Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
If non-nuclear nations gain neither of the benefits (nuke nations help with non-military technology and nuke nations stoping or slowing down the arms race), they should withdraw.
Josh, compare S. Africa to Isreal and India. S. Africa was the first small nation to publicly claim to have nuclear weapons. If I remember rightly (and I'm fuzzy on this), S. Africa's nuclear capabilities is why they started up the NPT agreements.
|
Well not just S. Africa at that time but also places like Brazil and Argentina had significant research efforts underway, while a large number of nations were 'considering' making the effort. There was a real potential for there to be more than twenty nuclear states by the end of the century if something was not done.
Quote:
Possibly South Africa managed a good deal by getting rid of his nukes. But India and Pakistan, both of which built nukes well into the non-proliveration era, are getting even sweeter deals than South Africa did, and get to keep their weapons for future bargaining chips.
So, I'm asking you, why stay in the NPT? You get a much better deal outside of it.
|
What is the deal that India is getting? I guess I'm not sure that I know of them getting anything necessarily. Paki's situation I would think has a lot more to do with the Afghanistan operations than with their nukes, although undoubtedly the nukes helped assure them more control over how they participated.
I can't really see how a nation like Brazil or Argentina would stand to benefit from maintaining a nuclear program costing billions of $.
The primary reward of nuclear possession is security for your nation and interests against other nuclear states. But I disagree that it is the only way to acheive that security.
Josh