Whereas it seems obvious to me why all the other nations developed nuclear weapons what was the rationale for South Africa’s nuclear weapons?
Other than the fact that many nations would like a nuke “just in case” was there something specific that made the SA authorities think they would a nuclear deterrant?
There’s a paper here about nuclear blackmail.
Personally, I think they were hoping to be the superpower of Africa and every power needs nuclear weapons as the ultimate deterrent.
Under apartheid, they had pretty much the entire world mad at them. Nukes are a great way to say “Don’t mess with us.” Even if the intended audience is domestic.
I’m pretty sure I remember asking about this before on the boards, with reference to the notion that the South Africans were developing a delivery mechanism to enable it to reach New York or Moscow with a device.
I think this bears repeating.
Africa is a mess, but it has a lot of resources. If your the biggest MoFo on the continent you might be able to control the trade for those resources. Having nukes makes a country damn near unconquerable, and if you can’t be conquered, you can easily project influence for national gain.
It’s not quite the same thing, but look at Iran’s current nuclear program. They want to extend their influence in their region, and if they get nukes, it’s going to be awful hard to tell them “no”.
Seconded. Just what I would’ve said. A Wiki article that may be of interest: South Africa and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia
A very interesting point. Imagine what would have happened if Saddam had had a dozen or so operational nukes in 1990-91? It is easy to visualize a negotiated peace with no Gulf War I at all.
Because we could? Plus, I think we co-developed with Israel.
Being a pariah state that nobody likes tends to cause you to become a bit obsessed with safety. Also the UN arms embargo meant that while the South African Defence Force could not get weapons, its enemies could, so nukes were seen as a final guarentee.
As it is, in response to the UN arms embargo, South Africa developed some of the coolest hard ware in the word, the Ratel IFV, Olifant Tank, the G-5 and G-6 arty piece. An arguement against arms embargos if you ask me.
Maybe because they learned something interesting from observation: if you have a large nuclear arsenal, people who SHOULD hate everything you stand for will start to make excuses for you, and will start insisting that their enemies clam up and stop agitating them.
Just ask the Russians and the Chinese.
SA made the decision to go nuclear, because it was threatened by the Russians (by their Cuban proxies, in Angola). The SA army had fought several engagements in Angola, and found (to its dismay) that the Cubans were capable of inflicting seere casualties on the SA forces. With nukes, the situation changes-now the SA leadership an tell the Cubans: “leave, or we vaporize you”. Not surprisingly, the Cubans stopped, soon after they learned of the SA nuclear capability.
Chester Crocker’s High Noon in Southern Africa (WW Norton, 1993) makes a quite different analysis. Crocker was the US Assistant Secretary State for Africa at the time, and negotiated the departure of Cuban military forces from Angola and the simultaneous end of South African rule in Namibia. South African nukes didn’t play a role in Cuba’s thinking, according to Crocker. Indeed if they did, South Africa wouldn’t have left Namibia.
The major precipitating event seems to have been the battle of Quito Cuanavale, in 1988. The basics from Wiki are here: Battle of Cuito Cuanavale - Wikipedia 1988 was years after the SA nuclear arsenal was commonly accepted.
My own take was that the Apartheid Regime was so paranoid about the upcoming “total onslaught” (a common SA propaganda term of the era) led by the “Communist terrorists” (ditto) that developing nukes made perfect sense to them.
Yeah, 'cos American behaviour as nuclear power has been a stirling example of temperance, tolerance and love of mankind. :rolleyes:
I think you could draw a lot of parallels between the motivations behind South Africa’s nuclear weapons program development and that of North Korea and Iran, and wanna-bes such as Libya. Just like Iran and North Korea today, white South Africa was considered by many countries of the world as a “rogue state” with an unlawful regime.
I think there is a lot to be said for President Obama’s doctrine of “talking to those that don’t like us”. Ronald Reagan engaged South Africa in a somewhat politically- incorrect-at-the-time policy of “constructive engagement” that not only helped the apartheid regime slowly work towards ending apartheid, but once the dialogue began, South Africa saw the futility and tactical uselessness of having nuclear weapons, and become the first country to voluntarily disarm.
I would suspect that if we have a similar foreign policy with countries such as North Korea and Iran, we would hopefully see their leaders eventually come to the same conclusion.
Whether we like their regimes or not, isolating them and showing hostility towards their governments only creates a paranoia and a “us against them” mentality that makes these officials think they need to pursue nukes.
By holding our noses and engaging them, and letting them know we don’t want to invade their countries and hang their leaders by the lamp posts, we can sow the seeds for peaceful regime change and uni-lateral nuclear disarmament.
That’s not appeasement—it’s called diplomacy, statesmanship and patience.
I believe the White guys figured the Black guys might fire off the nukes and got rid of them.
IANAHistorian, but it seems to me that the answer is simple logic. Unless there is an extremely prohibitive cost to obtaining them, why wouldn’t any country want nuclear weapons?
This was my understanding, although most of my knowledge of the latter years of Apartheid South Africa tends to come from White South African émigrés who had their own reasons for leaving and can hardly be called “unbiased”.
You have to remember South African whites had a democracy where people could be voted in and out. Oh true it didn’t include the Africans, but white South Africans had to answer to the ballot box
In Iran and North Korea this is not true. In North Korea they answer to one man, and in Iran to religious leaders. So you can’t directly compare those two to South Africa
But as far as I know there are several countries that have the scientific wherewithal and the money to build nuclear weapons that don’t.
A clear-eyed, wise national leader considering acquiring nukes might decide it just wouldn’t be worth it due to the great expense, the lack of any external threat commensurate with a nuclear capability, the difficulty of keeping the weapons secure, domestic political opposition to acquiring them, opposition from a major ally, the destablization of his region that might result from acquisition, and the possibility of international sanctions or, even worse, military strikes by foreign powers that really, really don’t want his country to acquire them. Most countries which have not acquired nuclear weapons (which are, after all, a majority of the world’s nations) have not done so for some or all of these reasons.