This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
South Africa and weapons of mass destruction article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
SA's nuclear program must have gone on for far longer than the article states. The american humorist Tom Lehrer was even writing songs about th south african nuclear bombs in the mid sixties, it was public knowledge to the degree that he even toured and printed LP audio albums with songs from live concerts with people laughing at his joke "south africa" wants two a-bombs, thats right, one for the blacks and one for the whites" in his now famous song "Who's Next" Recording date: September 10th 1967 (by then his songs were well known, so the south african nuclear program must have been commonplace public knowledge, even though I'm sure the powers that be, pretended they were doing just fine in keeping it a secret. Nunamiut ( talk) 18:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not think South Africa really destroyed their nuclear weapons. If they did, what was the main reason for them to do so? User:152.106.240.139
There are many conspirisies with regards to SA Nukes, chances are non of them are true, the most viable one though is that any sophiticated weapons would have been shiped to Israel as they took part in our program, any advanced weapons would be able to be linked to them and thus be undesirable, maby a conspirisies/Speculation section should be added as long as people can gice facts as to how a conspirosiy is possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottykira ( talk • contribs) 11:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Then I will delete the citation needed tag 108.28.93.11 ( talk) 19:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
In the context of the developing strategic threat - during the latter 70s and into the 80s - the possibility that Soviet-sponsored and directly-supported conventional invasion of e.g Namibia/SudWesAfrika via Oshikango/Ovamboland and/or Walvisbaai, and/or Transvaal/Natal via Maputo was real. Viz the 60,000 Cuban combat troops inserted into Angola during the mid-80s..... The expectation was that these would be supported by Soviet long range bombers striking with stand-off weapons at strategic targets in the RSA, such as LMB/AFB Grootfontein ( Ovamboland ), LMB/AFB Waterkloof ( Pretoria ), SAN Simonstown, vulnerable logistic supply rail/road links, and concentrations of SADF forces. Such long range bombers could operate from only a few large and well-defended base facilities in sub-saharan Africa, such as Luanda in Angola, and few of the SAAFs tactical aircraft could reach that far and survive. A strategic weapon was required to destroy such bases and deny their strategic support and interdiction facilities to Soviet surrogate forces.
The belief that South Africa developed only half-a-dozen quite crude nuclear devices is mistaken. A sophisticated 'deep penetration' delivery system was well-developed, sharing technologies and testing with Israel. Some of this technology has found its way elsewhere via the Pakistani rogue nuclear engineer Dr. Abdul Khan, lining quite a few ANC pockets in the process.
Do bear in mind that 'a viable weapons system needs not only a viable means of production, but also a viable means of delivery.' South Africa had that in its ageing but capable Canberras and Buccaneers, as well as the Cheetah D. -- NeueSoutie 13:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I read that the weapon weighted about 1 metric ton (1000kg) was 65cm in diameter and 180 in lenght, and also that it was in fact buccaneers that were the only aircraft modified to deliver it. And not canberra as claimed here.
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/southafrica/ir0594.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.248.159.240 ( talk) 10:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
At the December 2012 conference "The Historical Dimensions of South Africa's Nuclear Weapons Program," a presenter used this image in a powerpoint presentation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:South_African_nuclear_bomb_casings.jpg. Another conference attendee with direct personal knowledge of the design of South Africa's nuclear bombs pointed out that the photo was not in fact of South Africa's nuclear bombs. South Africa's nuclear bombs looked different from the bomb casings in the photo. A third conference participant who had been professionally involved, as a South African government official, in South Africa's WMD programs suggested that the casings depicted in the photo above may instead have been for chemical or biological weapons. 205.201.242.126 ( talk) 18:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Its correct. The fameous "pictures of south african nuclear weapon" isn´t a nuke. Its something else. The real nuke would have looked more like a modern cruise missile, like South African´s Raptor missile. Intresting read: [1]/ Pandapod1 ( talk) 08:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
