Brazil and Nuclear Weapons.

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by SouthAmerica, Jun 21, 2007.

  1. .

    June 21, 2007

    SouthAmerica: Since May of 2002 I wrote various articles about Brazil and nuclear weapons – But my original article was quoted a number of times by various authors.


    Articles about Brazil and Nuclear Weapons:

    May 2002 – “We Need the Bomb – Part I”
    by Ricardo C. Amaral
    http://www.brazzil.com/content/view/2575/38/


    February 2003 – “We Need the Bomb – Part II”
    by Ricardo C. Amaral
    http://www.brazzil.com/content/view/2186/27/


    June 2003 – “Food for Nukes the Answer for Brazil”
    by Ricardo C. Amaral
    http://brazzil.com/p104jun03.htm

    http://northkorea-nuclearweapons.blogspot.com


    Note:
    Thousands and thousands of people around the world it did take the time to read my articles regarding Brazil and nuclear weapons.



    ************



    SouthAmerica: As soon as my original article was published on Brazzil magazine in May 2002 – On the following issue of Brazzil magazine (June 2002) there was a response to my article written by Colonel Thomas J. Towle.

    Brazil Needs the Bomb... Like a Hole in the Head
    Written by: Thomas J. Towle
    Saturday, June 01, 2002

    http://www.brazzil.com/content/view/6354/38/

    Colonel Thomas J. Towle, the author, is a retired US Army officer who has served in a number of very responsible positions. In addition to his formal education, which includes a BS in Marketing, an MS in Management and Economics, and a Doctorate in Ministry, he attended the Army's Command & Staff College at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas.

    He is a former Army aviator, who served as a company commander in Germany in the Third Armored Division, and as a Battalion Commander in Vietnam, culminating his career as the Army's Chief Armament Officer on the General Staff in the Pentagon.

    He knows weapons! He hastens to add that he hopes Mr. Amaral realizes that his remarks (Tom's) are not "ad hominem," but simply a heartfelt response to any suggestion that Brazil should enter the atomic arena...a suggestion that almost moves Tom to tears.

    He sees it as a sword of Damocles that will hang over the necks of every country that has nuclear weapons, including his own USA. He finally reminds us, as did our Cristo Redentor, that "those who live by the sword must die by the sword."



    ************



    SouthAmerica: The Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University is one of the top foreign policy and International Affairs study centers in the United States.

    On page # 9 of “The Nonproliferation Review / Summer 2003” publication - which is published by Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University - they refer to my article “We Need the Bomb” (May 2002)

    The Nonproliferation Review / Summer 2003
    Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University

    Harold A. Feiveson is a senior research scientist, and co-director of the Program on Science and Global Security at the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University. Ernst Jan Hogendoorn is a PhD. Student at the Woodrow Wilson School.

    http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol10/102/102feiv.pdf


    Note: Princeton University - Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

    A Brief History of the Woodrow Wilson School

    The School of Public and International Affairs, as it was originally named, was founded at Princeton in 1930, created in the spirit of Woodrow Wilson's interest in preparing students for leadership in public and international affairs. Beginning in September 2005, the Woodrow Wilson School celebrates 75 years of preparing talented individuals for careers in the service of the nation and the world.

    The School's initial venture was an interdisciplinary program for undergraduates in Princeton's liberal arts college, although a graduate professional program was planned from the beginning.

    According to the School's first catalog from February 1930, "Throughout its history the sons of Princeton have been prominent in the service of the nation--statesmen, soldiers, judges, diplomats, men of science and men of letters, leaders of religious thought at home and abroad. It was this background which prompted Woodrow Wilson in 1896 to define the University's destiny as: 'Princeton in the Nation's Service'...Upon this foundation Princeton has established the School of Public and International Affairs which will...prepare [its students] for the new movement in national and world affairs."

    The graduate professional program was added in 1948. That same year the School was renamed to honor Woodrow Wilson, the 28th president of the United States, who was a member of Princeton's Class of 1879, governor of the State of New Jersey, and the 13th president of Princeton University.

