Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Israel tried to sell nukes to apartheid-Southafrica...

Israel tried to sell nukes to apartheid-Southafrica...
Thread Tools
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2010, 04:04 PM
 
... apparantely newly declassified south-african documents show that Israel was about to sell some of its nukes to Southafrica in 1975. The deal was apparantely given up by Southafrica's apartheid-regime because it was too costly instead opting to develop them themselves.

Link: BBC News - Israel's Peres denies South Africa nuclear weapons deal

We already know that Israel supported apartheid-southafrica with conventional weapons but this nuclear dimension is new.

If true it has major effects: 1. It ends the ambiguity that Israel possesses nukes or not. 2. It would show that Israel is not trustable to possess nukes as it was willing to sell and proliferate some of its nukes.

Taliesin
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2010, 04:45 PM
 
Of course they have nukes, how else do you think they've been able to stay intact considering they're surrounded by hostile enemies? Looks like the evidence regarding any alleged nuclear sales to S. Africa 35 years ago is questionable at best, and outright fabrications at worst. None of the documents are signed by any Israeli leaders or representatives and there are no in-depth details regarding any terms. Looks like they're pretty short on proof.

No one is going to take away Israel's missiles, it's best that you learn to live with that.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2010, 05:06 PM
 
Look, a smoking gun

-t
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2010, 06:28 PM
 
if Israel has nukes, why isn't the US pressuring them to join the non-proliferation treaty (this example, if true, being a perfect example why they should)?
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2010, 07:47 AM
 
When the hostile neighbors quit being hostile then the Israelis should consider giving up a few. Until then, they should have them to use on those who attack them. Iran take note.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2010, 08:23 AM
 
I'm not asking about Israel giving up their nukes. I think they have every right to possess nuclear weapons. I'm just wondering why they're allowed to sell their nukes to anyone they want to?

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was set up to limit the spread of nuclear weapons and the US has been pressuring every nuclear power on the planet to join that treaty. Everyone, except Israel that is.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2010, 08:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I'm not asking about Israel giving up their nukes. I think they have every right to possess nuclear weapons. I'm just wondering why they're allowed to sell their nukes to anyone they want to?
First show that they have. Until then the rest is pointless speculation.

Also, why does Israel need to be allowed to do anything? They are a sovereign nation beholden only unto themselves and any treaties which they have signed.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2010, 08:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
First show that they have. Until then the rest is pointless speculation.
So, the US waits until a country proliferates their nuclear weapons before pressuring them to join the non-proliferation treaty?

Also, why does Israel need to be allowed to do anything? They are a sovereign nation beholden only unto themselves and any treaties which they have signed.
That's all fine and good, until you look at all the other sovereign nations beholden only unto themselves that are apparently not allowed to possess or proliferate nuclear weapons. If you want to go down the sovereign nation road, then *every* nation is sovereign, whether we like them or not. I believe Iran is a sovereign nation. Are you really saying that *all* sovereign nations don't need to be allowed to do anything?

As long as *some* sovereign nations aren't allowed to do something, then *any* sovereign nation that *is* able to do that same thing is being *allowed* to do so.
( Last edited by Wiskedjak; May 25, 2010 at 09:10 AM. )
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2010, 09:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was set up to limit the spread of nuclear weapons and the US has been pressuring every nuclear power on the planet to join that treaty. Everyone, except Israel that is.
You don't really believe that the U. S. is interested in disengaging itself from the possession of nuclear weapons, do you?
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2010, 09:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
You don't really believe that the U. S. is interested in disengaging itself from the possession of nuclear weapons, do you?
You do realize that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty isn't about disengaging from the possession of nuclear weapons? I don't think I said anything about the US disengaging itself from the possession of nuclear weapons.
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2010, 09:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
So, the US waits until a country proliferates their nuclear weapons before pressuring them to join the non-proliferation treaty?
No, wait until it's been confirmed that they proliferated their nuclear weapons before talking about how they've proliferated their nuclear weapons.

