>

'It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.' 
-Jonathan Swift
It's like they they want their excuse to enter the war to be as flimsy as possible >

It would damage Russia to let Belarus to enter the war. >

They, (Russia), could blame Belarus for "incompetence" if something else goes wrong.
Plus they would have more cannon fodder to throw at Ukraine ... >

Belarus has nothing to offer in terms of war >

I don't know for sure, but they offer Russia 2 things.
1) More bodies to throw in the fire.
2) Some kind of made up legitimacy "look, another country doesn't like Ukraine, so we must be right" >

Army of Belarus is inept, badly trained and has weak morale. We will steamroall over everyone, who'll cross our border. >

So, just like the Russian army? >

They have somewhere around 20000 trained troops. Not enough to make strategic difference, not to mention that most will make a 180 degree turn and join Ukraine's Armed Forces. Lukashenko knows that and that's the reason he's still on the fence whether he wants to attack or not. >

I don't think he's on the fence, but he has to look like he's on the fence to stay in Putin's good graces.
If he agreed to go to war with his little army, he would quickly have no army (some would join Ukraine's forces, others would simply disappear)...and you don't want to be Russia's neighbor without an army. You know, just in case. >

That is correct. >

Russia shoots missiles over Belarus at Ukraine, Ukraine anti air shoots to intercept than Belarus possibly intercepts calls it an attack, sends mass troops to reinforce border before crossing >

"The damaged missle landed in Belarus, tripling the impoverished nation's net worth." >

Belarus has a GDP on par with South Dakota.  Russia, prior to last February, just below Texas.
For an interesting budget exercise, Russia's annual nuclear weaponry budget is slightly more than California spends on school lunches annually.
Ponder that next time Lavrov raves about nuking the world.  Do you think a US state's lunch budget could achieve it?  If not, feel free to chortle.
Source:  a bored engineer who has to run budgets for his department at a credit card firm.  And given we're near that lunch budget, I'm pretty sure we're nowhere near being a nuclear power. >

Keep in mind though, it's not quite a direct comparison.  $1 USD goes quite a bit further in Russia than it does in the US (if it doesn't get diverted by corruption). >

Well most of the expense is tritium top off at $30k a gram. And Regrinding the plutonium cores due to oxidation.  Sounds like less labor, more material. >

Grinding the cores would be labor-intensive.
Due to sitting over time, they’ll also need to do visual inspections, system tests, and component replacements. Rubbers and such degrade over decades. And that would just be for a standard launch vehicle; I’m not sure how much the radiation impacts the device but it’s not going to be negligible. The neutrons and gammas will slowly transmute any metals and degrade plastics and rubbers. >

Gamma exposure rapidly deteriorated my portfolio this year >

"Kyiv is striving to provoke a regional conflict by any means," 
You cant argue against this with logic