1) Adding Ukraine to NATO is iffy—their politics are so conflicted that it’d be tough to guarantee they join, or that they stay, and we don’t want them thinking we’re as bad as the Russians. But an offer should be made. And yes, nukes are the reason we can’t squish Russia like a bug(well, that and morality).
2) Doesn’t need to be deployed tomorrow, or deployed publicly. Step up R+D, at a minimum, though.
3) Longer lead time, higher capital costs, and electricity-fuelled transport is still in its infancy(other than trains, but not even Europe runs on trains alone). Also, Europe(bar France) is about as anti-nuclear as they are anti-fracking, so I don’t see any obvious gains in political viability here.
1) Why should we let the Ukraine join NATO? It escalates us towards a war against Russia, and really if we wanted the Ukraine to join then the offer would have been made before the war started.
2) I’d guess that something with the complexity of a ballistic missile shield probably can’t be kept secret. For instance, if you were going the ‘star wars’ route and sticking weapons in space, then the Russians are going to wonder what all these new satellites being launched are for. I suppose you could disguise them as spy satellites, but its still a clue that something’s going on.
3) Isn’t Russia exporting gas rather than oil? In which case it is being used for heating and power rather than transport.
1) Before the war started, Ukraine was run by a corrupt Russian toady. Russia’s in the process of carving off all the regions of Ukraine that voted for said toady, so it’s unlikely another would win. Also, it’s become clear that conciliation isn’t working, so deference to not aggravating the Russians matters a lot less than it used to. That makes them a lot more appealing.
2) Depends on the shield. The GWB-era defence system is land-based, for example.
1) Adding Ukraine to NATO is iffy—their politics are so conflicted that it’d be tough to guarantee they join, or that they stay, and we don’t want them thinking we’re as bad as the Russians. But an offer should be made. And yes, nukes are the reason we can’t squish Russia like a bug(well, that and morality).
2) Doesn’t need to be deployed tomorrow, or deployed publicly. Step up R+D, at a minimum, though.
3) Longer lead time, higher capital costs, and electricity-fuelled transport is still in its infancy(other than trains, but not even Europe runs on trains alone). Also, Europe(bar France) is about as anti-nuclear as they are anti-fracking, so I don’t see any obvious gains in political viability here.
1) Why should we let the Ukraine join NATO? It escalates us towards a war against Russia, and really if we wanted the Ukraine to join then the offer would have been made before the war started.
2) I’d guess that something with the complexity of a ballistic missile shield probably can’t be kept secret. For instance, if you were going the ‘star wars’ route and sticking weapons in space, then the Russians are going to wonder what all these new satellites being launched are for. I suppose you could disguise them as spy satellites, but its still a clue that something’s going on.
3) Isn’t Russia exporting gas rather than oil? In which case it is being used for heating and power rather than transport.
1) Before the war started, Ukraine was run by a corrupt Russian toady. Russia’s in the process of carving off all the regions of Ukraine that voted for said toady, so it’s unlikely another would win. Also, it’s become clear that conciliation isn’t working, so deference to not aggravating the Russians matters a lot less than it used to. That makes them a lot more appealing.
2) Depends on the shield. The GWB-era defence system is land-based, for example.
3) They export both.