3 ms·

Is South Africa's situation really that unique when most of the world isn't at war with a neighbour? If anything, the situation in Pakistan, North Korea, India

Is South Africa's situation really that unique when most of the world isn't at war with a neighbour? If anything, the situation in Pakistan, North Korea, India, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel etc. are the unique cases - that is essentially a whose-who of regional conflicts

macintux 8y ago
I'll grant that most of the world is at relative peace, but as long as a few feel that their existence is at risk, it will be nearly impossible to get rid of nuclear weapons, which was the original point. South Africa shows that a country can get rid of its weapons, but it's not a particularly relevant example to those that still have them, or are likely to add them.
- kosievdmerwe 8y ago
  There's also the point that a lot of countries aren't at war precisely because they and/or their opponents have nukes. If the nukes disappeared then so would the reasons for the cease fire.
mandevil 8y ago
South Africa dismantled their program because the ruling white minority- watching de Klerk negotiate with Mandela to end Apartheid- didn't trust the ANC (read: Nelson Mandela) to have nuclear weapons. Absent that political handover, I'm not sure that they would ever have dismantled the program. It is hard to destroy military-industrial bureaucracies, once created and given resources.
- wp381640 8y ago
  I know - but that wasn't the argument being made
  - sangnoir 8y ago
    It is relevant though, because the political calculus between South Africa and its neighbors changed with the handover to the ANC. There were a lot of skirmishes between South Africa's apartheid government and its neighbors that supported/harbored the ANC military wing. Asking why South Africa developed nukes in the first place and why it voluntarily gave them up can provide a useful template for denuclearization. Aside: the fissile material is still stockpiled and there was a break-in attempt at the storage facility a few years ago

macintux 8y ago

I'll grant that most of the world is at relative peace, but as long as a few feel that their existence is at risk, it will be nearly impossible to get rid of nuclear weapons, which was the original point. South Africa shows that a country can get rid of its weapons, but it's not a particularly relevant example to those that still have them, or are likely to add them.

kosievdmerwe 8y ago
There's also the point that a lot of countries aren't at war precisely because they and/or their opponents have nukes. If the nukes disappeared then so would the reasons for the cease fire.

mandevil 8y ago

South Africa dismantled their program because the ruling white minority- watching de Klerk negotiate with Mandela to end Apartheid- didn't trust the ANC (read: Nelson Mandela) to have nuclear weapons. Absent that political handover, I'm not sure that they would ever have dismantled the program. It is hard to destroy military-industrial bureaucracies, once created and given resources.

wp381640 8y ago
I know - but that wasn't the argument being made
- sangnoir 8y ago
  It is relevant though, because the political calculus between South Africa and its neighbors changed with the handover to the ANC. There were a lot of skirmishes between South Africa's apartheid government and its neighbors that supported/harbored the ANC military wing. Asking why South Africa developed nukes in the first place and why it voluntarily gave them up can provide a useful template for denuclearization. Aside: the fissile material is still stockpiled and there was a break-in attempt at the storage facility a few years ago