Not to mention that you don't necessary need to be a rich nation to develop nuclear weapons. Look at the countries that is able to develop and maintain nuclear weapons while being fucking poor at the same time. It's simply a matter of allocation of national resources.Chaotic Neutral wrote:Space program, yes, but nukes are pretty effective defensive weapons. How many nuclear armed countries have been invaded? They shouldn't disqualify a country for funding.
China rises and rises, yet still gets foreign aid
Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Re: China rises and rises, yet still gets foreign aid
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.
Re: China rises and rises, yet still gets foreign aid
Isn't that list pretty much limited to Pakistan and arguable India? And in total fairness, I can see why Pakistan would want to get a crash nuclear program through when their sparring partner goes down that path.
-
mr friendly guy
- The Doctor
- Posts: 11235
- Joined: 2004-12-12 10:55pm
- Location: In a 1960s police telephone box somewhere in Australia
Re: China rises and rises, yet still gets foreign aid
You forgot North Korea. Although their nukes aren't that great, but I don't see why they can't improve given time and further allocation of resources while leaving their citizens poor.xt828 wrote:Isn't that list pretty much limited to Pakistan and arguable India? And in total fairness, I can see why Pakistan would want to get a crash nuclear program through when their sparring partner goes down that path.
When China first tested a nuke in 1964, their economy was 11 times smaller than the USA.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_g ... &date=1964
However its GDP / capita was like 41 times smaller.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_g ... &date=1964
You might be able to call it a non "poor" country if you count GDP, however GDP / capita would suggest China when it tested its first nuke was not a rich country. Same here with India when it tested one in 1974. Pakistan (India can build nuclear weapons then Pakistan would too, "even if we have to eat grass." ) and North Korea don't even have that respectable GDP vs the US, let alone GDP / capita. So out of the 8 declared nuclear powers ( US, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan and NK), arguably half of them were poor (and still are) when they first developed nukes. Which just goes to shows Ray's point, its primarily a matter of resource allocation.
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.
Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
Re: China rises and rises, yet still gets foreign aid
I did indeed forget DPRK.
Was China's program entirely indigenous or was it supported in whole or part by the USSR? If the latter, I would imagine that it would cut down on the amount of resources needing to be allocated. They also have a reasonable and nuclear-armed threat staring them in the face, in the form of the anitcommunist US et al, and post Sino-Soviet split the USSR as well. It seems to me that it's arguable that, aside from India, whose reasoning I'm not aware of, nuclear weapons seem to primarily have been sought by countries with nuclear weapons or a similar enormous threat pointed at them, at least in the minds of their leaders. I'm not saying it's the best possible use of their resources. but it makes more sense than another gilded palace for the Dear Leader or whatever.
What would you say about South Africa's ephemeral nuclear arsenal? At the time, much of the country was in pretty dire straits - and much still is - but it was the part that the ruling body didn't give a shit about and didn't feel a need to account for in planning and development.
Was China's program entirely indigenous or was it supported in whole or part by the USSR? If the latter, I would imagine that it would cut down on the amount of resources needing to be allocated. They also have a reasonable and nuclear-armed threat staring them in the face, in the form of the anitcommunist US et al, and post Sino-Soviet split the USSR as well. It seems to me that it's arguable that, aside from India, whose reasoning I'm not aware of, nuclear weapons seem to primarily have been sought by countries with nuclear weapons or a similar enormous threat pointed at them, at least in the minds of their leaders. I'm not saying it's the best possible use of their resources. but it makes more sense than another gilded palace for the Dear Leader or whatever.
What would you say about South Africa's ephemeral nuclear arsenal? At the time, much of the country was in pretty dire straits - and much still is - but it was the part that the ruling body didn't give a shit about and didn't feel a need to account for in planning and development.