Why did he choose to destroy South Africa's nuclear weapons program and make his nation significantly weaker at the military level?

A lot of people thought that the end of Cold War also ended history, and it would be nothing but gradual global liberalization and democratization from then onward.

outside military threats are the least of south africa's problems.

>>17770691 (OP)
>Why did he choose to destroy South Africa's nuclear weapons program
No threats in the region and carrying a nuke would be costly and pointless.

>make his nation significantly weaker at the military level?
South Africa stopped invading other states. Even prior to Apartheid ending many in SA knew that its adventures in other parts of Southern Africa were wasteful and led to many deaths of it own soldiers.

>>17770691 (OP)
>and make his nation significantly weaker at the military level?
Not wholly true. The maintenance of nuclear weapons and delivery systems take up an enormous amount of budget which could go to better conventional weapons. Given South Africa is never likely to have a geopolitical standoff with another nuclear armed nation, choosing more conventional power is easily the better choice.

>>17770691 (OP)
The only reason SA developed nukes in the first place was because of the USSR and it's allies in the regions. With communism dead it'd just be a waste of money for them. Plus the whole nonproliferation thing.

I thought his predecessor de Klerk made that choice

>>17770691 (OP)
South Africa doesn't have any disputes with their neighbours.

>>17770973
What about south africas beef with white people

>>17770691 (OP)
Because South Africa only had nuclear weapons because of Cold War politics

>>17770987
That was my understanding as well

>>17770691 (OP)

It was de Klerk who did that.

>>17771178
Yeah because
>we cant let le niggers have nukes
South Africa could build nukes in a few years if they wanted, but they don't

>>17770691 (OP)
Retarded and it was Whites who facilitated it. No nuclear state would ever disarm rationally.
It is a permanent guarantee no one will fuck with you.
All other answers are cope.
Like this idiot here >>17770799
>another nuclear armed nation
Do you not understand the power disparity it grants in a standoff with a NON NUCLEAR STATE?
>>17770997
Neither does England.
Or the USA
or China
>>17771060
South Africa only has guns because of European politics, should they remove their guns as well when the Europeans are gone?

>>17771201
>It is a permanent guarantee no one will fuck with you
South Africa having g nukes wouldn't negate or stop sanctions back then and now.

>Do you not understand the power disparity it grants in a standoff with a NON NUCLEAR STATE?
Ah yes, the regional threat known as Zambia. Fucking retard.

>South Africa only has guns because of European politics, should they remove their guns as well when the Europeans are gone?
Crazed and off topic comparison
Guns or merely maintaining a standing army and nuclear weapons are totally different matters. Fuck off

>>17771051
Some Afrikaners wanting priority and skipping the line. Due to lack of shame they decided to pretend to be refugees while fucking over other actual refugees. Best part is the ones that did come to the US were left high and dry with absolutely no support at all. Good riddance

>>17770691 (OP)
all of his "compromises" stopped south africa being boycotted, him getting couped and the country falling apart, again zimbabwe was isolated and destroyed from taking their land back from like 20 anglos, he did everything he could to save himself and his nation from destruction.

>>17771467
And now the ideal time frame for key social, land and policy reform has now long passed.

>>17771437
>South Africa having g nukes wouldn't negate or stop sanctions back then and now.
That has never been the point of nukes.
>regional thread of Zambia
No one said Zambia was a regional threat.
>crazed and off topic
no, the essence of the post was nukes werent needed because the causes of development had passed, well if the cause of development of guns has passed, then guns wont be needed right?
That would logically follow.
>are totally different matters
They arent, youre just mad that youre retarded and the logical conclusion is a country who's in a sharp IQ decline shouldnt have WMDs is sound.

government with nukes are immune to regime change, immune to external threats, and have a certain level of international standing.
This is just a fact.

You dont need your immediate neighbors to be a threat to pursue nukes.
The USSR had zero powerful neighbors, they pursued a nuke anyway.
The US who got the nuke first did so at the end of a war that had already been decided.
South Africa developed nukes specifically to ensure the US would guarantee them against any possible overthrow of their government.
If a nuclear state fell into chaos anyone could get their hands on those weapons so major powers such as the US, China, Russia have a vested interest in keeping these governments stable.
This does not make them invincible but it significantly raises the threshold for external/proxy pressure.

