MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
What are the real reasons behind Brazil’s interest in a nuclear powered submarine?
By Lucius Lomax<br />
The idea of a rogue nation using peaceful nuclear technology for armaments has been explored extensively by both Hollywood and the United Nations. But the idea of acquiring nuclear power—under the pretext of military use—with the real intention of commercial development appears to be an original idea of the Brazil government. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesand these worries come from a peaceful countrie such as the United States of America (Japanese people know them very well :), nice, they are always taking care of those who try to be independent and free. A lovely nation, really :)
Nov 26th, 2011 - 07:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0@1 super troll
Nov 26th, 2011 - 08:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0The good people of Nanking knew the Japanese very well too
According to the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, estimates made at a later date indicate that the total number of civilians and prisoners of war murdered in Nanking and its vicinity during the first six weeks of the Japanese occupation was over 200,000. These estimates are borne out by the figures of burial societies and other organizations, which testify to over 155,000 buried bodies. These figures do not take into account those persons whose bodies were destroyed by burning, drowning, or other means
What's the matter with you, sticky? So now slinging mud at the Japs justifies the US nuclear attack against civilians?
Nov 26th, 2011 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Forgotyour brain......
Nov 26th, 2011 - 03:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were atomic bombs...not nuclear, if your going to try and have a stupid opinion at least have the decency and respect in front of us intelligent folk to get some of the facts right.....
So that they were different types of weapons changes the situation? does it justify the attack against civilians? Are you sure it is me who has forgotten the brain in here? You aren't smart if you thinkthat clinging to petty details somehow changes the situation we're discussing, genius.
Nov 26th, 2011 - 04:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@3
Nov 26th, 2011 - 04:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just pointing out the Japs way of killing civilians
Which doesn't justify the US targeting Japanese civilians. The US didn't drop the bombs to avenge the victims of Japanese aggression; it had its own reasons, strategic reasons, when it did that.
Nov 26th, 2011 - 05:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0to be honest its a gigantic moral Grey area as to whether the Hiroshima/Nagasaki attacks were justified.
Nov 26th, 2011 - 05:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0true they did genuinely prevent what would have been a nightmarish invasion of japan which would have resulted in far more deaths occurring, and true the Japanese Empire had been acting with cruelty and ferocity that easily matched that of Nazi Germany
but on the other hand these weapons could have been used on purely military targets with similar effect to morale, and the argument that Japan's crimes made it deserve this attack falls through when you remember that the USA allowed the monsters responsible for the worst of Japan's crimes to go free anyway.
In the end neither argument is any more valid than the other
4. “The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were atomic bombs...not nuclear”
Nov 26th, 2011 - 05:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Atomic bomb is a type of nuclear weapon smart sassenach Adam.
I didn't even know there's a difference between atomic and nuclear weapons. What I know is that that doesn't change anything. RC is behind cheap ways to score points without having to raise (because s/he can't) serious arguments.
Nov 26th, 2011 - 10:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0just as well the brits dont ever use the Nutron bomb then,
Nov 27th, 2011 - 01:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0but it does save more buildings .
10 Forgetit87, The comment of our genius englishman “Rhaurie-Craughwell” is going viral on the web.
Nov 27th, 2011 - 04:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Read comment #108 :-)))
http://en.mercopress.com/2011/11/24/chilean-solidarity-with-malvinas-group-manifests-public-support-for-argentina
And RC still concluded his post with an “us intelligent folk”?
Nov 27th, 2011 - 05:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'd go hide under my bed in embarassment if I had been refuted that way after such a display of pretentiousness.
Brazil will have the subs operational by 2021 and with French Technology, Argentina's Carem reactor is way under construccion and it will be ready by the end of 2012 beggining 2013 and operational by the end of 2014 and with our own technology.
Nov 27th, 2011 - 09:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Another part of the article says: ''Brasilia’s military leaders were genuinely shocked by the ease with which Argentina was defeated in the Falklands War''... That's right, 17 year old kids without clothes and outnumbered in almost every battle, fighting pirates, gurkas and mercenarys from everywhere...
