5 ms·

They don't announce their secret nuclear weapons programs before they are complete (though they are sometimes discovered), but some countries have violated inte

by mmooss 29d ago

They don't announce their secret nuclear weapons programs before they are complete (though they are sometimes discovered), but some countries have violated international law and developed them, precisely to protect their sovereignty: - North Korea - Israel - India - Pakistan All retain their sovereignty, though I can't prove any causal effect and certainly nuclear weapons isn't the only cause. Others have pursued them, includng Libya, South Africa, etc. Libya agreed to surrender their program, and then their government was deposed with Western help. Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons (left over from being occupied by the USSR) in exchange for peace from Russia, and you can see what happened. That doesn't encourage the next person to give up theirs.

ericmay 29d ago
India and Pakistan both rushed their programs back in the 40s/50s ( or maybe later I can't recall off the top of my head). Libya and South Africa were negotiated away. That leaves Israel probably from the, what, 70s or 80s? And North Korea was supported by Russia and China. I'm not sure you could consider any of those countries to be "pursuing nuclear weapons" today. Plus by that logic you'd have to throw in the US, UK, China, Soviets, and France too. So when you sort of set aside countries from prior to, idk, 1980s ish you don't really have anyone at least publicly (to your point) pursuing nuclear weapons. However it's not just the enrichment of uranium which is tightly controlled it's also the missile technology to deliver the weapons. Keeping a nuclear program secret these days I think is quite a bit more difficult than in the past. So when you look around today you've got Iran that we know of pursuing a nuclear program. I'm not sure anyone else is by virtue of how difficult (I think?) it would be to do so undetected. Though there are countries (Japan and Korea come to mind) who we think have the ability to scale up a program very quickly.
- drTobiasFunke 29d ago
  India and Pakistan were late 90s. Japan and South Korea literally have 100s of American military bases on their territory. You really think they are sovereign nations who can pursue an independent nuclear program?
  - deleted 29d ago
    [deleted]
  - ericmay 29d ago
    > You really think they are sovereign nations who can pursue an independent nuclear program? Yes? Are you really sitting here telling South Korea, Japan, Germany, and more that they’re not sovereign nations because they choose to have American military bases on their home soil? > India and Pakistan were late 90s. Source please
- mmooss 29d ago
  > India and Pakistan both rushed their programs back in the 40s/50s India worked on them on and off for decades and first tested one in 1998, and IIRC Pakistan matched them soon after. North Korea was in the 2000s. > So when you sort of set aside countries from prior to, idk, 1980s ish you don't really have anyone at least publicly (to your point) pursuing nuclear weapons. I'm not going through the comment correcting all of it.
  - ericmay 29d ago
    > I'm not going through the comment correcting all of it. Yea, why bother when you're peddling misinformation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smiling_Buddha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smiling_Buddha > North Korea was in the 2000s. Yes supported by Russia and China they got the keys they needed for the delivery mechanism (ballistic missiles). But the problem with North Korea is they threatened to kill hundreds of thousands of people in South Korea if anyone stopped them from building their bomb. South Korea didn't want that to happen and China would have fought against American forces had we tried anything in North Korea. Not much we can do.
    - mmooss 29d ago
      These are well-known, non-controversial facts. For anyone unfamiliar with the topic, I encourage them to lookup when India, Pakistan, and North Korea developed nuclear weapons - you will find the answers in an instant.
      - ericmay 29d ago
        > These are well-known, non-controversial facts. Yes, like India successfully tested their first nuclear weapon in 1974, not 1998 like you are asserting.
nwellnhof 29d ago
> Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons Ukraine never had nuclear weapons. Russia is the sole legal successor of the USSR and these were all Russian nukes on Ukrainian territory. > in exchange for peace from Russia There isn't a single mention of nuclear weapons in the Budapest Memorandum.
- badc0ffee 29d ago
  > Ukraine never had nuclear weapons. Russia is the sole legal successor of the USSR and these were all Russian nukes on Ukrainian territory. Structuring the breakup so that the nukes are Russia's is not really different than Ukraine giving up the nukes on its territory. Where did they draw the line? Obviously not all USSR assets are now Russian assets, as Ukraine still has (or had) its own stockpile of Soviet era weapons, and other things like Soviet era airfields.
- qlte 29d ago
  This is over simplified to the point of being misleading/wrong. Russia was the legal successor of the USSR for purposes of diplomatic continuity, but the other Soviet successor states divided portions of the Soviet military/equipment, split Soviet debt obligations, etc on a case by case basis.
  - ericmay 29d ago
    Nuclear weapons are a special case though. Plus Ukraine didn't have the ability to use them anyway without launch codes as far as I'm aware.
    - goatlover 29d ago
      Electronic components can be swapped out. The nuclear material is what really matters.
      - ericmay 29d ago
        The ability to fire the weapon matters too. You need a delivery mechanism.
riffraff 29d ago
I believe Israel also didn't announce they have nukes, it's just mostly assumed they do.

