Sometimes this question sneaks up to me like an intrusive thought, but recent events have made me give this question a lot more consideration.
"Comply with us, or we will kidnap your leader, bomb and occupy your land. Resist further and we will use nuclear weapons."
They have no need to dress their words in the clothes of decency and legality. They hold the power and technology to force anyone to comply, even if a country had nuclear weapons too such factor would only become relevant if the country had a nuclear triad and a stockpile over 2 digits.
Operation Northwoods and September 11th prove that the leadership of the U.S. would gladly welcome violence on Americans if it can be used as justification for further violence against enemies of the state, combine that with the knowledge that the leadership of the U.S. is the only one in the world that has proven itself capable of using nuclear weapons on civilians. They are bandits unshackled by morality, humanity or consequences.
There would be no international consequences, there is no collective of states in the world strong enough and willing to challenge the U.S. if it started making demands backed by the threat of nuclear bombardment.
There would be no domestic consequences, the U.S. has the most obedient population in the world as well as the world's most advanced police state.
So, what is stopping the U.S. from holding the world hostage with a nuclear gun?
Venezuela, Cuba, Mexico, Brazil. It could start annexing all of the Western Hemisphere tomorrow as enslaved resource colonies and the world couldn't stop them. It could force every country in the world except Russia and China to pay half their economy as tribute to keep American capitalism going for another 200 years and all it would need to do so is the threat of carpet bombing and nuclear terrorism.
The rate of profit will continue to fall either way, capitalism is inherently unsustainable, it will cease to exist no matter if it takes 50 years or 300. But in the short term I see it as a looming possibility that the administration of the U.S. will drop all pretenses and just take what they want whenever they want, backing their threats with nuclear weapons as it desperately seeks more resources to plunder, like a dying vampire thirsting for blood.
Iraq gave up their chemical weapons, and Hussein got overthrown. Libya gave up their chemical weapons, and Gaddafi got overthrown. Ukraine have up its chemicals weapons, and is being overthrown. North Korea got a nuke, and Trump met with, and praised Kim Jong Un.
Ukraine never had nukes btw, this is a popular NATOid talking point but the Ukrainian Soviet hosted nukes on their territory on behalf of the USSR. When the USSR was legally dissolved, it's liabilities and assets were given to the Russian Federation. All nukes were transferred directly from the USSR to the Russian Federation. Not even for one millisecond did the modern state of Ukraine possess nuclear weapons
When the USSR was ~~legally~~ illegally dissolved
I mean the legal process, I was not making a comment on the legality of the destruction of the USSR, but more on the formality of the processes
To clarify, I was talking about the dissolution of the legal systems. Not the legality of the dissolution.
Makes sense
rejecting the transfer and having them on your soil and 30 years to figure out how to hack the launch system would've been worth something
If they rejected the transfer (that was backed by the US administration) then they would have been destroyed and couped. They had no choice but to comply to the entire international consensus that all USSR nukes be given to the Russian Federation. America would never accept nuclear proliferation throughout all the post-soviet states, so this is a total pipedream fantasy. Modern Ukraine had 0% chance of ever having nukes.
that happened anyway?
I mean immediately, in 1991. The new Ukrainian state had to comply to the international consensus. There was no other option. The benefactor of their own "revolution" (the destruction of the USSR backed by the USA) demanded they give up the nukes to Russia. Even "their guy" wasn't on their side. They had 0 chance of ever getting nukes, not one state on Earth wanted Ukraine to have nukes - not their neighbors, not their opponents, not their allies, not even the Ukrainian people wanted to incur the costs and obligations associated with having them. It was basically unanimous by everyone that Ukraine would not have nukes, including the Ukrainian administration at the time.
Then 30 years later we have people retroactively imagining an alternate history where Ukraine got nukes somehow, which is part of the entire Ukraine Mythos fever-dream that has gripped the west in 2022 and made them "reimagine" history. The same brainrot that makes Liberals clap like seals at the Ghost of Kyiv also makes them believe that Ukraine shoulda held onto "their nukes".