News Should Venezuela develop nuclear weapons?

[crazycalhoun]

Yes or no...and why?

 

[Cyrus]

This question has little thought behind it, and it shows.

 

[Gokul43201]

Yes or no...and why?

From whose point of view - a Venezuelan's or an outsider's ?

 

[Moonbear]

Yes or no...and why?

Why do you ask? Can you put some perspective on your question? Do you have an opinion on this? If so, state it and provide support. If not, explain the pros and cons as you see them to start discussion and some reason why it's relevant to this forum, otherwise this thread will not last very long without some direction.

 

[crazycalhoun]

From whose point of view - a Venezuelan's or an outsider's ?

Your point of view. That's all.

Why do you ask?

Curiosity. I woke up this morning thinking about Venezuela's aspirations to develop native a nuclear power industry and ended up wondering how many at PF would be distressed if President Chavez ended up acquiring weapons.

Can you put some perspective on your question? Do you have an opinion on this?

Yeah, and I just might get into that later. For now, I'm only curious what other people think.

If so, state it and provide support.

Thank you Mommy, I can take care of myself.

If not, explain the pros and cons as you see them to start discussion and some reason why it's relevant to this forum, otherwise this thread will not last very long without some direction.

It's relevant to this forum because it asks members to speculate on a possible direction a current political and strategic set of events could develop. It has plenty of direction, the question requires a mere yes or no answer and a brief explanation. More importantly, it's not intended to be inflammatory, it doesn't start with a set of links and a rant, and it encourages a clear and concise discussion of an international issue within a restricted set of parameters. There's no opening to shovel praise or contempt on the Chavez government. There's no call for opinions on US foreign policy in Latin America. Beyond what necessary moral pretext that may attach to some answers, it's more or less a survey of where members stand on a narrow point.

 

[loseyourname]

I would say no, because Venezuela's security concerns are primarily domestic from what I know, and nuclear weapons are useless domestically.

 

[vanesch]

I would say no, because Venezuela's security concerns are primarily domestic from what I know, and nuclear weapons are useless domestically.

It depends of course on how drastically you want to redress domestic problems

 

[arildno]

I would say yes, because Venezuala is then in the position to attack Bhutan.

 

[jhe1984]

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

The Bhutanese have a long history of opposing nuclear warfare. Their SK-35r's and 4-20 Buddha Blast missiles make for a robust counterstrike potential. Thus the Bhutanese have defeated major nuclear powers since time began. Theirs is a history written in blood. And if Chavez wants his country to become just another notch on the Bhutanese Blood Pole, then andale, amigo, andale.

Also, Venezuela neither wants nor needs nuclear weapons. Unlike Iran, they've got little to gain from nuclear weapons. Not to mention, most of their refining facilities are inside the United States and as much as Mr. Chavez likes to say to the contrary, Venezuela and the US do not have a fundamentally destructive or antagonistic relationship. If that were the case, the US would not have resupplied the country with F-16 upgrade and refurbishment kits that it did last week.

If you have ever refueled your car at a Citgo (which is owned and operated by Venezuela), then you understand why Venezuela and America fundamentally like each other.

Plus, Caracitas are hot.

 

[scott1]

NO!They souldn't have weapons of mass desturtion.

 

[Art]

no ..

 

[alexandra]

I think all weapons of mass destruction should be banned everywhere on this planet. I believe we have so much else to concern ourselves with rather than the destruction of our fellow human beings - there is a whole universe to explore.

What a waste of resources, and humanity's best minds, the development of all weapons is - all that money, all that time and brain-power put to such ridiculously primitive use, so wasted! I wonder how much more of the universe we could have explored by now if we'd focused on knowledge, and on answering life's 'big questions', rather than on the greedy accumulation of profit and on attacking and killing fellow human beings just so that a few can become obscenely rich.

 

[russ_watters]

No, I don't think they will have any need for them and they'll damage their economy by building them.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Yes, because it would lead to all the other South American countries getting them and this would have two beneficial effects: It would show up the hypocracy of the current nuclear power characterizing every other country that wants nucear weapons as unstable or unsuitable, or something else nasty. This is just racism plain and simple.

And the other thing it would do is guarantee lasting peace in South America. Look how MAD cooled down the Cold War fevers in both the USA and the USSR and what Nuclear arms for India and Pakistan did to defuse the Khashmir issue.

 

[Entropy]

Yes, because it would lead to all the other South American countries getting them and this would have two beneficial effects: It would show up the hypocracy of the current nuclear power characterizing every other country that wants nucear weapons as unstable or unsuitable, or something else nasty. This is just racism plain and simple.

You really want every SA country to get nuclear weapons? That is ridiculous. Maybe the governments themselves won't use them, but it will be only a matter of time before some radical group in SA gets its hands on a nuke.

 

[russ_watters]

It would show up the hypocracy of the current nuclear power characterizing every other country that wants nucear weapons as unstable or unsuitable, or something else nasty. This is just racism plain and simple.

Many nations that want nuclear weapons are unstable (some because they are unstable), with or without nuclear weapons, but I don't think it is a prevailing view to automatically equate the two. However, there is a simple economic reality at work here: most of the countries with nuclear weapons are rich (because building nukes requires a lot of money) and rich countries tend to be more stable than poorer ones. Ie, the reason North Korea is poor is the same reason it is unstable: the country is mismanaged due to it's leadership.

Venezuela is relatively stable and I don't think there would be any reason for someone to claim that it is unstable just because they might develop nukes.

 

[crazycalhoun]

Venezuela is relatively stable and I don't think there would be any reason for someone to claim that it is unstable just because they might develop nukes.

I think "relatively stable" is a stretch. Venezuela has half Saudi Arabia's GDP per capita, a President who previously attempted to seize power by coup, and loses to Russia and Sierra Leone in the Corruption Perceptions Index [http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sa.html].

 

[Astronuc]

Yes or no...and why?

It would be cheaper to buy them from North Korea or Pakistan.

I don't think countries should develop or possesses nuclear weapons, but that is an idealistic position. On the other hand, most countries do fine without, and even though the US and other nations possesses them, nuclear weapons have not depolyed militarily (other than testing) since the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII (Aug. 6 and 9, 1945, respectively).

A development program is very expensive, and the by-products of reprocessing irradiated U to extract Pu presents an environmental hazard. Presumably, Venezuela would have to test one or two weapons to ensure their success.

Besides - I think arildno makes a good point.