From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

Gary Wiltshire wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:29:59 -0500, Adam 
> wrote:
>
>> Gary Wiltshire wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 10:35:33 -0500, Adam field.near the bridge">
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Geo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Adam"
<""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near the
bridge">
>>>>> wrote in
>>>>> message news:44169827$1{at}w3....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Fine so let's get Iran etc armed now. I don't mind if every
>>>>>> country  down
>>>>>> to dare I say it...Belgium...gets nukes. However
the current "system"
>>>>>> is unsustainable & thus the choice remains -
World full of nukes or
>>>>>> World empty of nukes. To Say ""Oh
Britain/France/US/Russia/PRC
>>>>>> are  just
>>>>>> so much more responsible with weapons of vast
death & terror" is not
>>>>>> sustainable.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can't develop nukes in secret then you aren't in control
>>>>> enough to
>>>>> guarantee they won't get used by someone other than
the government.
>>>>>
>>>> A) Nah coz The manhatten project was known to the British
& Soviets &
>>>> all subsequent nuclear programs have been detected.
>>>
>>>  Manhattan, certainly, but you have no way to ascertain or prove the
>>> rest of your sentence.
>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Name the ones which weren't.
>
>
> No shit, SHERLOCK.  You just proved my point.  How would YOU KNOW about
> any program successfully kept secret?
>

Not to be overly obvious but

A) You need nuclear handling facilities. These could be hidden within civie
nuclear power facilities. But they're not small nor cheap.

B) You have a habit of emitting odd particles. During the cold war both
sides worked on detecting these particles from a variety of platforms.
These particles are not often emitted by purely civie nuclear power.

C) You need to be able to deliver the weapon. Blowing yourself up ain't
much of a defence/weapon.

So now you may have to start a "space program" which is again
very obvious what with sending rockets up into the air.

Or you have to buy the requisite bombers & if these need to be long
range so as to offer a "credible deterrance" against all possible
foes then there ain't many long range bomber designs & manufacturers
about.

So people tend to keep an eye out for countries looking to buy B2 or TU160'es.

It's one reason why sales of concorde were limited wrt govs not in NATO.

So Sherlock given that, which nuclear program has not been detected?
Undoubtably a number of countries are "nuclear capable" while
remaining civil nuke only (e.g. Ukraine, SA, Brazil, Japan). Look for the
ones with a "space program" (e.g. Brazil, Japan) or space
capability (Ukraine, SA).

>>
>> The USSR was incredibly closely monitored wrt it's early nuclear
>> program. Later China too had a lot of interest in any odd shaped
>> buildings & seismic activity.
>>
>> The UK & France made no secret of their programs.
>>
>> Israel was known about as were both the NK & SA weapons programs.
>> Brazil  & Argentina were closely watched.
>>
>> & Pakistan & India both were less than discreet.
>
>
> And it looks like, from recent news, that Saddam managed to convince
> his  own generals that he had WMDs to defend the country, to the point
> they  were dismayed at the last minute to find they didn't.  If a man
> waves a  toy gun in a crowd, the cops can be forgiven for believing him
> serious.
>

Yeah & if he's going "look it's bright pink & plastic, here
have a look"
& the cops examine the plastic, retreat, chat a few minutes & then come
back shooting.....

Adam

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