POLITICS: Venezuela Pursuing Nuclear Capability!

It would seem that Venezuela are now making noises regarding their desire to establish a nuclear capabilty



This story may not be big news as such, however, the mention of Iran as a possible collaborator in such a scheme may raise some eyebrows.
The friction between the U.S. and Venezuela in the past has been well documented, and one wonders what sort of a response this news will elicit in Washington.

Invade invade invade...before they make nookular bombs and target innocent fluffy American kittens and kindergartens

Only good capitalist nations are allowed to have nuclear power. Anyone else is only interested in weaponisation of nuclear material...honest... our god-like leaders wouldn't lie to us about such things

Makes sense though. Venezuela has lots of oil but with nuclear power can export more of it's oil rather than relying on it solely for domestic power generation.

I was have been (anonymously) requested to edit this post, but you know what, I can't be bothered as I'm going home in 5 minutes.

Mods: Please delete this thread.

Shame. I was rather looking forwards to discussing this.

The fact that Venezuela is a major oil producing nation and is also now suspected of wanting nuclear weapons is stunningly obvious in its existance. These types of suspicions are the predicate for possible invasion by the United States. The fact that they are oil rich, military poor and not sympathetic to American foreign policy all play into the reasons we now see they are "wanting nuclear weapons".

Playing Devil's Advocate here for a moment, even if they wanted to pursue nuclear weapons they can. If they choose to leave the NPT they need only give 3 months notice before legally being able to proceed in pursuing nuclear weapons. Grounds for invasion over this is not automatic and would be solely the decision of the UN Security Council. Which we all know the United States and the "coalition of the willing" disregard any way. Remind me who the real international scoff laws are again?

Taking in consideration that Venezuela is causing the Bush administration some head aches I think this thread is very good.

Venezuela is not hiding the fact that is going after nuclear power, and doing this so openly and blatantly is a slap on the US.

Who really gives a flying piece of crap?! Just let everyone in the world have one and the problem will be solved. M.A.D. is what ended the Cuban Missle Crisis and it will end our nuclear problems now. Either you launch them and everyone dies, or you don't and you have no problem. It's just that simple.

.
Under the Bush Administration the US has lost all credibility as a sane, reasonable and even-handed broker of the world's peace.

If we are going to act as an unrestricted cowboy,
then everyone else is going to have no other choice but to get there own [nuclear - pronounced Nu Ka Ler ] gun.

When the cops go rogue, people get their own guns.
.

Who really gives a flying piece of crap?! Just let everyone in the world have one and the problem will be solved. M.A.D. is what ended the Cuban Missle Crisis and it will end our nuclear problems now. Either you launch them and everyone dies, or you don't and you have no problem. It's just that simple.

I just can't say 'no big deal' to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The more people who have them, the more likely someone will use them (including us). As a concerned citizen and someone living in the world, I would prefer that another nuclear weapon NOT be detonated.

We already glow in the dark from all the unknown stuff in our food, plus the past effects of above ground tests. Now we want more bombs to go off?

We glow in the dark enough now, thanks very much. If there's a way to discourage proliferation, I'm all for it.

Just as I don't turn my head when my government does something corrupt, I don't turn my head when another government does either.

Handing every country in the world a nuclear bomb won't stop wars or solve all our problems.

well what has nonproliferation done? It is a pandora's box and the only way to secure the situation is to make all parties feel as comfortable as possible and that means giving everyone one. Do you think airplanes would ever be hijacked if everyone carried a gun? no because there is a greater threat of dying for the hijacker. Therefore it deters any wrongdoing.

well what has nonproliferation done? It is a pandora's box and the only way to secure the situation is to make all parties feel as comfortable as possible and that means giving everyone one. Do you think airplanes would ever be hijacked if everyone carried a gun? no because there is a greater threat of dying for the hijacker. Therefore it deters any wrongdoing.