That's all fine and good, until you look at all the other sovereign nations beholden only unto themselves that are apparently not allowed to possess or proliferate nuclear weapons. If you want to go down the sovereign nation road, then *every* nation is sovereign, whether we like them or not. I believe Iran is a sovereign nation. Are you really saying that *all* sovereign nations don't need to be allowed to do anything?
Yes. That's what 'sovereign' means: you don't need anyone's permission.

As long as *some* sovereign nations aren't allowed to do something, then *any* sovereign nation that *is* able to do that same thing is being *allowed* to do so.
If a nation is being disallowed from doing something then they're not sovereign they're beholden to a higher authority.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2010, 10:22 AM
 
All treaties are just pieces of paper.
     
bstone
Baninated
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cambridge, Chicago, Jerusalem (school/home/heart)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2010, 12:48 PM
 
Does Israel have nukes? Almost certainly.

Will Israel be responsible with them? Absolutely.

Did Israel try to sell nukes to S Africa? Hiliarious, but no.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2010, 12:50 PM
 
^^^ I agree.

-t
     
finboy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2010, 12:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by bstone View Post
Does Israel have nukes? Almost certainly.

Will Israel be responsible with them? Absolutely.

Did Israel try to sell nukes to S Africa? Hiliarious, but no.
I always thought that Israel and SAfrica developed their nukes jointly through some amount of "lost" fissile material from the US. Not sure why I was under that impression.

And, yes, Israel has nukes. As someone else pointed out, they wouldn't still be around if they didn't.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2010, 01:21 PM
 
I don't get this argument that Israel wouldn't be around if they didn't have nukes. Please, someone explain the logic of that.

Israel is under a constant state of attack from its neighbors, including rocket barrages, suicide attacks, etc. It's suffered multiple assaults and invasion attempts by its neighbors and from within.

What exactly have nukes deterred from being thrown against Israel?

Are people of the belief that Israel's enemies hold something back in their attacks, that they're only half-hearted? "Hey, let's attack them... but not too bad, because they have nukes...!"

The threat in the region (that Israel deals with daily) simply doesn't have a nuclear deterrent. Even Israel's very strong conventional military isn't an effective deterrent from the types of attacks constantly hurled at them, despite the (oft enforced) threat of counterstrike.

Israel's enemies aren't dumb, in the sense that they clearly know how to exploit worldwide useful idiotness- they're never going to give Israel a clear "Hiroshima" style nuclear target. They're always going to attack in ways that make it extremely difficult for Israel to even mount a conventional defense in light of all the screaming ninnies around the world providing pressure- let alone a nuclear retaliation.

Not only is the nuclear option NEVER an option for Israel, it has the opposite effect, thanks to useful-idiotness- the radical Islamic side knows it can actually get a pass for developing nukes itself, as long as they can scream "Well Israel has them, so we should have them too!!" If Israel's nukes were ever made official, that'd actually be considered 'fairness' by boneheads worldwide (probably even according to our own clueless current admin) which is exactly why Israel will never admit openly to having them.

So I fail to see how having something you can't admit to- in light of how naive and willing to be dupes even your supposed 'allies' are, let alone your unstable enemies- is a deterrent to anything, let alone the reason for your existence. It just doesn't wash.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2010, 02:12 PM
 
Israel's nukes protect her from anything much greater than terrorism. While Israel has nukes she is safe from all-out war from her enemies, as well shielded from the potentially devastating consequences of her enemies acquiring nuclear weapons.
     
finboy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2010, 05:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
I don't get this argument that Israel wouldn't be around if they didn't have nukes. Please, someone explain the logic of that.
I can see your point, but the logic of it as I've always understood was that it would prevent massed attacks by every state around Israel, which is what they were really worried about. And they wouldn't have to bother nuking population centers or troop formations -- the threat was that they would, if attacked en masse, nuke Mecca. After all, if they're being overrun anyway, what difference does it make?

