The Treaty of Tlateloco prohibits the “testing, use, manufacture, production or acquisition” of nuclear weapons in South America and the Caribbean. The last South American country to ratify the treaty was France, in 1992. (French Guiana, on the northern Atlantic coast, is considered an integral part of France.) So according to the law, there should be no nuclear weapons in South America since 1992.
What about before 1992? Is France known to have installed any nuclear weapons in South America at any time before its ratification of the treaty? Or did any other nuclear power make a deal with a South American country to host its warheads and deployment facilities?
Argentina and Brazil were the only ones to have Nuclear programs. Both ended their programs on their own.
France never had reason to put Nukes in South America.
If there ever were any, I don’t believe it has been officially reported. There are very few Nuclear Power Plants in South America also. They have shied away from them. I see only 5 listed, all in Brazil and Argentina.
Those programs never ended up producing any usable weapons, though, did they?
Why not? They’ve got territory there and in the Caribbean, and the fact that the Soviet Union tried to put missiles within striking range seems like reason enough to defend it.
Who were they likely to be shooting at? Mainland France is already close enough to what was the USSR at the time, which was the most likely target. Why station missiles farther away? I don’t think anyone ever really thought about nuking anything in South America*.
And the Cuban missiles were more about the US than a few holdings France might have had in the area. Plus, a threat to nuke Cuba would have had little effect on the USSR at the time, they would have considered that acceptable losses.
*There was at least one “Future History” series that had South America becoming dominant post-WWIII, specifically because of this - they were the biggest landmass that didn’t get nuked.
Not that I’ve ever read about. French Guyana would only be good for nuking the US, Caribbean or the rest of South America, and the French never had any real interest in doing that. Plus, they have ballistic missile submarines; there’s no real reason to base nukes on land in that event; the Force de Dissuasion is a strategic nuclear triad with ISLBMs on submarines, and air launched nukes on Mirage 2000 fighters, which can barely reach Ukraine and Belarus, much less Russia. There used to be ICBMs in southern France, but those have been decommissioned since 1996.
During the nuclear weapon era, there have only been seven avowed nuclear powers - the US, Soviet Union/Russia, UK, France, China, Pakistan, and India. There are two more states (Israel and South Africa) who are suspected strongly of possessing nuclear weapons now or at one time (South Africa fessed up to possessing them when they dismantled them in 1989).
None of them, save the US have had any real designs on South America as far as I can tell, and the US has never had bases in mainland South America that I’m aware of.
Brazil and Argentina considered one another to be nuclear rivals, and had their own respective secret nuclear programs. They were outlawed by treaty in 1992, but were effectively abandoned years before that, never producing any weapons.
France would never have put any nukes in South America. It’s inconveniently located for retaliating against Russia, and French holdings in the Western Hemisphere are trivial compared to the rest of its global interests. France did test nukes in Africa and French Polynesia though.
Technically Ukraine was an open nuclear power after the fall of the USSR, as it inherited hundreds of nuclear warheads from the USSR. It recognized that it did not have the resources to properly maintain or store them, and entered into an agreement to have its nuclear stockpile dismantled.
Ukraine gave up its nuclear stockpile in return for a promise by other powers to guarantee the security of Ukraine and its borders, a promise that has been badly reneged on.
As this thread is about South America, please do not go any further about the Ukraine. You can always start a new thread on this subject if you wish to discuss.
Think of Brazil and Argentina (and perhaps, Chile) as being like the powers in the Arabian Gulf. Chile and Argentina or Brazil and Argentina were wary enough of each other that they considered “if they get the bomb, we need to also” so started programs; much like the rivalry and distrust between Iran and the Saudis. Except the Saudis - for now - rely on US protection. None of those South American countries can count on the USA as a dependable ally against the others.
So a treaty that says “we won’t make nuclear weapons”, as long as it is verifiable, is a plus for all South America. Especially, consider what a nuclear program costs. Those countries have enough problems without adding an expensive weapons program, but to avoid this, they need assurances their neighbours are not going to have these weapons. .
Added to that is delivery. Weapons are useless unless you also develop delivery methods that are difficult to counter - meaning aircraft and missile programs, stealth submarines, mobile launchers, etc. Whether they design and build or buy these, it just multiplies the amount to be spent on weapons for countries that have far more urgent needs.
And when nuclear power - peaceful or weaponized - was demonstrated to be a cutting edge technology in the late 40’s, it was only natural that countries devoted some resources to developing the expertise in that technology, which probably exacerbated suspicions.
I assume France signing this treaty means that they wouldn’t use South American ports for planned refueling, rearming, and refitting their nuclear armed ships. But did France ever base large chunks of their fleet away from France and the North Atlantic? I don’t know, but somewhat suspect not.
Also some US Navy ships have stopped in South American ports, and navy ships can carry nuclear weapons. So technically, the answer to the OP question " Were there ever nuclear weapons in South America?" is Yes.
In fact, there may be some there right now. The US Navy 4th fleet used to operate 6-9 ships there, but President Biden increased that in March, 2020 – supposedly, nearly doubled that fleet. (The Navy doesn’t release such details on current assignments.) I believe those ships are used a lot in anti-drug smuggling operations.
The Navy never admits or confirms if any particular ship has nuclear weapons on board, so the answer is “Maybe”. And if we ever get to the point where we need nukes to fight drug smuggling, we’re in a whole lot of trouble…
It’s a bit late tonight (my memory is fuzzy), and keeping in mind @What_Exit 's note, didn’t the Soviets posture nuclear weapons in Cuba which precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis?
It kinda begs the question on whether Cuba is considered Southern America.
Nuclear weapons and their delivery systems are very tightly controlled. They tend to require specialized storage facilities and specially trained & vetted personnel. It is easier to store them in just a few places and never move them unless needed.
The US may (or may not) have placed a nuke in South or Central America at one time or the other. I have no direct knowledge. But in an emergency such a device would probably be delivered from some US airbase for use.
I’m trying to think of a country in South America where we would have felt both secure enough and the need for storing nuclear weapons.
We have some small bases in Columbia, nothing secure enough I would think for storing nuclear weapons. We have no major Navy Bases in South America. Also why would we need to store Nukes in South America.
Now Central America we’ve have some major bases, especially in Panama, but that is not South America for purposes of this OP I believe.