Would not totally surprise me if the Japanese had a secret nuclear weapons program.
If the US Government was aware of it while the rest of the world was not, I do not expect that we would say a word at this point.
Especially after last week’s (or was it the week before) ‘protester’ quoted in the Chinese state media as saying “If Mao were alive, we would have already attacked them!” (Japan) Shit like that doesn’t get printed unless there is at least some level of official agreement.
If they had nukes, there’s no way we’d attack them directly any more than we attacked the USSR. As for becoming a pariah state, I wouldn’t count on it; India didn’t become a pariah state for developing nukes after all. NK was a pariah state long before it produced nukes.
Gray Ghost, or others, am I wrong in thinking that a country couldn’t test a nuclear weapon without the US and several other countries being aware of it? So if say Taiwan has nuclear weapons has it never tested them or are there ways for them to test what they have in a manner that the US, China etc. couldn’t detect?
In theory, you could simulate. That’s one of the reasons (designing and maintaining the nuclear stockpile) places like Los Alamos and Sandia have so much supercomputing power. But you’d really have to do a test to be sure. And we’d be able to detect just about any test, even if you did it underground.
My question would be that it’s not so much building the bomb but getting a useful one that can actually fit on a delivery platform. Would any of these programs get you something that could be put on a missile or in a bomber?
Well, the basic physics and designs are all so well known now, testing with live material is unnecessary. Even the US designers in 1945 thought it was unnecessary to test Little Boy, the physics and design were already so well understood. Today no one would feel it necessary to test a basic implosion type bomb either.
For the simple designs, like the kinds of weapons the US had in the early '50s, all you need is a decent physicist, a good engineer, and a good machinist (and of course a supply of uranium or plutonium). That’ll get you a weapon in the 100kt range for about 8000 lbs. That is heavy for all but a very large missile. No mistaking what it would be intended for. But it could be carried on a 3rd generation fighter like the F-4 Phantom, or anything newer. So anyone with any air force to speak of should be able to adapt something to carry it. Of course that means the effective range is pretty darn short.
It’s not a matter of US approval, there is a nuclear test ban treaty which, iirc, all nuclear armed countries are on board with. The US itself can’t test the things, even if we give ourselves approval. :p. Part of the problem with our current nuclear weapons, in fact, is no one really knows for sure what percentage of the nasty things would actually work if they were ever used. The Russians stock pile is even more iffy, and it goes down hill from there. The places that secretly developed the things but never tested…well, it’s all thoretical, so who knows? Maybe they will work, maybe not…maybe the yield will be as projected, or maybe it will be a fizzle, or maybe something in-between. Let’s hope we never find out.
The same could be said of Australia, Canada, South Africa, which actually did have them, or Japan. Or for that matter Italy or Spain or any number of places; the ability to make a nuclear weapon is not that uncommon.
Nope it isn’t uncommon. Like I said earlier, about 30 countries either have the bomb, or could produce one in very little time. And a majority of the countries in the world could produce one in a decade or so if they really wanted to. Unfortunately it really isn’t rare at all anymore.
Have them: China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, UK, US
Hosts/shares with the US: Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey
Had them, currently don’t: Belarus, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Ukraine (plus Canada and Greece used to host US weapons)
Could have them in short order*: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Egypt, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Iran, Italy, Mexico, Romania, Serbia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Ukraine
*These are the countries that are capable of enriching to weapon grade material. Apparently Mexico might need to be removed from the list.
nm
I wasn’t talking about approval more that in order to get a guaranteed working bomb foreign governments would almost inevitably catch on to the fact you had it.
“Aware of it” and saying so publicly or doing anything about it are completely different things. There is persistent speculation that there was at least one nuclear test carred out by Israel or South Africa, or perhaps both working together (Israel assisted SA’s nuclear program), but it’s never been officially acknowledged.
[QUOTE=Bartman]
Have them: China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, UK, US
[/QUOTE]
Again, Israel is on the list, as if it’s more than speculation that they have them. This is one of those things ‘everybody knows’…sort of like the ‘fact’ that Saddam Hussein an the Iraqis had vast stocks of WMD just prior to the US invasion…
One is a unversally well accepted fact (except perhaps by you, and the office that issues official Israeli press releases) and the other is a load of bullshit that many, even those putting out the story, knew at the time was a load of bullshit. To equate the two is absurd.
And your proof would be…well, that everyone just knows, right? 
Putting them on a list of countries we know, for a fact, have nuclear weapons is, how did you put it? Oh yeah…a load of bullshit.
ETA: And you are right, equating the two IS absurd. I mean, we know, for a fact that Iraq DID have WMD prior to the first gulf war (and even after it, since they used them openly on Iran and on their own population), whereas there has never been any solid proof that Israel has nukes. I free acknowledge that they MIGHT have them, but what’s absurd is the automatic assumption (on this board and elsewhere, but especially in this thread) that it’s a FACT that they do.
I dunno… have you ever seen a Russian nuclear weapon, or a Russian nuclear explosion with your own eyes, in person? Or even an American one? Or how about a French nuke?
And then there’s Mordechai Vanunu, an Israeli nuclear techician who leaked details of the Israeli nuclear program, was kidnapped by the Mossad abroad and returned home to face (and be convicted of treason and espionage).
