OK, serious answer - the real reason was the crippling inferiority complex of the Boer regime - there was always this idea that, being colonials, they were never quite as good as their European forbears (Australians may be familiar with this idea as “cultural cringe”) and so they overcompensated, emphasizing their ability to produce things even though a Pariah State (I don’t think the term “Rogue State” is quite accurate, it implies being a global threat, Pariah State is more on the money) - things like military tech (the Rooivalk helicopter, the now very influential Ratel IFV), open heart surgery, oil-from-coal tech, these were all seen as signs that they were as good as any modern state. Nuclear tech was just a natural fit for that mindset, because it does take quite a bit of tech know-how to get that up-and-running - Israeli involvement notwithstanding.
You know what else ran from the sixties to the eighties in South Africa? Apartheid.
It was clear from the start that no nation in sub-Saharan Africa was going to be much of an economic or military threat to South Africa for a half century or more in the sixties. By the end of that period it what had become apparent was that apartheid could not last and could not be reformed; and in 1990 F. W. de Klerk began negotiations to end apartheid and with it South Africa’s status as an international pariah and the subject of sanctions and embargos by the rest of the world. Apartheid officially ended in 1991, the same year that South Africa signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty having begun dismantling its nuclear arsenal in 1989.
Maybe I have an overly fanciful imagination, but I’m picturing a white supremacist lying in bed, sipping a cup of chamomile tea while reading Mein Kampf, before exhaling a contented sigh, turning off the lights, and then laying their head down to rest on a pillow embroidered, “Nuke the Darkies.” :eek:
Shouldn’t that be, adopts Lethal Weapon 2 bad guy voice, “The Blekh Reed Meness”.
Look, I’m not in any way defending apartheid, but your imagination isn’t just fanciful it’s ridiculously wrong. The blacks of South Africa had zero chance of overthrowing the white minority government without the international pressure that eventually caused it. And one does not build nuclear weapons to detonate on one’s own soil. There was no chance that they would have been used to suppress even the biggest of black revolutions. It just defies common sense.
The only thing that does make sense is the fact that the white-led govt made sure to destroy its small nuclear arsenal once it saw that the country was headed for anarchy (regardless of how politically correct this anarchy may have seemed)…
I was reluctant to bring that up. I very much admire them for doing that.
I was invited to a Seder at the Rabbi’s house with a guy from South Africa. He couldn’t immigrate because the government made it virtually impossible to leave with your money. I asked about shoving diamonds up your ass, and he said that the government controlled the price so that they were worth less outside of the country.
Diamonds weren’t priced any differently in South Africa than outside AFAIK. If anything, the international price of diamonds was kept artificially high. And the price in SA was effectively set by De Beers, same as outside.
I disagree. It would just have taken longer, been bloodier and … not ended as well as it did for South African whites.
Which raises an interesting question: would anyone intervene to save them?
Or blacks. Probably the usual African pattern of “one man one vote - one time”. Or like Zimbabwe, with its peaceful transition from a racist and functional British colony to the usual Third World recipe of repression, corruption, incompetence, and socialism. Add to that a near-suicidal policy of transitioning the country’s agriculture back to subsistence farming, pour in a huge dose of HIV, and mix well. Serve hot.
Regards,
Shodan
The war, like that of Rhodesia, would have been a war of attrition. It would cost more and more to keep the blacks in line. Guerilla activity would escalate. As the USSR saw opportunities for taking control of their resources by helping the eventual winners, the guerillas would get more and more sophisticated equipment. (Would America standby and let the USSR take the riches of South Africa by default, or would they then jump in and try to “save” it from the red menace?)
South Africa was headed for integration by default anyway. They needed more and more trained personnel, and some of the black population was becoming quite educated. Jobs as mundane as bus driver used to be reserved for whites, but demand had made them switch to mixed. As happened in the USA 50 years earlier, they would bump up against stupid barriers - if the blood donation works, does it matter it’s from a black person? Keep two separate blood banks? What if you’re dying? At what point will you select living over refusing to allow a black doctor to touch you? There are hundreds of technical occupations necessary for an advanced society. This sort of de facto desegregation creep was starting to happen. And… these sophisticated, educated blacks will of course eventually become vital and start agitating for real rights.
Plus, as society becomes more sophisticated, the infrastructure is vulnerable. How often would people put up with their power or water going out because of guerilla bombings? Can you afford a fully 24-7 guard contingent at every transformer station? Every broadcast tower? How do you watch power lines? Sewer pipes? How much of your country would you tolerate becoming a “no-go” zone because it’s too dangerous for the police to operate except in truckloads with automatic weapons?
De Klerk deserves major credit for seeing the writing on the wall and settling before things had gotten so bad that apocalypse was the only answer.
Remember MLK brought the Birmingham bus system to its knees by the simple expedient of denying them revenue. Mandela tried the same thing before he was arrested. It’s a double-edged sword - you use the oppressed minority/majority as part of the society, and they can then heavily disrupt society by non-violent, let alone violent means.
Probably, they were not without friends couchReagancough some of whom were still around and politically active when the end came down, like Cheney. Delay the end of apartheid by long enough, and the Republicans would have been back in power - and I’m sure they’d have just loved a chance to help out their buds.
Of which arrest, BTW, the CIA operative responsible is on record as calling “one of our greatest coups.”
Which happened during the Kennedy administration which also wiretapped Martin Luther King, Jr.
As for who would have helped an apartheid South Africa, never underestimate geopolitical realities, especially one with great resources. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
I remember speculation 50 years ago that as many as 35 countries might get atomic weapons. Didn’t happen but several did. Lots of countries want “respect” and feel a bomb will get them some.
Oh yes, I have no illusions about Democrats, if that’s what you’re saying.
To be fair, Mandela and his buddies in the ANC were at the point of sabotage, blowing up government buildings etc. They were going to be arrested sooner or later.
The lesson in SA is that you can win all the battles but still lose the war. The problem is, whether the place is South Africa, or Poland, or Egypt or Tunisia or Palestine or Romania or the southern USA - keeping a people “in their place” costs money and manpower and especially determination. If it gets to the point where you start to run out of any of those you lose. If you can no longer afford the police costs and disruption, or if too many people are against the actions taken to repress - then the war is lost.