>>17771511
>South Africa developed nukes specifically to ensure the US would guarantee them against any possible overthrow of their government.
So why did they dismantle them and get overthrown any way?

>1. Expensive to maintain
>2. No regional threats
>3. No external overseas threats
>4. Shaky internal government, never know what the next guy might do
>5. Earns good boy points from the West
>6. Have to abide by a lot of international rules about nukes

It was a symbol of white technology. I like to imagine the black south africans as retards twerking on top of nukes as they dump them in a river

>>17771557
>chud imagines something that doesn't happen
a common occurrence

>>17770799
Basically what this guy said. Maintaining nuclear weapons is expensive, and there are no threats in the region around South Africa that a standard military can't already deal with.

>>17771557
You got a fucked up head.

>>17771511
>No one said Zambia was a regional threat.
Then who is gonna start shit with South Africa directly to necessitate nukes as deterrent?

>They arent, youre just mad that youre retarded and the logical conclusion is a country who's in a sharp IQ decline shouldnt have WMDs is sound.
The utility to the nukes would be pointless is the hypothetical situation that made SA pursue them never occurred (or was feasible in the first place). The whole IQ excuse is also retarded because most nuclear carrying states aren't exactly top tier in research lol.

>South Africa developed nukes specifically to ensure the US would guarantee them against any possible overthrow of their government.
Yanks don't fucking care about any Africans at all. South Africa is a peripheral state.

>>17771716
and the cost to maintain nuclear weapons is massive. It's pretty much a huge burden and the US had MULTIPLE near misses where transportation and movement of nuclear weapons almost led to them detonating. Several states destroyed and irradiated a ton of land and islands to test them.

>>17770691 (OP)
he knew they couldn't be trusted with that kind of power

>>17771728
But Pakistan, India, NK and Israel are okay?

>>17770694
This, and he also wanted to make sure that his party/country didn't get declared as a 'Rogue State' that needed to be 'liberated' when they started acting like they have been over the last few years.

>>17773223
>when they started acting like they have been over the last few years
Like in Mandela's years or currently?

>>17770691 (OP)
he didn't. the white south africans did because they correctly understood they could not give nukes to the majority rule government

>>17773243
>they correctly understood they could not give nukes to the majority rule government
That assumption got countered multiple times though. Nuclear weapons upkeep is super expensive and SA was basically broke by the end and the utility of the nukes as deterrent from any land based red invasion was already null by the collapse of the USSR and China temporary pivot.

>>17771437
>South Africa having g nukes wouldn't negate or stop sanctions back then and now.
it prevents invasion. non nuclear dictators like sadam and gadaffi got invaded and murdered. the Kims still have power in north korea.
hell, if the pakis and indians didn't have nukes they would be at constant war

>>17773246
would you want to give nukes to the black south africans?

>>17773247
>the Kims still have power in north korea.
China backing it is more relevant. That and South Korea adopting little compromise towards the Kim regime.

>>17773251
Considering a ton of poor developing countries, a bunch of delusional ex powers and one current power that invaded multiple states at this point they wouldn't stand out lol.

>>17773260
>China backing it
it's because south kora doesn't want to get nuked
>Considering a ton o
sure thing, retard

>>17773268
>it's because south kora doesn't want to get nuked
Because China has a major sunken costs with NK.

>Considering a ton of poor developing countries
India and Pakistan lol. Don't forget the rest of the post.

>>17773272
>Because China has a major sunken costs with NK.
china doesn't even like NK. the nukes are what keeps the kims in power
>India and Pakistan lol.
they literally stole nuclear secrets. and it's a shame, they could be having a 100 year holy war right now

>>17771462

>>17773280
>they literally stole nuclear secrets
And South Africa alos made use of major help and leaked secrets for ita program. Bro almkst EVERYONE made use of espionage, leaks and bribes to get it.

>>17773296
They made themselves look like fools and now they're left high and dry in the US. Elon won't helm them because he's a total manchild and Trump certainly won't because he probably did it to just get Elin to stfu.

>>17773280
>china doesn't even like NK
What do you think Sunken costs mean exaxtly?

>>17771201
>every country on earth will sanction the shit out of me but at least mozambique won't invade
thank you metternich

>>17770691 (OP)
Such a faggot for not kicking out the boers. What a cuck.

>>17770691 (OP)
SHOOT TO KILL THE BOER
THE FARMER
BRAAAAAPAH