In the line about changing from Somchem to Pelindaba, Somchem is/was a weapons/chemical company and Pelindaba a place. Maybe tidy up 41.241.25.210 ( talk) 08:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The image File:Coat of arms of South Africa.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 15:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The article makes reference to an "AEB" and "AEC", without bothering to give the full name. I assume what was meant was the "Atomic Energy Board" and "Atomic Energy Corporation". It's not always clear if the correct term is given at any given spot, as sometimes it's not clear what time period is discussed. The article links to the disambig pages AEB and AEC, which in turn have no relevant content. We don't seem to have an article on the AEB/AEC. There's also no indication to the reader that the AEB ultimately turned into the AEC (as I understand it). I'm hoping somebody more familiar with the topic will fix this up. -- Rob ( talk) 08:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Ive been studying this subject for years but never seen a single picture of the weapon, one would be great to have on the article, but i guess they arent available. Also, if so i wonder why? Whats the big secret? Maybe it was "licenced" from a western design? US, UK or French one? Anybody any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.204.152 ( talk) 00:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes we all know of rumors of Israeli work with South Africa's WMD program, but they were not the only country to do so. Like for example http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/61698/nicolas-van-de-walle/south-africas-weapons-of-mass-destruction http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/rsa/nuke/stumpf.htm Tallicfan20 ( talk) 08:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I am curious if it was ever established who, exactly, the SA gov't intended its nuclear arsenal to be used against. None of its neighbors (as far as I know) ever came close to nuclear capability, and, if my understanding of the history is correct, the Apartheid government always viewed its main enemies as internal rather than external. Were there any plans to use tactical nukes in the event of a black rebellion that couldn't be otherwise controlled? -- Jfruh ( talk) 01:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
It is a complete misconception that South Africa's main enemies were considered to be within, much as there had always been the fear of what the consequences of a regime switch would have been. The SADF (South African Defence Force) was only ever used to prop up the SAPS (South African Police Service) who was responsible for internal law and order, which included suppressing violent and often criminal uprisings by the Black majority (the world has by now forgotten about "necklaces" - car tyres put around the necks of perceived enemies of the ANC, filled with petrol and set on fire). South Africa's main enemy had always been communism and as a secondary concern was its ability to align the internal Black majority, who would have walked off the edge of a cliff just to get rid of the Apartheid government (as the rest of Africa did to get rid of the Brits). This explains why De Klerk could start serious negotiations with the ANC only after the collapse of the the Soviet Union - had South Africa switched to a Black "democracy" before this it would have ended up a communist mess under Russion control and a complete breadbasket in line with the rest of Africa. South Africa lost a few hundred soldiers over the years in Angola against the Cubans and their Russian advisors and this certainly had very little if anything to do with the internal strive - it was all about an obsession to fight Communism in the first place. Being a Christian coutry added to this desire, considering the persecution of Christians by Russia in their own country at the time. This is the reason (white) South Africans put up being the skunks of the world for so many years: it was always a choice between this and becoming unwilling citizens of a communist regime under direct control of Russia. Charity always starts at home and to have had a choice between local misery and international condemnation was never difficult, much as it led to the inhuman and often criminal suppression of its own citizens' democratic rights by the Apartheid regime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.3.70 ( talk) 04:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
SA's nukes were entirley of a detriment nature, they could use it as a barganing chip and to scare agression off, i do not think they ever planned to use them —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottykira ( talk • contribs) 12:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The article is missing the essential information about where and at who the weapons were intended to be targeted. Would it have been against concentrations of Eastern block troops in Angola in the event of an Eastern Bloc invasion of South Africa/SWA? Against strategic ports or airbases in Angola, or even against strategic targets in Cuba or the Warsaw pact countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.254.132 ( talk) 22:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
By 1974 a facility that was separate but close to the main campus of the Atomic Energy Board was in operation. The facility consisted of offices and a "hall" referred to as the A Saal (A hall) to test components. This facility came under the heading "Reactor Development". Simulation models written in FORTRAN for an IBM computer had already been developed in 1974 in these offices. The research units to enrich uranium and to develop a nuclear device were kept separate - those on the enrichment program had no idea what the staff working in "Reactor Development" where doing and those working in "Reactor Development" had no details of the enrichment programme. Staff in "Reactor Development" where sworn to secrecy for 20 years, and were told that the project was for peaceful purposes.