There are some countries in this world whose actions dictate they SHOULDN'T feel secure. And I'm not particularly fond of the idea of a stockpile of nukes in the hands of North Korea. Mugabe should NOT have nuclear weapons. Or Al Qaeda. Proliferation makes the nuclear terrorist scenario much more likely.

Proliferation of nuclear weapons will not stop war. It didn't stop India and Pakistan from almost going nuclear - I well remember WARNINGS on TV news here in the US about what to do if one of them sets off the bomb in the next few days - and it hasn't stopped the skirmishes between them since.

Even if it SLOWS the progress to war, the proliferation of nuclear weapons ensures that the next war WILL go nuclear and a lot more people will die. How does that help?

Proliferation will even encourage existing powers to expand their nuclear and WMD capacities because they have to be prepared for the strategic threat of rogue nations who might attack with nuclear weapons. We're already buried in nuclear waste, and you want nations all over the world to create more? Shall they bury it in YOUR community?

Terrorists would hijack a plane even if everyone carried guns. They'd just figure out how to incapacite everyone carrying them (like using gas).

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
There are some countries in this world whose actions dictate they SHOULDN'T feel secure. And I'm not particularly fond of the idea of a stockpile of nukes in the hands of North Korea. Mugabe should NOT have nuclear weapons. Or Al Qaeda. Proliferation makes the nuclear terrorist scenario much more likely.

I agree but who dictates who can and cannot have nuclear weapons? The United States? Cultural superiority is not an accepted methodology in dealing with other nation states.

The NPT was devised and ratified by all but 3 nations because it not only stopped the proliferation of nuclear weapons to "non-nuclear states" but obliged those with nuclear weapons to get rid of them. Do you think the "non-nuclear states" would of signed an NPT that only prevented them from obtaining nuclear weapns and let the "nuclear nations" continue designing and arming themselves with more nuclear weapons? Of course they wouldnt of.

But the situation we find ourselves in now is that "non-nuclear states" are being constantly reminded, and held accountable, of their obligations under the NPT while Britain and the United States mull the idea of expanding their nuclear arsenals. This aproach will not work - period.

If the United States goes ahead with its plans and develops new "suitcase" nuclear bombs and "tactical nuclear weapons" the NPT will die. Any country can withdraw from the NPT with the only stipulation being that they give 3 months notice. Why should other nations adhere to the NPT when we dont? Answer: they shouldnt have to, and they wont.

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
Proliferation of nuclear weapons will not stop war. It didn't stop India and Pakistan from almost going nuclear - I well remember WARNINGS on TV news here in the US about what to do if one of them sets off the bomb in the next few days - and it hasn't stopped the skirmishes between them since.

Well thats debatable. Do you think if the United States enjoyed a vast military superiority over the Soviet Union, and not nuclear parity, the Cold War would of remained "cold"?

Lets look at your example of India and Pakistan.

Kashmir no longer bone of contention between Indo-Pak: Sayeed
Asserting that peace between India and Pakistan was "visible" but at "some distance", Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mufti Mohammed Sayeed on Monday said Kashmir issue was emerging as a bridge of friendship between the two countries and not the "bone of contention".

Kashmir No Longer Bone Of Contention

Before achieveing nuclear parity the Indians and Pakistanis had experienced 3 separate wars. Since they both became nuclear states they both made strides to peace. With conventional weapons there is always a chance one side could prevail. When nuclear weapons come into the situation, no one will win and war is not an option.

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
Proliferation will even encourage existing powers to expand their nuclear and WMD capacities because they have to be prepared for the strategic threat of rogue nations who might attack with nuclear weapons. We're already buried in nuclear waste, and you want nations all over the world to create more? Shall they bury it in YOUR community?

Nuclear countries (Britain and the US) are already considering expanding their nuclear arsenals. Why should they be allowed to and clearly breach the NPT and non-nuclear countries cannot have them?

