Nuclear tests are expensive (as is a nuclear weapons and delivery systems development effort, and its essential maintenance program). If a country is to take having a nuclear weapons program seriously and technically current, I am going to guess that 210 tests are not out of the question. Some of the French tests may have actually ones conducted by the Israelis during the years they and the French had a close nuclear weapons cooperation program. Keep in mind that the 'nuclear powers' were and are still developing a variety of nuclear bombs, some small, some large; some heavy, some lightweight; and with different nuclear materials involved and a variety of triggers. The most interesting thing about the video was the fall-off of the UK's effort: it is clear that they essentially abandoned their effort after an initial effort.
"Absolutely, positively not. " Are you referring to Israel's test off the coast of South Africa? I gave you a full citation on that and I am guessing that you haven't had a chance to read it. To say nothing of the VELA observations. I talked with a fellow, now retired, who was on the VELA team and he indicated that there was no doubt that the South African explosion was nuclear and that all the indicators pointed to Israel. While the US government publicly never forced the issue, the folks involved in the intelligence community are unanimous on this one. Jed, I don't know whether you are being sarcastic or not when you say that Israel would never break a major treaty the which the US is a signatory, but of course Israel has broken many international legal treaties and I'll list a few here in case you were asserting that seriously: 1. Law of the Sea 2. Geneva Conventions (in many respects and consistently over time) regarding occupation and the treatment of occupied population 3. UN Charter re. respect for national sovereignty and prohibition on belligerent war This is only a sampling In addition, there are many instruments of quasi-legal status that represent the emerging international consensus on international behavior, such as the founding documents of the Human Rights Commission, the Declaration of Rights of Children, etc. In another email, you discuss the matter of whether an atmospheric test can be "covert". Something is covert when there is an attempt to hide it from the eyes of others. The fact that the thing is then discovered by others does not make it non-covert; it only means that the perpetrator was caught. Similarly, underground testing is not automatically "covert." Israel's test with South African cooperation was covert -- and caught, as you will readily see if you read the Polakow-Suransky book, and look at the VELA materials. On Jul 31, 2010, at 7:54 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Lawrence de Bivort wrote: > > France mounted a nuclear weapons program when it decided that it shouldn't > rely on the US nuclear umbrella and established its 'force de frappe' > policies. > > I know, but to the tune of 210 tests?!? Think of the cost! What more can you > learn after test #10 or 20. I don't suppose the French were developing MIRV > missiles. > > > Israel detonated at least one atmospheric test off the coast of South Africa > and in conjunction with the then apartheid/Boer government of South Africa. > > Absolutely, positively not. They would never think of doing a thing like > that. They ratified the limited test ban treaty in 1963, within months of > original signatories (U.S., U.K. and the USSR, who invited all other > countries to join). The apparent test off of South Africa took place in 1979. > Israel would never in a million years violate a major treaty with the U.S. Or > with anyone else for that matter, any more than the U.S. would. > > - Jed >
