[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But of course they must have something (or many things) that they
do not want inspectors to find. That is the problem with the
inspection game.
It is only a problem if the host country does try to hide something.
If the host country is trying to prove its innocence, it is
relatively easy. Consider South Africa.
Under the white government, South Africa built nuclear bombs. Then,
the white government decided to permit majority rule, and to disarm.
Because the South African government was cooperative, the
international inspectors took only two years to decide that South
Africa really does not have nuclear weapons any more. And everyone
believes them.
Remember, when Iraq agreed to disarm, almost everyone expected the
sanctions that would enforce disarmament would last no more than about
15 days; but the Iraqi government did not cooperate, so the UN still
imposes sanctions 12 years later. This is the difference.
Moreover, the UN inspectors found that Iraq was trying to fool them.
No one (except a physicist at CERN in 1978, who failed to persuade
others) thought that Iraq would build calutrons to extract U-235; they
thought that calutrons were too expensive and too obsolete a
technology. The US used calutrons to extract the U-235 for the bomb
that destroyed Hiroshima, but after that, the US shut down the
calutrons and shifted to other isotope separation methods.
But it turned out that Iraq had build and used calutrons.... and the
inspectors would not have learned about them, except that a defector
told them.
Inspections cannot work in the long run because it is impossible to
maintain the sort of diligence that would allow for containment.
Very true: inspections work only to prove innocence when the host
country cooperates.
--
Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