I would prefer that no country has nuclear weapons, which is the goal of the NPT. But I would also rather non-nuclear countries which are being bullied by nuclear countries have access to nuclear weapons to even the playing field. Making judgements as to whom may and may not have access to nuclear weapons is not the place of any nation.

If the United States goes ahead with its plans and develops new "suitcase" nuclear bombs and "tactical nuclear weapons" the NPT will die. Any country can withdraw from the NPT with the only stipulation being that they give 3 months notice. Why should other nations adhere to the NPT when we dont? Answer: they shouldnt have to, and they wont.

The decision by the United States was in response to nuclear threats, not arbitrary. And keep in mind that North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, and who knows how many other countries secretly pursued nuclear technology long before that decision was made by the United States. I would argue that had these countries held to the NPT, the US decision might have been different. It's BECAUSE the 'marginal' countries are attaining nuclear technology, and those same countries in most cases are anti-American, that the US feels it strategically necessary to resume nuclear development. Exactly the scenario I described.

I would also posit that these 'marginal' countries are not developing nuclear weapons for self defense, but for the potential use in offensive actions. I have no doubt that Kim would love to break out of the box he's in, and if nukes would give him that capability, he'd use them. He's being heavily pressured by the biggest muscle in the world, but it hasn't stopped them from threatening a nuclear test. Anyone who thinks Kim isn't eyeing the South for aquisition is a fool.

The whole point of the NPT was to keep countries who would OFFENSIVELY use nukes from getting them. Would you think it OK for Saddam to have nukes during the Iran-Iraq war, or when he was invading Quwait? That's the world you're proposing. Nuclear development is not evenly attained, nor is bomb production equal in each country - some whack job would get nukes before his neighbor and would drop the bomb in an invasion.

Please, please try to remember what happened in the Cold War. If you recall, we were head to head with Russia and about to pull the trigger when they deployed missiles in Cuba. Now expand that to encompass the WHOLE WORLD. Someone, somewhere will not back down in a crisis, but will pull the trigger. Is that a world you want to live in?

WRT deciding which nations should have them and which shouldn't - well, if someone doesn't decide, then everyone will have them. I don't think you appreciate how dangerous that world would be.

Unless you're just counting on surviving until the nuclear war is over.

WRT the efforts for peace in India and Pakistan, that might well be related to US involvement in both countries. We need Pakistan to help fight terrorism, not distracted by fighting wars with India. As I recall at the beginning of the WOT, the US pressured both India and Pakistan to resolve the issue. Considering how much cash the US forked over to the Paks, and the amount of economic pressure that can be brought to bear on India, I'd say that US pressure played an important role in calming things, IMO. They needed the Pak soldiers deployed on the border with Afganistan, not fighting India in Kashmir.

What you propose is nuclear anarchy. As is the case with anarchic government, I just don't see how it can work.

The world may be unfair (in that some get nukes and some don't), but we may survive in that unfair world. I'm not so sure about the alternative.

AWingAndASigh, your post is nothing more than your sense of cultural superiority. You provided nothing but speculation and as far as I am concerned, do not accept any of it.

I'm against any country seeking or developing nuclear weapons to level the playing field. It serve no purpose at all but putting far too many nations at great risks at the merest hint of trouble.

To date since the end of World War II, the United States have not used its nuclear weapons against any other country beside the Soviet Union to level the playing field, so to speak. The fact that Venezuela seeking nuclear technology and energy from Iran and not from any nuclear power such as Britain, France, even Russia or legitimate nuclear policy organizations approved by the IAEA, is a cause for great concerns.

I'm not against any country looking for nuclear energy to power its cities, hospitals, and industries but one should bear in mind there should be a global nuclear energy distribution policy for all countries that doesn't have significant political or economic clouts with the world. I believe nuclear energy should be on a shared distribution network throughout regional and metropolitan areas in one continent (for e.g.: like Brazil being the center of a South American nuclear energy distribution system to power all the major cities and industries in other South American countries and any spent fuel rods should be under a global nuclear control management for strict disposals).