It's just another use of the MAD model, with Islam losing its holiest place.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2010, 05:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Israel's nukes protect her from anything much greater than terrorism.
I don't see how. Israel has been attacked numerous times by its surrounding enemies, and suffers rocket attacks and such all the time from enemies using the surrounding nations as cover. Nukes don't deter this, as no matter what, Israel could never respond to a conventional attack with a nuke. We've seen that they'll even get called out for responding conventionally to conventional attack.

While Israel has nukes she is safe from all-out war from her enemies, as well shielded from the potentially devastating consequences of her enemies acquiring nuclear weapons.
I don't see it- as her enemies haven't held back from attacking, and know full well that they'll never get a nuke strike in retaliation for anything they pull. None have changed their real policies of 'pushing Israel into the sea'. As for acquiring nuclear weapons- again, Israel having them is actually an argument for Israel's enemies to acquire their own as well as a balance. We see this same 'logic' used all the time from the U.I. crowd, that constantly whines about how 'unfair' it is for Israel to have a better conventional military than it's neighbors, so why too shouldn't they be allowed to amass larger more power armies. You even have nitwits arguing that the US should support Israel's enemies 'equally' also, just to make things 'fair'.

I've no doubt (and I doubt the fact that has been lost on Israel's enemies) that plenty of U.I.s around the world would look the other way and even encourage them to develop nukes simply because Israel has them too. After all, you simply can't have a M.A.D. scenario without both sides being armed. If this wasn't the case, I see no reason then why Israel wouldn't openly admit to and flaunt having nukes- they'd use the same reasoning you're using. But they know full well their useful idiot 'allies' among western nations would hold it against them, and hold it up as the reason to look the other way and even support their enemies arming themselves, which actually WOULD create a nuclear timebomb in the M.E.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2010, 05:26 PM
 
There haven't been any major attacks in quite a while. And while the nearly daily rocket attacks continue apace, they're generally more of an annoyance than anything else and rarely do any damage let alone kill anyone.

But when's the last time an actual military mobilized against Israel? When's the last time an attack was made that could be so credibly connected to a foreign government that retaliation against that government would be seen as justified? When's the last time any of the multiple countries that have made it their mission to not only expel Jews from within their borders but also from within Israel's have actually taken a major action to accomplish that?

Certainly this isn't all to do with Israel having nukes, but it can't hurt.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2010, 12:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
There haven't been any major attacks in quite a while. And while the nearly daily rocket attacks continue apace, they're generally more of an annoyance than anything else and rarely do any damage let alone kill anyone.
I'm sorry, but Israel has to be the ONLY nation on earth where suffering near-daily rocket attacks (litterally 2,000-3,000 a year) is considered "no big deal". They're a 'mere annoyance' that Israel has responded to (like any other nation would after a SINGLE incident, let alone thousands) with cross-border conventional military strikes and air strikes.

But when's the last time an actual military mobilized against Israel? When's the last time an attack was made that could be so credibly connected to a foreign government that retaliation against that government would be seen as justified? When's the last time any of the multiple countries that have made it their mission to not only expel Jews from within their borders but also from within Israel's have actually taken a major action to accomplish that?

Certainly this isn't all to do with Israel having nukes, but it can't hurt.
Looking into it, Israel seems to have first acquired nukes in the late 1960's. Since 1967 they've fought three wars where coalitions of Arab forces (mostly Egypt, Syria and Jordan) attacked them. Nukes didn't seem to be a deterrent.

We'll just have to disagree, because I just don't view nuclear weapons as a 'can't hurt to have it' type of thing. It CAN hurt to have them in an area as volatile as the M.E.

The cold war M.A.D. model between the US and Soviet Union was no picnic- we're still dealing with the huge mess it created today. Why people think creating mini-M.A.D. situations (or possibly worse, one-sided assured destruction, which will prompt the losing side to act even more irrationally with an ironclad excuse for it) is ever a great idea, is beyond me. And in the already unstable M.E.? That's the worst possible place of all for it.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2010, 12:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
There haven't been any major attacks in quite a while. And while the nearly daily rocket attacks continue apace, they're generally more of an annoyance than anything else and rarely do any damage let alone kill anyone.
Even if the physical damage from the rockets isn't often extensive, they do a lot of psychological damage to those under fire, especially to the children. That trauma should not be underestimated.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2010, 06:20 PM
 
It's been two days, why hasn't the OP been back to his own thread?
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2010, 09:08 PM
 
post & run, nothing new.

