Makenshi said:
Our constitution banned nukes and any other armageddon stuff. Reactors for subs and carriers are allowed, as well as any nuclear tech that doesn't result in disaster (like nuclear medicine).
We are pushing for rockets and satellites, but not ICBM's. Most of our military is about power projetion and defense, both of the territory/airspace and the economic interest zone (300 miles into the south atlantic).
Don't think you (or any of your descendents) will ever see Brazil invading countries and stuff unless something like WW3 happens and we are dragged to it. And even then, brazilian nukes? C'mon...
my friend. What is written on a "peace" of paper can be changed quite easily if the people see the need.
don't misunderstand me. I am not comparing Brazil with the Sovietunion or Nazi-Germany or what ever.
I am just saying. We can not say how things will be in 10 even less in 50 years. Though many agree that South America is on the rise. Just like China in Asia. This naturally will spawn questions and issues in the future. Is South America big enough for more then "one" Super Power ? Who will be the "leading" figure in South America ? Brazil is definitely the nation with the biggest size. And they have a huge potential. If the situation in the future might become more aggressive I would not completely rule out the possibility of nuclear weapons.
Besides. Nations could be simply ling. When was the last time Israel acknowledged to have nuclear weapons ? Its some kind of open secret (granted how much of a secret is something everyone knows ... ).
As said. The change from a peaceful use to a military one is so small. It could be almost the same. centrifuges and facilities used for many peaceful reactors can be just as well used for the military use. And we are not only talking here about ICBMS. Those are just "one" part of a nuclear arsenal. There are short range ballistic missiles, weapons which can be used directly on the battlefield either by artillery or planes and of course submarines and there are "dirty bombs". There has been recently an evolution to nuclear weapons of much smaller size at least in the US and Russia.
The business of nuclear technology is very profitable for a small group of people and companies. Libya got most of its technology from a Pakistani scientist (Im Profil Abdul Qadeer Khan) who got his education in the west. Nations claiming today about peaceful use sure do NOT have only that in their mind. Even if they claim they don't want nuclear weapons today they keep the possibility in their mind for the future. Anything else would be simply unrealistic. Otherwise there would not have been such a big fuzz around the Iranian nuclear program. Western nations like the US and Europe know dam well from their own experience that domestic use and military use are almost the same because it is so easy to change it from the one to the other.
drgong said:
What other nation has the ability to provide regional security? Europe has the ability, but not the will to spend the money. South Africa abilities are being rapidly eroded for internal politics. Nigeria has a hard time with African Union duties. India is focused on Pakistan, and fubared its Sri Lanka intervention. Asian countries do not trust China or Japan due to historical issues. South Korea has a madman north of the border. So who else could for example, prevent a Srebrenica massacre, or prevent smaller nations from being overrun by larger, aggressive nations?
Thats pretty wrong.
It is not so much about the "will" or "money" but a different concept of politics.
For the US military actions are part of their politics for the European commonwealth military actions are the "ultima ratio" - and most of the time the individual european states are pretty inconsistent with each other in the details.
Not to mention their last military actions didn't really helped the US much. Terrorism didn't stoped nor did it got less dangerous yet the nations remain still as unstable. Or does anyone believe either Afghanistan or Iraq will continue as a democracy once the "foreign" forces are out ? A pipe dream ...
Not to mention the way how Europe is deciding about politics is not the same like the US. For a start. Europe has no clear agenda regarding foreign policy. Simply because every state inside Europe is seeing things individually and dealing with it on a different scale. For example France and Britain have been in the past 60 years much more involved in military actions compared to the Germans which probably does not need any explanation why. I want to see Texas deciding on its own to start military actions against some foreign nation for example.
Not to mention many states here still remember what it means to have foreign military forces fighting on your ground and that still throws a huge shadow on things - most of the time for the better. many have family members which could still tell stories. Or at least know people which have been Soldiers in WW2. The US never was any occupied territory since their independence (and even that is not quite the same like being "defeated" on your own ground). And probably many Americans can not even imagine something like that ever happening.
don't confuse the EU with a "full" State. Not when it comes to politics.