Chavez is such a fool for turning to Iran instead of turning to a honest nuclear broker.

edit: doubled post.

[edit on 6/27/2005 by the_oleneo]

subz, you're nothing but a real disappointment. AWAaS is entitled to offer his (or her?) opinions and perspective on the dangers of marginal countries seeking nuclear weapons under the table.

Stop shooting down people that doesn't conform your skewed views!

AWingAndASigh, your post is nothing more than your sense of cultural superiority. You provided nothing but speculation and as far as I am concerned, do not accept any of it.

You can convince some of the people ... Now you know what the 'sigh' in my name is for.

What I was talking about had nothing to do with culture - merely an understanding of how power brokering works.

There are some people who should never have that kind of power. There are others who will never understand the dynamics of power.

Perhaps the destruction of humanity is inevitable.

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
The decision by the United States was in response to nuclear threats, not arbitrary.

So the United States is more capable of determining threats to its national security than North Korea? Why do you accept the United States reasoning that its under such threats that warrant its breaking of its obligations under the NPT? You are entitled to your opinion but you are passing it off as fact, not your opinion. As such I am within my rights to disabuse your post, I didnt intend to offend you and if I did I apologize.

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
I would also posit that these 'marginal' countries are not developing nuclear weapons for self defense, but for the potential use in offensive actions. I have no doubt that Kim would love to break out of the box he's in, and if nukes would give him that capability, he'd use them. He's being heavily pressured by the biggest muscle in the world, but it hasn't stopped them from threatening a nuclear test. Anyone who thinks Kim isn't eyeing the South for aquisition is a fool.

Based on what? Again your saying its fine for us white folk to have nuclear weapons but countries such as North Korea are not.

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
The whole point of the NPT was to keep countries who would OFFENSIVELY use nukes from getting them. Would you think it OK for Saddam to have nukes during the Iran-Iraq war, or when he was invading Quwait? That's the world you're proposing. Nuclear development is not evenly attained, nor is bomb production equal in each country - some whack job would get nukes before his neighbor and would drop the bomb in an invasion.

The whole point of the NPT was to completely rid the world of nuclear weapons. It was not for allowing "responsible" nuclear armed countries to keep their weapons and remain militarily superior.

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
Please, please try to remember what happened in the Cold War. If you recall, we were head to head with Russia and about to pull the trigger when they deployed missiles in Cuba. Now expand that to encompass the WHOLE WORLD. Someone, somewhere will not back down in a crisis, but will pull the trigger. Is that a world you want to live in?

My point was that it DIDNT come to actual War. That it came close on a couple of occasions is common knowledge. My point, however, was that if none of them had nuclear weapons it would of been more likley to have actually crossed the line into a "hot war".

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
WRT deciding which nations should have them and which shouldn't - well, if someone doesn't decide, then everyone will have them. I don't think you appreciate how dangerous that world would be.

Unless you're just counting on surviving until the nuclear war is over.

My point was that there is no need for nations to decide on who and who cannot have nuclear weapons. It has already been agreed that NO NATION shall have nuclear weapons. Countries agreed to not pursue nukes and those that had them agreed to get rid of THEM ALL. The fact that up until North Korea (2003) that non-nuclear countries had all adhered to the NPT and not one single nuclear-armed country had gotten rid of their arsenals squarely lays blame of this current nuclear problem at the original nuclear-armed countries (Britain, Russia, United States, France and China).

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
WRT the efforts for peace in India and Pakistan, that might well be related to US involvement in both countries. We need Pakistan to help fight terrorism, not distracted by fighting wars with India. As I recall at the beginning of the WOT, the US pressured both India and Pakistan to resolve the issue. Considering how much cash the US forked over to the Paks, and the amount of economic pressure that can be brought to bear on India, I'd say that US pressure played an important role in calming things, IMO. They needed the Pak soldiers deployed on the border with Afganistan, not fighting India in Kashmir.

