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 said:
Your point of view. That's all.Gokul43201 said:From whose point of view - a Venezuelan's or an outsider's ?
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.Moonbear said:Why do you ask?
Yeah, and I just might get into that later. For now, I'm only curious what other people think.Can you put some perspective on your question? Do you have an opinion on this?
Thank you Mommy, I can take care of myself.If so, state it and provide support.
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.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 depends of course on how drastically you want to redress domestic problems :rofl:loseyourname said:I would say no, because Venezuela's security concerns are primarily domestic from what I know, and nuclear weapons are useless domestically.
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.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.
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.selfAdjoint said: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.
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].russ_watters said: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.
It would be cheaper to buy them from North Korea or Pakistan.crazycalhoun said: