Talk:South Africa and weapons of mass destruction

message: 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)
replies: text: You're assuming too much from the whimsical lyrics of a song. By 1967 the S.African government had not even begun preliminary research into nuclear weapons as it was still at the earliest stages of trying to establish an indigenous uranium enrichment capability. No doubt some people would have been intelligent enough to see South Africa's progress in nuclear research and its strategic situation and conclude that a covert nuclear weapons program was at least a likely eventuality, but at the time no such program existed. Impi (talk) 11:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange 

message: 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)
replies: text: Points well made, followed by good edit to article.Phase4 21:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: theres alot of unsupported speculation on this page. I would like to see more citations. purefreak 16:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speculation is, I think, allowed on the talk page. Reliable sources and good citations are definitely required on the article page.Phase4 15:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The strategic threat 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The weapon and delivery 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nitpicking/ clarigying 

message: 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
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
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)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Coat of arms of South Africa.svg

message: 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)
thread_title:  AEC and AEB 

message: 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)
replies: text: Photos of actual nuclear weapons (not just the casings) aren't all that common for most designs, not only the South African ones. I suppose its possible that clear pictures may be considered a proliferation risk, which is why the IAEA chose to release only photos of the casings and of parts of the facilities such as the vaults but not of the tooling for instance. It's also possible that, due to the extremely high security of South Africa's program, there were simply no photos taken before the weapons were dismantled. In fact, the only photos that seem to exist in the public domain of the program were all taken by IAEA inspectors and others after the bombs had been dismantled, the program ended and inspections had begun. Impi (talk) 11:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Weapon 

message: 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)
thread_title:  other countries who helped South Africa's nuclear program 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Intended targets 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reactor Development 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vela 

message: 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)
thread_title: Who were the scientists?