-t
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2010, 05:03 PM
 
Isn't that a bannable offense?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2010, 05:04 PM
 
Infraction worthy would be more accurate.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2010, 05:07 PM
 
He isn't really part of the forum anymore, just drops in to spread propaganda every once in a while.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Taliesin  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2010, 05:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
It's been two days, why hasn't the OP been back to his own thread?
Unfortunately I don't have nearly the time for posting and discussing I enjoyed in former times, but I'm reading here at least once in three days. As to the topic at hand: Since the nukes were not sold and delivered there is no clear case, the negotiations were about Jericho-missiles.

Jericho-missiles can be used conventionally but their usefulness are in carrying nuclear warheads.

Peres told the southafrican delegates that the Jericho-missiles in question would be delivered with the correct weapon-load, implying nuclear warheads. That's what the southafrican delegates understood and expected. The current defense by Israel against that interpretation is that a)the southafricans misunderstood things and/or b)that Peres acted without the approval of the israeli primeminister at the time.

Both defenses are pretty naive to say the least.

Back in the day, Israel viewed southafrica as a sister/brother-state caught in the same fight against a hostile indiginous population, the US supported both Israel and Southafrica, and Israel did not sign the non-proliferation act and was therefore free to deal as a sovereign nation even with its nukes if it saw it necessary.

Israel needed Uranium for its reactors but the west stopped its support for israel's reactors in the 70s, and Southafrica had lots of it..

The other benifit was to use Southafrica to conduct nuclear tests and to analyse them in cooperation. Building nukes and not being able to test them undetected was a major handicap for Israel...

That's the past, what about today? Should Israel sign the non-proliferation act too and let inspectors into the country to make sure the amount of nukes gets not increased? Should Iran as a sovereign nation simply quit the non-proliferation-act and build its own nukes?

I think when all have nukes it can stabilise the region and that's what will happen if Iran gets its nukes, as Saudi-Arabia and Egypt will likely follow suite in order not to fall back.

Taliesin
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2010, 05:11 AM
 
You think terrorist regimes that murder their own citizens on camera should have nukes? You think that would stabilize the region? How much hash have you been smoking, Taliesin?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2010, 08:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
You think terrorist regimes that murder their own citizens on camera should have nukes? You think that would stabilize the region? How much hash have you been smoking, Taliesin?
I think a sovereign state is a sovereign state. If we don't allow one sovereign to have nuke because we don't like them, then any state that *has* nukes is being allowed to do so.
     
Powerbook
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: M√ľnchen, Deutschland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2010, 07:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
You think terrorist regimes that murder their own citizens on camera should have nukes?
We are still talking about them damn ever-terrorizing A-rabs, wright?

PB.
Aut Caesar aut nihil.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2010, 08:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I think a sovereign state is a sovereign state. If we don't allow one sovereign to have nuke because we don't like them, then any state that *has* nukes is being allowed to do so.
I don't see how that makes any sense, Wiskedjak. Genocidal dictators and other mad men should have the same weapons of mass destruction that responsible states have? I think you need to reassess that outlook, seriously. We're on a roll here, Wiskedjak - I know you can do it.
Originally Posted by Powerbook View Post
We are still talking about them damn ever-terrorizing A-rabs, wright?
Ohhh, oh, I think you're talking about those supposed "peace activists" throwing Israeli soldiers overboard and beating them violently with clubs while shouting "Death to the Jews," right? Those so-called peace activists giving aid and comfort to international terrorists who seek to destroy a sovereign state that offers its Arab citizens a higher standard of living and more political rights than essentially every other country in the Middle East.