by mmooss 29d ago

ericmay 29d ago

India and Pakistan both rushed their programs back in the 40s/50s ( or maybe later I can't recall off the top of my head). Libya and South Africa were negotiated away. That leaves Israel probably from the, what, 70s or 80s? And North Korea was supported by Russia and China. I'm not sure you could consider any of those countries to be "pursuing nuclear weapons" today. Plus by that logic you'd have to throw in the US, UK, China, Soviets, and France too. So when you sort of set aside countries from prior to, idk, 1980s ish you don't really have anyone at least publicly (to your point) pursuing nuclear weapons. However it's not just the enrichment of uranium which is tightly controlled it's also the missile technology to deliver the weapons. Keeping a nuclear program secret these days I think is quite a bit more difficult than in the past. So when you look around today you've got Iran that we know of pursuing a nuclear program. I'm not sure anyone else is by virtue of how difficult (I think?) it would be to do so undetected. Though there are countries (Japan and Korea come to mind) who we think have the ability to scale up a program very quickly.

drTobiasFunke 29d ago
India and Pakistan were late 90s. Japan and South Korea literally have 100s of American military bases on their territory. You really think they are sovereign nations who can pursue an independent nuclear program?
- deleted 29d ago
  [deleted]
- ericmay 29d ago
  > You really think they are sovereign nations who can pursue an independent nuclear program? Yes? Are you really sitting here telling South Korea, Japan, Germany, and more that they’re not sovereign nations because they choose to have American military bases on their home soil? > India and Pakistan were late 90s. Source please
mmooss 29d ago
> India and Pakistan both rushed their programs back in the 40s/50s India worked on them on and off for decades and first tested one in 1998, and IIRC Pakistan matched them soon after. North Korea was in the 2000s. > So when you sort of set aside countries from prior to, idk, 1980s ish you don't really have anyone at least publicly (to your point) pursuing nuclear weapons. I'm not going through the comment correcting all of it.
- ericmay 29d ago
  > I'm not going through the comment correcting all of it. Yea, why bother when you're peddling misinformation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smiling_Buddha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smiling_Buddha > North Korea was in the 2000s. Yes supported by Russia and China they got the keys they needed for the delivery mechanism (ballistic missiles). But the problem with North Korea is they threatened to kill hundreds of thousands of people in South Korea if anyone stopped them from building their bomb. South Korea didn't want that to happen and China would have fought against American forces had we tried anything in North Korea. Not much we can do.
  - mmooss 29d ago
    These are well-known, non-controversial facts. For anyone unfamiliar with the topic, I encourage them to lookup when India, Pakistan, and North Korea developed nuclear weapons - you will find the answers in an instant.
    - ericmay 29d ago
      > These are well-known, non-controversial facts. Yes, like India successfully tested their first nuclear weapon in 1974, not 1998 like you are asserting.

nwellnhof 29d ago

> Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons Ukraine never had nuclear weapons. Russia is the sole legal successor of the USSR and these were all Russian nukes on Ukrainian territory. > in exchange for peace from Russia There isn't a single mention of nuclear weapons in the Budapest Memorandum.

badc0ffee 29d ago
> Ukraine never had nuclear weapons. Russia is the sole legal successor of the USSR and these were all Russian nukes on Ukrainian territory. Structuring the breakup so that the nukes are Russia's is not really different than Ukraine giving up the nukes on its territory. Where did they draw the line? Obviously not all USSR assets are now Russian assets, as Ukraine still has (or had) its own stockpile of Soviet era weapons, and other things like Soviet era airfields.
qlte 29d ago
This is over simplified to the point of being misleading/wrong. Russia was the legal successor of the USSR for purposes of diplomatic continuity, but the other Soviet successor states divided portions of the Soviet military/equipment, split Soviet debt obligations, etc on a case by case basis.
- ericmay 29d ago
  Nuclear weapons are a special case though. Plus Ukraine didn't have the ability to use them anyway without launch codes as far as I'm aware.
  - goatlover 29d ago
    Electronic components can be swapped out. The nuclear material is what really matters.
    - ericmay 29d ago
      The ability to fire the weapon matters too. You need a delivery mechanism.

riffraff 29d ago

I believe Israel also didn't announce they have nukes, it's just mostly assumed they do.