Q & A: F. W. de Klerk on Iran, Nukes

Yeh, he does sound pretty smart. I wonder why he's so quiet about politics in SA these days. I can't remember when last I've heard of him in the news, I'd like to read more about what he thinks.
 
Actually, I was thinking just the opposite. He 'responded' to Tutu's recent dismay about the lack of whites seeking repentance, saying that blacks should be thankful that whites gave up power peacefully.
 
Xarog said:
Actually, I was thinking just the opposite. He 'responded' to Tutu's recent dismay about the lack of whites seeking repentance, saying that blacks should be thankful that whites gave up power peacefully.
Click to expand...
Amazing. Direct leadership. To the core. Would hate to say it's something we miss around here - but unfortunately true.

/edit/I did also hear him say he thought AA was badly implemented - perpetrating more of the same.
 
Last edited:
FW De Klerk knew the roadmap to South Africa's political change long before the public realised it.
He was being cautious as he knew that after 1994 the NP would lose power and couldn't take the chance that South Africa's Nuclear Arsenal would get into the hands of one of the ANC's allies.
I think it is as simple as that?

What is the position in International Law if a Nuclear Weapon is used against a country that has none in the case of war scenario? The Nuclear Proliferation Treaty for instance.

Thanks for the links Tibby.
 
that South Africa's Nuclear Arsenal would get into the hands of one of the ANC's allies.
I think it is as simple as that?
Click to expand...
He says in the article that wasn't the case.
What was your motivation?
First of all, the threat had changed, we didn’t need [the bomb], it had become a millstone around our neck. [Also,] I wanted South Africa to return as soon as possible to the international arena, and I wanted to convince the rest of the world that we really were not playing with words, we really were prepared to undertake negotiations which would result in fundamental change. I wanted to achieve international support for the change process in South Africa, and I wanted to ensure that the leading countries of the world would keep an eye over the negotiation process and that if [there were] a threat of the negotiations deteriorating into further conflict, then they would step in to assure that a negotiated solution is guaranteed.
Click to expand...
 
DigitalSoldier said:
would have been a lot easier to have a civil war then we could start from scratch and no1 to blame :p
Click to expand...
We weren't supposed to start from scratch - that is the fault is this present government implementing AA and BEE - guarantees we are starting from scratch (more like starting from the dark ages.)

BTTB
What is the position in International Law if a Nuclear Weapon is used against a country that has none in the case of war scenario? The Nuclear Proliferation Treaty for instance.
Click to expand...
As far as I know this is the whole issue with Iran - they are a signee - which India and Pakistan aren't... so Iran is being held to higher standards whereas India and Pakistan are allowed to play merrily with their nuclear arsenal (and now be supported by Bush)... Double standards in the most sickening way. And if US did ever use nuclear (in this present) - they would be even more the pariahs they are already. America is spending its last bit of goodwill with the world at large - I hope George is worth it (to them.)
 
Yup = 8000+

Probably the most important of which are the ones sailing around the world in americas fleet (surface and submarine.) (And not sure whether they count launch mechanisms - missile casings - or actual warheads - in which case the total could be nearer 20 000?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X