You loving, peaceful, Muslim terrorist apologists, white-washers, facilitators, appeasers etc. really crack me up. It's good we know where we all stand, though. As my people say, "Those who are merciful to the cruel will also be cruel to the merciful."
( Last edited by Big Mac; Jun 1, 2010 at 08:34 PM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2010, 09:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
I don't see how that makes any sense, Wiskedjak. Genocidal dictators and other mad men should have the same weapons of mass destruction that responsible states have? I think you need to reassess that outlook, seriously. We're on a roll here, Wiskedjak - I know you can do it.
Perfectly valid position. People/nations that are clearly dangerous should not be allowed to have such weapons. But, if they are *not allowing* to possess those weapons, then any nation that does possess those weapons is by default being allowed to do so.

nonhuman said:
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Also, why does Israel need to be allowed to do anything? They are a sovereign nation beholden only unto themselves and any treaties which they have signed.
If Israel, as a sovereign nation beholden only unto themselves, can do anything without needing to be allowed, then *any* sovereign holds that same right. If Israel doesn't need to be allowed to possess and proliferate nukes, then Iran can also possess nukes without permission.

I'm not trying to argue that Iran should be able to possess nuclear weapons. Clearly they shouldn't. I'm only trying to point out the flaw in nonhuman's position that Israel doesn't need permission to proliferate nuclear weapons simply because it's a sovereign nation.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2010, 01:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
If Israel, as a sovereign nation beholden only unto themselves, can do anything without needing to be allowed, then *any* sovereign holds that same right.
I never learned that doctrine in my international politics courses. I have a Political Science degree and must have been out the day that they taught that all sovereign nations must invariably be given equal rights. In fact, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that I assume you agree with explicitly violates the very rule you're trying to promulgate, by allowing some states to have nuclear weapons while denying them to other states.

Sovereign nations are constrained by various forms of international law (such as it is), treaties, and the reactions of other sovereign states. I never said that Israel as a sovereign nation can do anything that it wants. Clearly it cannot. Israel is held to a very different double standard by the world community and made to tolerate conditions that other sovereign states never would.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Jun 2, 2010 at 04:47 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Taliesin  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2010, 06:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Powerbook View Post
We are still talking about them damn ever-terrorizing A-rabs, wright?

PB.
If you want to talk about the aid-flottila-raid open a thread of its own, this one deals with a specific and different topic.

As to the topic: The idea of the non-proliferation-act was to prevent the spread of the knowledge to develop nukes. In order to do that the five nuclear powers signed the treaty so as to assure that the technology gets not transferred to non-nuke-states, and the non-nuke-states were supposed to sign the treaty in order to ensure that they don't accept such technology and don't pursue nukes.

To make it interesting for non-nuke-states to sign it, the nuke-states ensure therein that they would never use nukes on non-nuke-states, and that they would work towards disarming their own nukes.

So if one imagines that all states of the world signed and respected the non-proliferation-act, there would be only five nuke-states that have nukes they can only use against the other nuke-states but against none of the non-nuke-states. Given that France, US, Britain are allied in the Nato, only between Nato, Russia and China a nuclear attack were possible.

The idea of the non-proliferation act is actually great: Because nuke-states are not allowed to use nukes on non-nuke-states, non-nuke-states have no reason to develop or aquire nukes of their own (except of course for conventionally weak armies to have some other deterrance against conventionally way stronger armies).

That though makes only sense if the status-quo remains stable, but since the 70s India, Pakistan, North-Korea and Israel developed nukes and are not part of the non-proliferation-act. That means that there are four new nuke-states which could attack non-nuke-states with nukes.

That undermines the whole non-proliferation-act, as long as India, Pakistan, North-Korea and Israel don't sign and ratify the non-proliferation-act every non-nuclear-state regardless if it signed the act or not has every justification to develop or aquire nukes of their own in order to ensure their national security in face of the threat posed through the new nuke-states.

The other aspect is that the new nuke states hardly developed nukes all on their own, they must have had help from one or more of the five original nukestates, further undermining the non-proliferation-act.

Taliesin
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:06 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,