Again thats speculation on your part which you are entitled to but please dont take offence if I dont believe it. The United States has brough considerable pressure on the Israelis and the Palestinians too but they havent agreed to peace have they? Its my opinion that because Israel does not acknowledge it has nuclear weapons and the Palestinians definately do not that they continue to wage war against each other. There is no chance of it going nuclear thus the delusional on each side actually think either side can win.

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
What you propose is nuclear anarchy. As is the case with anarchic government, I just don't see how it can work.

Not quite, what I propose is that we (Britain, USA, Russia, France and China) agree on a method of dismantling our nukes NOW. Failing that, when a nation is being bullied by a nuclear-armed country (America bullying Iran) that they should be allowed to withdraw from the stalled NPT and defend themselves. Thats not nuclear anarchy, that is preserving the status quo.

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
The world may be unfair (in that some get nukes and some don't), but we may survive in that unfair world. I'm not so sure about the alternative.

That is a fair point. But explain that to the Iranians who are sitting on the brink of military retaliation from the United States who are on their door step. We wouldnt stand for that, why should they?

I'm awaiting the reports that Osama is hiding in Venezuala somewhere...

I had a reply thread completely written, then my connection dropped and my computer ate it. (sigh) So, I will start over.

So the United States is more capable of determining threats to its national security than North Korea? Why do you accept the United States reasoning that its under such threats that warrant its breaking of its obligations under the NPT? You are entitled to your opinion but you are passing it off as fact, not your opinion. As such I am within my rights to disabuse your post, I didnt intend to offend you and if I did I apologize.

Apology accepted. I can take it.

Your argument assumes that all countries are equal - and crass though it may be, they simply aren't. In the same way that I would make a distinction between a law abiding person and a criminal in deciding who should get a gun, so must the same distinctions be made between countries. If Japan got a nuke it would be regrettable, but no big deal. If North Korea gets a nuke it's a very big deal. This is not because of race or prejudice. What's different between the two is that one is aggressive, does not value human rights, violates international agreements, etc. - in short, Japan can be trusted with a nuke, but North Korea can't. I think this is obvious to just about anyone.

Based on what? Again your saying its fine for us white folk to have nuclear weapons but countries such as North Korea are not.

You're making assumptions about my views based on facts not in evidence. This is a result of your own bias, not mine. Are you advocating that all criminals be given guns?

The whole point of the NPT was to completely rid the world of nuclear weapons. It was not for allowing "responsible" nuclear armed countries to keep their weapons and remain militarily superior.

Non-proliferation means to not spread them around.

Main Entry: pro·lif·er·ate
Pronunciation: pr&-'li-f&-"rAt
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -at·ed; -at·ing
Etymology: back-formation from proliferation, from French prolifération, from proliférer to proliferate, from prolifère reproducing freely, from Latin proles + -fer -ferous
intransitive senses
1 : to grow by rapid production of new parts, cells, buds, or offspring
2 : to increase in number as if by proliferating : MULTIPLY
transitive senses : to cause to grow by proliferating

www.un.org...

A key quote:

Since the fall of the Berlin wall, the United States and the former Soviet Union (now the Russian Federation) have taken many dramatic steps to reduce Cold War stockpiles of nuclear weapons. The U.S. alone has dismantled approximately 13,000 nuclear weapons over this period.

....

Dramatic reductions have also been made in stockpiles and deployments of shorter-range nuclear weapons. Over 85% of tactical nuclear weapons dedicated to the NATO alliance have been withdrawn over the past decade and the United States has removed nuclear weapons from all surface naval ships and naval aircraft. In effect, these actions have de-nuclearized the U.S. Army, the U.S. Marine Corps, and the surface and air components of the U.S. Navy.

