Nuclear weapons in the southern hemisphere

How is it possible for nations like Brazil and Argentina in South America to have nuclear weapons

And countries like indonesia and australia have nuclear weapons

South Africa keeps its guns
Nuclear tests in the South Atlantic, in the Amazon forest and perhaps nuclear tests in ANTARCTICA?
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Brazil and Argentina has a nuclear competition of sorts during the 70's and 80's (Brazil's program was called 'Parallel Program'). The Brazilian program ended for several reasons, but first and foremost was the end of the Cold War, with the program shut down in the early 90's, with the test site Campo de Provas Brigadeiro Velloso in 1991. Brazilian enrichment was restarted in 2006, but I can't find anything to suggest that it has the goal of manufacturing a Nuclear Weapon. Argentina abandoned its plans for Nuclear Weapons after the collapse of the Proceso de Reorganización Nacional regime in 1983, but had enriched uranium.

I can't find anything about Indonesia and Nuclear Weapons, but I'd imagine it'd be a weapons share program with the US. Indonesia signed the NPT during the second wave.

Australia was part of Blue Streak, and until 1970, was pursing their own Nuclear Weapons. It was scrapped when Australia signed the NPT.

No NPT and a longer Cold War would be your best bet.
 
South Africa came scarily close.
My understanding is that South Africa manufactured several air deliverable fission bombs (or at least all the components for them) and later dismantled them and destroyed the components and related infrastructure.

The design was never tested but at least one account I have read said the design was simple and basically guranteed to have worked. Apparently the design was a simple gun based uranium weapon.
 
My understanding is that South Africa manufactured several air deliverable fission bombs (or at least all the components for them) and later dismantled them and destroyed the components and related infrastructure.

The design was never tested but at least one account I have read said the design was simple and basically guranteed to have worked. Apparently the design was a simple gun based uranium weapon.
Did they have the Uranium?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
South Africa came scarily close.
South Africa did exactly what the Israeli did for years. They constructed the Physics Packages and the bomb casings/explosive shells but never mated them. They could then technically state that they had no nuclear weapons since the casing/explosive shell was simply a HE bomb until the Physics Package was inserted.

To the OP: Without the NPT there would be several dozen nuclear powers. Probably have been a growth industry for relatively poor states like Pakistan to supply weapons in a turn key F.O.B delivery. The NPT managed to mostly stop the "if those $%#& next door have some, we damned well better have 'em too" tit-for-tat.
 
South Africa did exactly what the Israeli did for years. They constructed the Physics Packages and the bomb casings/explosive shells but never mated them. They could then technically state that they had no nuclear weapons since the casing/explosive shell was simply a HE bomb until the Physics Package was inserted.

To the OP: Without the NPT there would be several dozen nuclear powers. Probably have been a growth industry for relatively poor states like Pakistan to supply weapons in a turn key F.O.B delivery. The NPT managed to mostly stop the "if those $%#& next door have some, we damned well better have 'em too" tit-for-tat.
Thanks for the info. So, by most standards, they did have a fully operational nuclear weapons program?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Was that ever 100% confirmed?

I watch some American TV show where a South African official talked about what happened. After they tore up their nuclear program, they were pretty open about what happened. I did not know anyone thought it was anything but a nuclear explosion.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Was that ever 100% confirmed?
Not 100%.

They recently declassified some files that touch on the issue (I read an article that someone, probably Doctor What, linked on my Facebook feed. There were some deviations from standard parameters that make the certainty under 100%, but the U.S. Intel community all considered it to be proof (politicians are, understandably, loathe to accuse an ally without the Gold Standard of proof). Only real question among the Intel community, according to the released files, was the "who". Israel and/or South Africa seems to be the logical source, but proof was lacking (it could have been literally any country, but location and secrecy points towards those two states).
 
Not 100%.

They recently declassified some files that touch on the issue (I read an article that someone, probably Doctor What, linked on my Facebook feed. There were some deviations from standard parameters that make the certainty under 100%, but the U.S. Intel community all considered it to be proof (politicians are, understandably, loathe to accuse an ally without the Gold Standard of proof). Only real question among the Intel community, according to the released files, was the "who". Israel and/or South Africa seems to be the logical source, but proof was lacking (it could have been literally any country, but location and secrecy points towards those two states).

Did any of these materials discuss the nature of the device that they suspect was tested ? Years ago I read some fairly convincing arguments (to me anyways) that the the likely candidate for a test would have been a trigger for an H bomb vs a simple fission device.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Did any of these materials discuss the nature of the device that they suspect was tested ? Years ago I read some fairly convincing arguments (to me anyways) that the the likely candidate for a test would have been a trigger for an H bomb vs a simple fission device.
The article I read didn't have any quotes touching on this. I can see the logic in it, but the declassified files (which are only a small number of the total on the subject) have no indication one way or the other.
 
Top