This question has been asked before, and I posted some cites that seemed to indicate the nukes were an implicit threat to internal insurrection as well, sort of don’t try anything or we will all burn. I think it is hard to understand how under siege the leaders felt(for good reason).
I think so. I’m just joking about the pillow.
I have a list of folks I’d like to plant it on in a Mississippi bar.
My apologies. Carry on.
Being a direct competitor did not stop the USSR involving itself in numerous countries around the world. As someone else has said; SA was rife for Soviet backed infiltration. Infiltration that the USSR probably did deliver. Nuclear weapons simply gave SA a bargaining chip of sorts.
I’m not sure that South Africa nuking Harare or Luanda in 1988 say would necessarily have led to a global nuclear war. I’m not even sure that such a strike would automatically result in a punitive strike from the USA or the USSR. And I suspect the South African government of the time thought the same.
What “bargaining chip” would this offer South Africa? Even if South Africa had the capability to deliver nuclear weapons to Soviet territory, it wouldn’t realistically be able to built a large enough arsenal to significantly destroy Soviet response capability, while the Soviet Union had both numerical and range capability to turn urban South Africa into piles of rubble.
The Soviet Union backed regimes in Africa for two reasons; to trade cheaply manufacured weapons for raw materials and foodstuffs, and to fuck with the US State Department and intelligence services. Nobody was going to fight a nuclear war over Africa.
Stranger
That really makes no sense at all, as evidenced by the fact South Africa presently has no nuclear weapons and no African nation seeks to have any.
Indeed, South Africa faced no significant military threat from any neighbour. South Africa’s neighbours all have small militaries that could not possibly have threatened it.
South Africa was a rogue stage. Rogue states want nukes because it’s the only chance they have of being taken seriously. Just ask North Korea.
But very, very few countries on the planet actually want nukes, so your response is nonsense.
I have not mentioned a nuclear war.
When I said bargaining chip I meant SA’s relationship with the US as much as the USSR. When both superpowers are looking for allies the USSR might decide to tread carefully before interfering in SA and edging it towards the US sphere of influence. The US may decide not to pressurise SA too much in case it edges SA towards nuetrality or a soft Soviet ally(admittedly an unlikely scenario).
Nuclear weapons are as much about power politics as they are about fighting a nuclear war.
I attended Passover with a guy from South Africa several years ago.
He couldn’t leave because the new government wouldn’t let him take any money with him. Buying diamonds and sticking them up his ass wouldn’t work, because the government legislated an over price of diamonds. A friend of his had some deal with an overseas racehorse that I didn’t understand, but let the guy get some money out.
I was speaking in the present tense while thinking in the past tense of the OP. At the time, and to this day, many African countries are rife with rebels, guerrilla warriors, political unrest, and civil wars. To say that no African nation seeks to have nuclear power, is a bit naive. I can’t think of any dictatorship that wouldn’t chomp at the bit to have a nuclear arsenal. Especially, in the particular era of discussion. South Africa was just cutting them off at the pass, so to speak.
Also, it is true that South Africa has one of the most powerful militaries in Africa and no single country in the immediate area could challenge them, in a straight fight. Let’s throw some variables into the equation. South Africa was in the midst of a civil rights movement. So they were already preoccupied internally. Let’s say that some rebels decided to stop by from Congo, Uganda, or Zimbabwe. Well, now they’re fighting on two fronts. Add in another rebel element or guerilla fighters and they are stretched thin. Not only that, where is South Africa? At the very tip of Africa; if they get attacked and overwhelmed, they’ve got no where to fall back to and regroup.
All I’m saying is, if I’m in a bar with a bunch of drunk, belligerent people, I should be on my guard and prepared to fight if I have to.
The chances of Ugandan rebels “stopping by” South Africa are pretty low, given that they are about 2,500 miles apart from each other.
We shouldn’t let minor details like geography, apartheid-driven hyperconsevative feelings of inadequacy, or the insignificant influence of South Africa on Cold War politics to pollute this discussion on why South Africa needed a nuclear arsenal to defend against nations where the yearly per capita income is less than thr average American spends on tickets to a U2 concert.
Stranger
No, not Ugandans, but plenty of others hypothetically could have. The South Africans started losing their friends in the neighborhood, and remember that lots of them were very hardcore, extreme Calvinists or otherwise devoted to their ideology. They wanted to show their opponents that if they went down, said opponents would be going with them. It’s a lot like Israel’s “Samson Option/Doctrine/whatever.”
That’s a valid point today, but the program ran from the sixties to the eighties. At the beginning of that period it wasn’t completely outlandish to think that the various freshly-independent nations might develop, grow their economies and technology base, and become modern. In which scenario South Africa could potentially have been threatened in a conventional war by a coaltion of black states, especially if they received a bit of soviet backing.
By the end of that period I think it would have been apparent to everyone that no nation in sub-saharan africa was going to be much of a military (or economic) threat in the next half-century or more, and it may not have been a coincidence that SA scrapped the program at that point.
Nuclear weapons are not something one would use to fight or even threaten half-trained guerrillas from Zimbabwe. (Uganda? Why not New Zealand, too, while you’re at it?) That would be like buying grenades to deal with a mouse problem.
South Africa’s nukes were meant to protect it from REAL military powers, like the USSR. They were that paranoid.
The Black Red Menace.
South Africa was fighting guerilla infiltration on most borders, and guerilla movements in several neighboring countries. Something like a nuclear weapon would be a good threat to hold over neighbor regimes to persuade them that hosting guerilla groups was a bad idea.
As I said, the threat that they could nuke the top leadership of a country was a more interesting threat, since with conventional weapons, good bunkers or a miss of a hundred yards would ensure survival, with nukes, like with horseshoes, close is good enough.
There was always the risk that the Soviets would come to the aid of a client; presumably, though, it wasn’t worth the USSR’s time and bad publicity to launch a retaliatory nuke… Or maybe it was felt in Pretoria that the risk was unacceptable.