From: "John Beamish" 

You are aware that most nuclear weapons testing is done via computer
simulations.  The absence of a physical test does not preclude possession
of working weapons.  The fundamental technology is, after all, quite
simple. Expensive.  But quite simple.

"Armscor produces its first nuclear explosive device. The South
African nuclear weapons arsenal increases at the rate of one device
approximately every 18 months, until it includes six weapons by the late
1980s. "



"Gene McAloon"  wrote in message
news:087e90tqi0sbokkdiadplnmnlmppra0umg{at}4ax.com...
> On Mon, 3 May 2004 18:04:51 -0400, "John Beamish"

wrote:
>
> >I posted this earlier:
> >http://cns.miis.edu/research/safrica/chron.htm
> >
> >All nicely documented and supported with references to original sources.
>
> That report confirms what I have been saying quite nicely.  SA had a
nuclear
> program, but never a working nuclear bomb, nor did it ever test a nuclear
bomb.
> SA denied the occurrence off its coast was a test of a nuclear device. The
US
> government could never get agreement among its various agencies that the
> occurrence was a even a nuclear test, let alone conducted by SA.
>
> Yet people here blithely assume that testing did occur and even that the
> offshore occurrence was a nuclear bomb test. On what basis? None that is
at all
> factual. Thanks for providing confirmation of what I have been saying.
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5