4 ms·

Every non-nuclear state that has attempted to gain nuclear capabilities has declared that they are doing so to protect against aggression by the US/the west (pi

Every non-nuclear state that has attempted to gain nuclear capabilities has declared that they are doing so to protect against aggression by the US/the west (pick one). "We", of course, proclaim that this is nonsense, and that if these states would just turn over their materials and toe the line, they have nothing to worry about... ...except that Iraq did, and they were invaded. Libya did, and their leader was overthrown. Iran didn't, and they eventually got a negotiated settlement that left them with some nuclear capabilities. North Korea thumbed their nose at "us", developed and tested a bomb, and "we" sent them shipments of food and fuel in return. Soooo...maybe not such a crazy motivation after all? I realize each case is unique (Gaddafi's fall wasn't directly linked to his compliance; Iran has numerous proxies operating on its behalf in the region; nobody wants a hungry, angry North Korea attempting any sort of military action, nuclear or no), but at least in the case of Iraq, "we" really screwed the pooch. It's going to be at least a few more decades of good behavior before "we" can talk, again, about "minimizing nuclear states" and expect any non-nuclear states to take such talk seriously.

gte525u 11y ago
South Africa? Israel?
- jballanc 11y ago
  South Africa already had a nearly completed device by the time the rest of the world found out and, as a result, was gently nudged to "not do that". Israel is a nuclear state, as far as I know (not publicly acknowledged, yes, but probably the worst kept military secret in the world), and enjoys tremendous support from the west. So, yes, again if you have nuclear capabilities you get the kid gloves treatment. If not, you can expect to be kicked around. Not exactly the sort of incentive structure you want to set up if eliminating nuclear states is your goal.
  - dalke 11y ago
    Your statement was "Every non-nuclear state that has attempted to gain nuclear capabilities has declared that they are doing so to protect against aggression by the US/the west (pick one)." South Africa declared that their nuclear weapons program was to defend themselves from Soviet-backed regional threats. The USSR is neither the US nor the west, making the above statement incorrect. Pakistan declared that their nuclear weapons program was a response to India's own program. India is neither the US nor the west, which would make it another counter-example.
    - jballanc 11y ago
      Ah, ok...so modify the statement to "Every non-nuclear state that has attempted to gain nuclear capabilities has declared that they are doing so to protect against aggression by <fill-in-nuclear-state-here>." The bottom line is that the behavior of states with nuclear weapons has, thus far, been categorically counter to the goal of reducing the proliferation of nuclear states.
      - dalke 11y ago
        You need to modify more than that. Your following statement was: > "We", of course, proclaim that this is nonsense. The "this" referred to "the US/the west". It now refers to any threat from a nuclear neighbor. The US, France, etc. did not regard South Africa's concerns about Soviet expansionist policies in southern Africa as nonsense. Moreover, South Africa had a three phase defense plan (quoting http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Safrica/SABuildingBombs.html http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Safrica/SABuildingBombs.html ): Phase 1: Strategic uncertainty in which the nuclear deterrent capability will not be acknowledged or denied. Phase 2: Should South African territory be threatened, for example, by the Warsaw Pact countries through the surrogate Cuban forces in Angola, covert acknowledgement to certain international powers, e.g. the USA, would be contemplated. Phase 3: Should this partial disclosure of South Africa's capability not bring about international intervention to remove the threat, public acknowledgement or demonstration by an underground test of South Africa's capability, would be considered. Phase 2 would only work if the Western countries/USSR did not consider the threat as nonsense. Nor, I think, did people regard Pakistan's concern about an attack from nuclear-armed India to be "nonsense", though I haven't researched that issue. Also, your modification is "...aggression by <fill-in-nuclear-state-here>." South Africa was not concerned with aggression from the USSR but by regional attacks from conventional forces from Angola, Mozambique, etc. with Soviet backing. I don't think this falls even under your modified version.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

gte525u 11y ago

South Africa? Israel?

jballanc 11y ago
South Africa already had a nearly completed device by the time the rest of the world found out and, as a result, was gently nudged to "not do that". Israel is a nuclear state, as far as I know (not publicly acknowledged, yes, but probably the worst kept military secret in the world), and enjoys tremendous support from the west. So, yes, again if you have nuclear capabilities you get the kid gloves treatment. If not, you can expect to be kicked around. Not exactly the sort of incentive structure you want to set up if eliminating nuclear states is your goal.
- dalke 11y ago
  Your statement was "Every non-nuclear state that has attempted to gain nuclear capabilities has declared that they are doing so to protect against aggression by the US/the west (pick one)." South Africa declared that their nuclear weapons program was to defend themselves from Soviet-backed regional threats. The USSR is neither the US nor the west, making the above statement incorrect. Pakistan declared that their nuclear weapons program was a response to India's own program. India is neither the US nor the west, which would make it another counter-example.
  - jballanc 11y ago
    Ah, ok...so modify the statement to "Every non-nuclear state that has attempted to gain nuclear capabilities has declared that they are doing so to protect against aggression by <fill-in-nuclear-state-here>." The bottom line is that the behavior of states with nuclear weapons has, thus far, been categorically counter to the goal of reducing the proliferation of nuclear states.
    - dalke 11y ago
      You need to modify more than that. Your following statement was: > "We", of course, proclaim that this is nonsense. The "this" referred to "the US/the west". It now refers to any threat from a nuclear neighbor. The US, France, etc. did not regard South Africa's concerns about Soviet expansionist policies in southern Africa as nonsense. Moreover, South Africa had a three phase defense plan (quoting http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Safrica/SABuildingBombs.html http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Safrica/SABuildingBombs.html ): Phase 1: Strategic uncertainty in which the nuclear deterrent capability will not be acknowledged or denied. Phase 2: Should South African territory be threatened, for example, by the Warsaw Pact countries through the surrogate Cuban forces in Angola, covert acknowledgement to certain international powers, e.g. the USA, would be contemplated. Phase 3: Should this partial disclosure of South Africa's capability not bring about international intervention to remove the threat, public acknowledgement or demonstration by an underground test of South Africa's capability, would be considered. Phase 2 would only work if the Western countries/USSR did not consider the threat as nonsense. Nor, I think, did people regard Pakistan's concern about an attack from nuclear-armed India to be "nonsense", though I haven't researched that issue. Also, your modification is "...aggression by <fill-in-nuclear-state-here>." South Africa was not concerned with aggression from the USSR but by regional attacks from conventional forces from Angola, Mozambique, etc. with Soviet backing. I don't think this falls even under your modified version.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]