    The phrase "Princeton in the Nation's Service" was the theme of two speeches Wilson gave at the University, first during its sesquicentennial celebration in 1896, and again at his inauguration as the University's president in 1902.

    In the 1990s, the motto was expanded by then-president Harold T. Shapiro to read "Princeton in the Nation's Service, and in the Service of All Nations." It is a concept that Princeton and the Woodrow Wilson School regard as an educational mission.

    … Today, the School educates a wide range of students from the U.S. and around the world who seek to apply their knowledge and skills to the solution of vital public problems in both the domestic and international realms.

    It boasts a faculty of superb scholars and practitioners in disciplines that include politics, economics, sociology, psychology, physics, molecular biology, and geosciences, who, individually and as members of a variety of world-class research centers and programs, react to and influence the international and domestic environment through policy research, which in turn adds depth and vitality to the teaching program.

    …The Woodrow Wilson School has thousands of alumni who are at the top of many different fields, from health care to development economics to foreign policy.


    Source: http://www.wws.princeton.edu/mission/history.html



    ***************



    SouthAmerica: On February 20, 2006 “American Thinker” magazine published an article “Brazil’s Nuclear Ambitions” by Joseph C. Myers.

    On this article Mr. Myers also mentioned my article published in May 2002 about Brazil and nuclear weapons.

    Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2006..._ambitions.html



    *************



    SouthAmerica: My articles about Brazil and nuclear weapons were published also in a number of other newspapers and magazines.



    .
     
  2. .

    This thread has been moved from the Chit Chat Forum.

    The moderator of this forum has a very hard time figuring out where to move the threads around the various forums – I bet if he could make an improvement to this forum, he probably would have only one forum for everything – the Chit Chat Forum.



    ********


    ASAP: the development of weapons of mass destruction is a mean of establishing a stronghold against potential aggressors and control geopolitical maneuvers that might threat internal stability and governance. i understand that countries like india and pakistan or israel and iran need or have plans to develop their own nuclear arsenal so they play a role in the regional context. it was quite clear the us and russia had the same need way back in the cold war times.

    i just cant figure out the reason for a south american country like brazil that has cooperation agreements with western countries including the us and no regional conflicts whatsoever, would need to engage in such a endeavour? what is the threat for brazil is beyond my imagination? is it the usa, russia or maybe former colonizer?

    why spending some much capital and human resources in that for an unclear or even inexistent return when there are so many projects for brazil that offer a much higher IRR like becoming a world leader in alternative energies and joining the G8 while eradicating the social time bomb that lies on the outskirt of sao paulo and rio.



    *****************



    June 21, 2007

    SouthAmerica: Reply to ASAP


    To start - I give you a simple example right on this forum regarding what many Americans think about Brazil developing Nuclear Weapons..

    The moderator moved this thread to the Chit Chat Forum – and I just checked that forum to see some of the other threads that are being posted and discussed with the thread “Brazil and Nuclear Weapons”.

    The first two threads posted right now on the Chit Chat forum were:

    1) Jokes2
    2) Jokes

    That kind of attitude gives you in a nutshell the American mentality regarding Brazil and Nuclear Weapons – and nuclear weapons and the rest of the world for that matter.

    Americans think that it is just a subject to the treated as a “Joke”.

    By the way, my thread about Saudi Arabia economic development it was moved from the Economics Forum to the Chit Chat forum – from this moderator’s perspective the thread about Saudi Arabia current economic development program it should be considered just as a Joke.


    If you had taken the time to read my article “We Need the Bomb” (May 2002) – then you would not have asked me the question: Why Brazil needs nuclear weapons?

    Here quoting from that article:

    “Brazil needs nuclear weapons to protect its claim of absolute sovereignty over its territory and population. Today, the more a state has the capability to use violence at will, the greater is its contempt for sovereignty, that is, for the sovereignty of other states. We can see all over the world this contempt for sovereignty and international law.

    There is one fact which is obvious for any one who is not brain dead—you can't count on your allies to come to your rescue when your country is under attack—unless there is some ulterior motive for the assistance, such as your country is a major oil producing country.