I have no sources to cite to back this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.104.31 09:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
There is basically no evidence that Vela was a nuclear explosion. South Africa did not test any of its nuclear weapons. The article gives far too much weight to the conspiracy theory that Vela was a nuclear explosion. Even if it had been an explosion, it would have been an Israeli bomb, not a South African one. 203.80.61.102 ( talk) 03:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Basic information to add to this article: who were the scientists in charge of the South African nuclear program? Were any of them former Nazis from the Third Reich? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 23:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
South Africa and weapons of mass destruction article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
SA's nuclear program must have gone on for far longer than the article states. The american humorist Tom Lehrer was even writing songs about th south african nuclear bombs in the mid sixties, it was public knowledge to the degree that he even toured and printed LP audio albums with songs from live concerts with people laughing at his joke "south africa" wants two a-bombs, thats right, one for the blacks and one for the whites" in his now famous song "Who's Next" Recording date: September 10th 1967 (by then his songs were well known, so the south african nuclear program must have been commonplace public knowledge, even though I'm sure the powers that be, pretended they were doing just fine in keeping it a secret. Nunamiut ( talk) 18:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not think South Africa really destroyed their nuclear weapons. If they did, what was the main reason for them to do so? User:152.106.240.139
There are many conspirisies with regards to SA Nukes, chances are non of them are true, the most viable one though is that any sophiticated weapons would have been shiped to Israel as they took part in our program, any advanced weapons would be able to be linked to them and thus be undesirable, maby a conspirisies/Speculation section should be added as long as people can gice facts as to how a conspirosiy is possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottykira ( talk • contribs) 11:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Then I will delete the citation needed tag 108.28.93.11 ( talk) 19:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
In the context of the developing strategic threat - during the latter 70s and into the 80s - the possibility that Soviet-sponsored and directly-supported conventional invasion of e.g Namibia/SudWesAfrika via Oshikango/Ovamboland and/or Walvisbaai, and/or Transvaal/Natal via Maputo was real. Viz the 60,000 Cuban combat troops inserted into Angola during the mid-80s..... The expectation was that these would be supported by Soviet long range bombers striking with stand-off weapons at strategic targets in the RSA, such as LMB/AFB Grootfontein ( Ovamboland ), LMB/AFB Waterkloof ( Pretoria ), SAN Simonstown, vulnerable logistic supply rail/road links, and concentrations of SADF forces. Such long range bombers could operate from only a few large and well-defended base facilities in sub-saharan Africa, such as Luanda in Angola, and few of the SAAFs tactical aircraft could reach that far and survive. A strategic weapon was required to destroy such bases and deny their strategic support and interdiction facilities to Soviet surrogate forces.
The belief that South Africa developed only half-a-dozen quite crude nuclear devices is mistaken. A sophisticated 'deep penetration' delivery system was well-developed, sharing technologies and testing with Israel. Some of this technology has found its way elsewhere via the Pakistani rogue nuclear engineer Dr. Abdul Khan, lining quite a few ANC pockets in the process.
Do bear in mind that 'a viable weapons system needs not only a viable means of production, but also a viable means of delivery.' South Africa had that in its ageing but capable Canberras and Buccaneers, as well as the Cheetah D. -- NeueSoutie 13:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I read that the weapon weighted about 1 metric ton (1000kg) was 65cm in diameter and 180 in lenght, and also that it was in fact buccaneers that were the only aircraft modified to deliver it. And not canberra as claimed here.
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/southafrica/ir0594.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.248.159.240 ( talk) 10:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
At the December 2012 conference "The Historical Dimensions of South Africa's Nuclear Weapons Program," a presenter used this image in a powerpoint presentation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:South_African_nuclear_bomb_casings.jpg. Another conference attendee with direct personal knowledge of the design of South Africa's nuclear bombs pointed out that the photo was not in fact of South Africa's nuclear bombs. South Africa's nuclear bombs looked different from the bomb casings in the photo. A third conference participant who had been professionally involved, as a South African government official, in South Africa's WMD programs suggested that the casings depicted in the photo above may instead have been for chemical or biological weapons. 205.201.242.126 ( talk) 18:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Its correct. The fameous "pictures of south african nuclear weapon" isn´t a nuke. Its something else. The real nuke would have looked more like a modern cruise missile, like South African´s Raptor missile. Intresting read: [1]/ Pandapod1 ( talk) 08:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
