Quote (Skinned @ 13 Jun 2020 00:18)
So Reagan or Bush 1? They are one of the countries we refused to acknowledge had nuclear capability or were nuclear armed. Israel is the other one.
A counter example to your claim that going nuclear is one-way is South Africa. They were nuclear and now they're not.
Reagan, both Bushes and Clinton. China was probably already too strong during Obama's tenure to pull off something really risky.
Israel's status as a nuclear power isnt officially acknowledged because the West cant officially endorse their nukes while it unofficially welcomes it (makes Israel less reliant on NATO to defend itself).
South Africa is a special case in a lot of ways. They were more reliant on trade and diplomatic relations with the West than NK/Iran/etc ever were. They were not a complete pariah, but still suffering a ton from the boycotts (which were a reaction to the apartheid regime), so giving up their nukes was a viable path for them to gain back some credibility on the world stage. By contrast, countries like North Korea, Iran and similar ones are so far down the rabbit hole that giving up nukes would change their villain status. And there were also unique circumstances when South Africa gave up their nukes (strong communist/Cuban influence in nearby Angola, instability in Namibia). And last but not least, it was already forseeable at the time they dismantled their bombs that the country would soon be governed by the ANC, that is, by blacks. For various reasons, it was better for whites in South Africa if the country's black government after the end of apartheid did not have nukes at its disposal.
This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jun 12 2020 07:56pm