    A recent example brings this point to our attention and also can serve as a guide to the future, as to why any country shouldn't rely on old allies to come forward and put everything on the line to help them when they are under attack by a foreign power. When the US attacked Serbia and destroyed that country's entire infrastructure, Russia, a long time ally of Serbia, did not come to its rescue. Instead the Russians barked a few times on behalf of Serbia, then they rolled over and played dead. These events also highlighted to the world how far Russia has declined and how they lost all their clout and weight in international affairs.”


    You also said on your posting: “why spending some much capital and human resources in that for an unclear or even inexistent return when there are so many projects for brazil that offer a much higher IRR…”

    All you need to do is just look around and connect the dots – I understand most people don’t have the capability to do that but - here is a simple example:

    Why the US attacked Iraq in 2003?

    The obvious answer is: To control its oil reserves and future production of oil and gas.

    Why the US has been harassing Iran since 1952?

    The obvious answer is: To control its oil reserves and future production of oil and gas.

    Why the US went first after Iraq than the other countries?

    Because Iraq was in the weakest position – they had no nuclear weapons, and a very weak army – it was supposed to be a piece of cake.

    Why the US did not attack North Korea?

    Because North Korea it is armed with nuclear weapons.


    The Bush administration made a point over and over again that they USA would go to the gates of hell and the USA would launch a pre-emptive attack on any country that gave a safe heaven for Osama Bin Ladden and his “Al Qaeda” group.

    As long that country is not armed with nuclear weapons such as Pakistan – In such a case the USA would shift the attention to some other country that still not armed with nukes.

    By the way, Iran comes to mind.

    The United States has thousands of nuclear weapons – but the USA it does not have the guts to go inside Pakistan (armed with nukes) to get Osama Bin Ladden and “Al Qaeda.”

    I don’t see the United States using its policy of pre-emptive attack against North Korea or Pakistan – but Iraq and Iran it is another story.

    Iran can join North Korea and Pakistan when Iran also is armed with nuclear weapons – but until then – the US will continue harassing Iran on a regular basis.

    The only way Iran it will be able to protect its oil resources from foreign pillage – it is when Iran can protect its territory from a pre-emptive foreign attack - and Iran is armed with nuclear weapons.



    .
     
  3. Latin American countries can not be responsible with a nuke. Period.
     
  4. [/B][/QUOTE]Brazil's entire foreign policy revolves around borrowing money from wealthy nations. Why the hell would they need a nuke to do that ? If anything it would hurt their cause.
     
  5. .

    June 22, 2007

    SouthAmerica Reply to version77

    You said: “Latin American countries can not be responsible with a nuke. Period.”

    But the reality is the following about 90 miles from the Florida coast:

    On November 22, 2002, I was watching a television program on PBS called "Now with Bill Moyers," Mr. Moyers was interviewing a historian, James Blight—he wrote a book about the 1962 Cuban Nuclear Missile Crisis. It was an enlightening interview. The professor was saying that only recently, (in the last ten years) the U. S. learned a lot of new information about the Cuban missile crisis that the United States did not know at the time.

    He said that the U. S. intelligence thought that Fidel Castro had no nuclear warheads on his island in 1962. Since 1992 the U. S. learned that, in fact, the Soviets had placed 162 nuclear weapons in Cuba. Fidel Castro had been cleared and had all the authorization necessary from the Soviets to use the weapons.

    If the United States had attacked Cuba in 1962, the invading forces would have been annihilated by these weapons. I am glad that that crisis was resolved with diplomacy. I know that we don't learn lessons from past history, but that particular crisis is a very good example of what we don't know can hurt us in a big way.

    Usually when I see lists of countries that have nuclear weapons in the newspapers, the lists never list Cuba as being a nuclear weapons country.

    Since the U. S. was not aware that Cuba had such a large number of nuclear weapons on the island in 1962, then we can assume that Fidel Castro still has many of these weapons in Cuba.