In the line about changing from Somchem to Pelindaba, Somchem is/was a weapons/chemical company and Pelindaba a place. Maybe tidy up 41.241.25.210 ( talk) 08:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The image File:Coat of arms of South Africa.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 15:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The article makes reference to an "AEB" and "AEC", without bothering to give the full name. I assume what was meant was the "Atomic Energy Board" and "Atomic Energy Corporation". It's not always clear if the correct term is given at any given spot, as sometimes it's not clear what time period is discussed. The article links to the disambig pages AEB and AEC, which in turn have no relevant content. We don't seem to have an article on the AEB/AEC. There's also no indication to the reader that the AEB ultimately turned into the AEC (as I understand it). I'm hoping somebody more familiar with the topic will fix this up. -- Rob ( talk) 08:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Ive been studying this subject for years but never seen a single picture of the weapon, one would be great to have on the article, but i guess they arent available. Also, if so i wonder why? Whats the big secret? Maybe it was "licenced" from a western design? US, UK or French one? Anybody any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.204.152 ( talk) 00:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes we all know of rumors of Israeli work with South Africa's WMD program, but they were not the only country to do so. Like for example http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/61698/nicolas-van-de-walle/south-africas-weapons-of-mass-destruction http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/rsa/nuke/stumpf.htm Tallicfan20 ( talk) 08:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I am curious if it was ever established who, exactly, the SA gov't intended its nuclear arsenal to be used against. None of its neighbors (as far as I know) ever came close to nuclear capability, and, if my understanding of the history is correct, the Apartheid government always viewed its main enemies as internal rather than external. Were there any plans to use tactical nukes in the event of a black rebellion that couldn't be otherwise controlled? -- Jfruh ( talk) 01:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
It is a complete misconception that South Africa's main enemies were considered to be within, much as there had always been the fear of what the consequences of a regime switch would have been. The SADF (South African Defence Force) was only ever used to prop up the SAPS (South African Police Service) who was responsible for internal law and order, which included suppressing violent and often criminal uprisings by the Black majority (the world has by now forgotten about "necklaces" - car tyres put around the necks of perceived enemies of the ANC, filled with petrol and set on fire). South Africa's main enemy had always been communism and as a secondary concern was its ability to align the internal Black majority, who would have walked off the edge of a cliff just to get rid of the Apartheid government (as the rest of Africa did to get rid of the Brits). This explains why De Klerk could start serious negotiations with the ANC only after the collapse of the the Soviet Union - had South Africa switched to a Black "democracy" before this it would have ended up a communist mess under Russion control and a complete breadbasket in line with the rest of Africa. South Africa lost a few hundred soldiers over the years in Angola against the Cubans and their Russian advisors and this certainly had very little if anything to do with the internal strive - it was all about an obsession to fight Communism in the first place. Being a Christian coutry added to this desire, considering the persecution of Christians by Russia in their own country at the time. This is the reason (white) South Africans put up being the skunks of the world for so many years: it was always a choice between this and becoming unwilling citizens of a communist regime under direct control of Russia. Charity always starts at home and to have had a choice between local misery and international condemnation was never difficult, much as it led to the inhuman and often criminal suppression of its own citizens' democratic rights by the Apartheid regime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.3.70 ( talk) 04:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
SA's nukes were entirley of a detriment nature, they could use it as a barganing chip and to scare agression off, i do not think they ever planned to use them —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottykira ( talk • contribs) 12:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The article is missing the essential information about where and at who the weapons were intended to be targeted. Would it have been against concentrations of Eastern block troops in Angola in the event of an Eastern Bloc invasion of South Africa/SWA? Against strategic ports or airbases in Angola, or even against strategic targets in Cuba or the Warsaw pact countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.254.132 ( talk) 22:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
By 1974 a facility that was separate but close to the main campus of the Atomic Energy Board was in operation. The facility consisted of offices and a "hall" referred to as the A Saal (A hall) to test components. This facility came under the heading "Reactor Development". Simulation models written in FORTRAN for an IBM computer had already been developed in 1974 in these offices. The research units to enrich uranium and to develop a nuclear device were kept separate - those on the enrichment program had no idea what the staff working in "Reactor Development" where doing and those working in "Reactor Development" had no details of the enrichment programme. Staff in "Reactor Development" where sworn to secrecy for 20 years, and were told that the project was for peaceful purposes.
I have no sources to cite to back this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.104.31 09:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
There is basically no evidence that Vela was a nuclear explosion. South Africa did not test any of its nuclear weapons. The article gives far too much weight to the conspiracy theory that Vela was a nuclear explosion. Even if it had been an explosion, it would have been an Israeli bomb, not a South African one. 203.80.61.102 ( talk) 03:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Basic information to add to this article: who were the scientists in charge of the South African nuclear program? Were any of them former Nazis from the Third Reich? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 23:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)