TALLINN, Estonia (AP) — The president of Belarus said Monday that Russia has completed its shipments of tactical nuclear weapons to his country, an initiative that raised strong concerns in neighboring Poland and elsewhere in the region.President Alexander Lukashenko said at a meeting of a Moscow-led economic bloc in St. Petersburg that the shipments were completed in October, but he did not give details of how many weapons were sent or where they have been deployed.
Tactical nuclear weapons, which are intended for use on the battlefield, have a short range and a low yield compared with much more powerful nuclear warheads fitted to long-range missiles. Russia said it would maintain control over those it sends to Belarus.
Lukashenko has said that hosting Russian nuclear weapons in his country is meant to deter aggression by Poland, a NATO member. Poland is offering neighbor Ukraine military, humanitarian and political backing in its struggle against Russia’s invasion and is taking part in international sanctions on Russia and Belarus.
Russian troops based in Belarus invaded Ukraine from the north in the war’s opening days, but Belarusian forces are not known to have participated,