The United States halted production of fissile material for nuclear weapons many years ago. More than 200 tons of fissile material have been removed from the U.S. military stockpile and will be placed under IAEA safeguards as soon as practical. The United States and Russia support bilateral and multilateral measures to establish a legally binding halt in the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. For example, both countries support in principle the negotiation of a multilateral Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. They also are obligated under a 1997 bilateral agreement not to restart any shutdown plutonium production reactors and not to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons in any such reactors still in operation. They are also working on ways to store safely and to dispose of stocks of fissile material no longer needed for defense purposes.

The United States has not conducted a nuclear test explosion since 1992, and senior U.S. officials have noted there is no foreseeable need to change that policy. The United States is not producing or developing any new nuclear weapons. Policies are in place designed to reduce U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons through enhancing the role of advanced conventional weapons and developing missile defenses.

Your assertion that the US has not significantly reduced it's nuclear arsenal (which DOES take time) is bogus.

My point was that it DIDNT come to actual War. That it came close on a couple of occasions is common knowledge. My point, however, was that if none of them had nuclear weapons it would of been more likley to have actually crossed the line into a "hot war".

Just because it hasn't led to a war YET doesn't mean it never will. I think the only reason why it hasn't is that the countries involved in past disputes have been responsible with their weapons. What happens when a country isn't?

My point was that there is no need for nations to decide on who and who cannot have nuclear weapons. It has already been agreed that NO NATION shall have nuclear weapons. Countries agreed to not pursue nukes and those that had them agreed to get rid of THEM ALL. The fact that up until North Korea (2003) that non-nuclear countries had all adhered to the NPT and not one single nuclear-armed country had gotten rid of their arsenals squarely lays blame of this current nuclear problem at the original nuclear-armed countries (Britain, Russia, United States, France and China).

As I've already pointed out, both the US and Russia massively reduced their nukes and that process is actually still ongoing (despite recent talk about developing new nukes).

What are you going to do about countries that sign the NPT but STILL develop nukes - as North Korea has already done? Many countries have continued to develop nuclear capabilities even after signing the NPT.

What you're suggesting is that we eliminate all OUR nukes but allow rogue nations to continue developing them. I see no result from that except a bloodier and more deadly world. And even perhaps a dictator like Hitler managing to wrest control of the world.

Again thats speculation on your part which you are entitled to but please dont take offence if I dont believe it. The United States has brough considerable pressure on the Israelis and the Palestinians too but they havent agreed to peace have they? Its my opinion that because Israel does not acknowledge it has nuclear weapons and the Palestinians definately do not that they continue to wage war against each other. There is no chance of it going nuclear thus the delusional on each side actually think either side can win.

You need to educate yourself on the issues.

www.rediff.com...
www.defenselink.mil...
www.csmonitor.com...
www.timesonline.co.uk...

www.mideastweb.org...

The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians goes deep - nukes wouldn't solve it. I don't think either side considers whether or not they will win when it's a tit for tat war. Very similar to Northern Ireland, which has been going on for a lot longer. The primary reason it hasn't been a lot bloodier is because of international pressure, not because of Israel's nukes or lack of them.

Not quite, what I propose is that we (Britain, USA, Russia, France and China) agree on a method of dismantling our nukes NOW. Failing that, when a nation is being bullied by a nuclear-armed country (America bullying Iran) that they should be allowed to withdraw from the stalled NPT and defend themselves. Thats not nuclear anarchy, that is preserving the status quo.

As I've already pointed out, we've made significant strides in eliminating our nukes - until current threats. What you propose is that we eliminate all of ours, but allow rogue nations to continue nuclear development. That will NEVER work.

That is a fair point. But explain that to the Iranians who are sitting on the brink of military retaliation from the United States who are on their door step. We wouldnt stand for that, why should they?

The Iranians have a simple solution to remove our 'attentions' - they can STOP attempting to develop nuclear weapons, which they've ALREADY promised to do!