4 ms·

South Africa? Israel?

by gte525u 11y ago

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.
      - gte525u 11y ago
        Pakistan/India is more akin to North/South Korea. It is impossible for Pakistan or North Korea to maintain dollar for dollar defense spending with their rivals given the size of their economies.
        dalke 11y ago
        How is this connected to jballanc's comment that the rest of the world considers South Africa's or Pakistan's declared reasons for acquiring nuclear weapons as a regional defense to be nonsense?

South Africa? Israel?

by gte525u 11y ago

South Africa? Israel?

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.
    - gte525u 11y ago
      Pakistan/India is more akin to North/South Korea. It is impossible for Pakistan or North Korea to maintain dollar for dollar defense spending with their rivals given the size of their economies.
      - dalke 11y ago
        How is this connected to jballanc's comment that the rest of the world considers South Africa's or Pakistan's declared reasons for acquiring nuclear weapons as a regional defense to be nonsense?