    Why should Castro have returned any of his 162 nuclear weapons to the Soviet Union at that time, when the United States was not aware that he had all these weapons? I will not be surprised if in the future it is confirmed that Cuba had all these weapons on that island during all these years.”



    ****************



    Trader1966: Brazil's entire foreign policy revolves around borrowing money from wealthy nations. Why the hell would they need a nuke to do that? If anything it would hurt their cause.


    ****************


    SouthAmerica: To prevent any country from doing to Brazil what has been done in recent years to Iraq and Lebanon.
     
  6. asap

    asap

    to southamerica:

    what you describe is the typical cognitive bias.

    it seems the problem is that brazil is a resources rich country and thus there are chances the us or any other nuclear super power decides to bully brazil in order to access and control those resources. you deduct this potential outcome from what has happened with other countries. you're really trying to interpret the available information in a way that confirms your own preconceptions.

    i will not argue about the likehood of that outcome, instead i will devote my thoughts to some of downside in case brazil moves forward with producing nuclear arsenal.

    simply put, it would provoke an arms race in the region. next day we'll see neighbouring countries pouring money into their own nuclear program so they keep track of brazil's developments. i dont think brazil would feel much safer then and the rest of the world either.
     
  7. .

    Asap: simply put, it would provoke an arms race in the region. next day we'll see neighbouring countries pouring money into their own nuclear program so they keep track of brazil's developments. i dont think brazil would feel much safer then and the rest of the world either.



    **********


    June 22, 2007

    SouthAmerica: You are talking about Argentina.

    It is perfectly all right for Argentina also to develop nuclear weapons.

    By the way, Argentina already have the technical know-how to built the bomb - It is just a matter of them deciding to go forward with their plans.


    Venezuela does not need to build its own nuclear weapons - They can buy them with the billions of oil money that they have - they can buy a few nuclear warheads from the Cuban nuclear weapons arsenal.


    .
     
  8. I don't see anyone who wants to invade Brazil.

    Didn't know Cuba had all those nukes back in "62 either.

    Are you sure they have nukes in Cuba?
     
  9. .

    June 22, 2007

    SouthAmerica: Reply to version77

    As I mentioned on my posting: “On November 22, 2002, I was watching a television program on PBS called "Now with Bill Moyers," Mr. Moyers was interviewing a historian, James Blight—he wrote a book about the 1962 Cuban Nuclear Missile Crisis. It was an enlightening interview. The professor was saying that only recently, (in the last ten years) the U. S. learned a lot of new information about the Cuban missile crisis that the United States did not know at the time.”


    Historian James Blight is supposed to be the foremost expert on the subject of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

    Mr. Blight mentioned on that interview that since the collapse of the Soviet Union historians got access to many archives in the Soviet Union documenting a lot of information that they did not know regarding the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis including the fact that the Soviets had stored in Cuba 162 nuclear warheads. The nuclear warheads were never returned to the Soviets because the United States were not aware that they had that stockpile of nukes only 90 miles from Florida.

    At that time “Che Guevara” wanted to use some of these nukes on a pre-emptive attack against the United States – Fidel Castro was the person who thought that the nukes would be used only as a last resort - if the United States had attacked Cuba.

    Fidel Castro and Chavez are very good friends – Castro is at the end of his life – there is a sweet way for him to get even with the United States if he wanted to – all he had to do is sell ten of 15 of his stockpile of nukes to Chavez. – Cuba needs oil, and money for survival – and Chavez need the protection of Cuba’s nukes to make sure his country is not invaded by the US in the same way the US invaded Iraq to try to grab its oil resources.

    The United States changed its tune regarding North Korea after North Korea proved that they have nukes.

    If Pakistan was not protected by its nukes – you can bet the Bush administration would attack that country to destroy Osama Bin Ladden and Al Qaeda in the same way the US attacked Afghanistan in 2002.

    A country armed with nukes takes away the advantage the US has in matters of warfare.

    You don’t have to look further than North Korea and Pakistan to understand what I am saying.


    .
     
  10. Southamerica: you're full of it. All you do is cut & paste crap together often in an incoherent manner.
     
    #10     Jun 23, 2007