And then there’s documents from the South African government, about a discussion between the two governments about Israel providing some nukes to SA. There never actually was a transfer, but it was discussed as a possibility between Ministers of Defence. The documents are from the apartheid-era government and recently declessified.
[QUOTE=Boyo Jim]
I dunno… have you ever seen a Russian nuclear weapon, or a Russian nuclear explosion with your own eyes, in person? Or even an American one? Or how about a French nuke?
[/QUOTE]
You are kidding, right?
Sort of like those Iraqis who leaked details about mobile WMD trailers and the like, right? Yeah, this is evidence that Israel MIGHT have the things…it’s not proof that they DO, however. Do you see the distinction?
Evidence of…well, something. Proof of, well, nuffing.
No, I’m not kidding. Unless you are personally involved in building or testing of nuclear weapons, or some related field like nuclear physics, you know nothing more about nuclear weapons than “everyone else knows” – more or less. What the rest of us know is that the governments of the world accept that Israel has nuclear weapons, there have been leaks from people inside the Israeli nuclear program and from others in a position to know, and thousands of news stories from reputable news sources that Israel does in fact have nuclear weapons. Israel doesn’t deny it, nor does it confirm it.
If you have not personally seen an Indian nuclear weapon, why do you not object to India being on the list?
Are you saying the only acceptable criteria for deciding this is whether the country involved admits it is true, or claims that it’s true? There is much more doubt whether North Korea has a functional nuclear weapon than there is about Israel, and IIRC North Korea claimed it had nukes long before any other government believed it.
So, really, what is your criteria for deciding whether any given country has nuclear weapons?
Look, what constitutes proof for you? Until Israel not only admits to it, but allows say UN inspectors to verify their existence, or just does an open test of one, you won’t have absolute proof. And Israel will never, ever do those things. But their reasons for not doing them aren’t technical, or an elaborate bluff. Their reasons are purely political.
These are absolute facts: Israel had:
[ul]
[li]Access to fissionable materials (South Africa & the US)[/li][li]The technical expertise & personnel to refine nuclear material and build nuclear warheads.[/li][li]A very strong motivation to do so.[/li][li]No outside forces willing/able to stop them.[/li][/ul]
All circumstantial evidence sure, but pretty damn convincing none the less. The best estimates I’ve read is that Israel has a stockpile of probably about 300 warheads, mostly small to medium tactical yield, but also at least a dozen +1MT thermo city busters. And they certainly have the attack aircraft & IRBMs to arm them on.
[QUOTE=Boyo Jim]
No, I’m not kidding. Unless you are personally involved in building or testing of nuclear weapons, or some related field like nuclear physics, you know nothing more about nuclear weapons than “everyone else knows” – more or less. What the rest of us know is that the governments of the world accept that Israel has nuclear weapons, there have been leaks from people inside the Israeli nuclear program and from others in a position to know, and thousands of news stories from reputable news sources that Israel does in fact have nuclear weapons. Israel doesn’t deny it, nor does it confirm it.
[/QUOTE]
Um, aside from all of the video evidence of testing, the fact that my dad (and many others) used to work at the freaking Nevada Test site, and the fact that you can BUY an old missile silo (plus you can tour old missile sites in the US, Russian and, afaik, France as well), no…I guess there is no hard evidence that the US, Russia and France has nuclear weapons. 
I’ve seen no similar evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons. Granted, I’m not privy to sooper sekrit files on it, that, perhaps, ‘governments of the world’ are privy to in their acceptance of such weapons as fact. As you say, however, Israel neither denies nor confirms such weapons, which is pretty telling (to me) that we aren’t dealing with fact but with speculation, since, afaik, every other confirmed nuclear power doesn’t bother with such waffling.
Considering that India openly admits to having the things, has been seen testing them, and that there are mountains of evidence that they, in fact, do have the things, then yeah…I accept that India has them. Same with Pakistan. And North Korea. Interestingly, such hard evidence is lacking about Israel. Which is why I concede that they MIGHT have the things, but that there is no hard evidence to treat it as a given fact.
Since North Korea has actually tested a weapon AND there are mountains of evidence about their program I’d say that it’s going to be hard to say that they don’t. Now, whether they work or not (i.e. have been maintained properly and, despite the lack of recent testing still operate as planned…something that can be said for everyone’s nuclear arsenal, including our own) is another matter.
Actual solid evidence, perhaps including a test of such a weapons, evidence of a weapons program, and perhaps the country in question openly admitting they have such a weapon and program? Or is that too much to ask if we are going to state that it’s a given fact?
[QUOTE=Hail Ants]
All circumstantial evidence sure, but pretty damn convincing none the less. The best estimates I’ve read is that Israel has a stockpile of probably about 300 warheads, mostly small to medium tactical yield, but also at least a dozen +1MT thermo city busters. And they certainly have the attack aircraft & IRBMs to arm them on.
[/QUOTE]
My emphasis, as this is the key. It’s all circumstantial. It’s not a fact. Personally, I’m perfectly willing to concede that Israel might and probably does have at least some nuclear weapons (at a minimum I’m pretty sure they have looked into it, developed a program to explore the options and maybe even done some experimentation)…but it’s speculation, not fact. In this and other threads it’s given as an accepted fact, instead of uncertainty and speculation.