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

mooK

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
1,603
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.
 

Xarog

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
19,041
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.
 

kilo39

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
5,425
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.
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:

BTTB

Moderator
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
7,952
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.
 

kilo39

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
5,425
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?
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.
 

DigitalSoldier

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Messages
10,185
would have been a lot easier to have a civil war then we could start from scratch and no1 to blame :p
 

kilo39

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
5,425
DigitalSoldier said:
would have been a lot easier to have a civil war then we could start from scratch and no1 to blame :p
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.
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.)
 

DigitalSoldier

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Messages
10,185
By any chance you know how many nukes the US have that are active or can be activated within 2 years or less ?
 

kilo39

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
5,425
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?)
 

DigitalSoldier

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Messages
10,185
ok then if they got 1000 but wow near 20 000 is A LOT no wonder the US can give lip to any country
 
Top