That's right, 17 year old kids without clothes and outnumbered in almost every battle, fighting pirates, gurkas and mercenarys from everywhere...
Nov 27th, 2011 - 09:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0The conscripts were young – between 19 and 20 years of age – but were not significantly different in their age from the British soldiers. One of the myths that arose from the war was that the Argentine Army contained 15 year-old soldiers; but the most recent call-up category was one consisting of 19 year-olds of the 1962 register.
One authority has noted that there was no stark difference between conscript and ‘regular’ units of the Argentine Army; and that all units, apart from certain small elites, were of mixed composition, which is normally the case in any army based on national service. The same criticism would have applied to the British Army in the period 1939–57
@15: my uncle and many of his friends were 17 when they landed in Puerto Argentino... They had betwen 45 and 50 days training. The special forces were station in the south waiting for the chileans attack...
Nov 27th, 2011 - 10:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Also, they were not out numbered. The Argentine army otnumbered the British troops on the islands.
Nov 27th, 2011 - 10:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0@16Rubino04,
Nov 27th, 2011 - 11:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0So what, Rubino.
YOUR government sent them there. Not us or the Chileans.
What did you expect the British to do? “oh! they're just kids.” “lets go home & let them have British territory”.
They were an invading, occupying force.
They had to be removed & they were removed.
Shows how much your government cared, look how they were treated when they came home.
Anyway they weren't all conscripts. There was also your(snigger, snigger)Marines who ran like children when they heard that the Gurkhas wer coming.
@10 I don't understand how you can say that you didn't know there was a difference between atomic weapons and nuclear weapons and then complain that you are, by inference, suggested to be unintelligent. Clearly, given the subject matter, if Rhaurie-Craughwell knows the difference, he is more educated than you.
Nov 27th, 2011 - 01:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0FYI there are two basic types of nuclear weapon. The earliest types involve solely fission reactions. These are generally called atomic bombs or A-weapons. They are generally considered to cover a range up to 500 kilotons (500,000 tons of TNT. The most common later type is the one generally referred to as a nuclear weapon. It can also be called a thermonuclear, a hydrogen or an H-weapon. It involves both fission and fusion reactions. Fusion weapons are limited in content only by the size and weight considerations of the delivery system. The largest thermonuclear device ever tested was more than 50 megatons (50 million tons of TNT). Only five countries have tested and have stocks of thermonuclear weapons - United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France and China.
@16 So your uncle and many of his friends were only 17, were they? Tough. Shows how much your political leaders care about you. And don't think CFK wouldn't do the same if it suited her purpose. Mind you, all around the world, gung-ho kids have been known to lie about their age when it comes to enlisting. One of the penalties of letting the education system brainwash youngsters and peddle lies for the benefit of politicians. By the way, there are no pirates in the British armed forces. And where's Puerto Argentino? There's no such place. Some name you made up to try to justify your attempted imperialist colonialist theft is it?
Just as a matter of interest, have you Argies and your supporters EVER tried telling the truth?
“FYI there are two basic types of nuclear weapon. The earliest types involve solely fission reactions. These are generally called atomic bombs or A-weapons.”
Nov 27th, 2011 - 02:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So atomic bombs are a form of nuclear weapons. If I said therefore that the US did a nuclear attack on Japan when it dropped the bombs, I'd be right. Just as I'd also be right if I said, for example, that I was chased by a mad mammal when I was a kid, in reference to an event in which a dog ran after me on the street to bite me - after all, dogs are a mammal species, so it isn't incorrect to call them mammals; just like atomic bombs, by your own explanation, are a form of nuclear weapons, so it isn't wrong to call them that. Moreover, by your own explanation, atomic bombs aren't different from nuclear weapons; they're themselves nuclear weapons, as you yourself said. It is only that thre are other types. Likewise it isn't right to say dogs are different from mammals, since dogs are themselves mammals, though there are non-dog mammals. Can you understand that, or are you so desperate to score points with these irrelavant observations?
Be that as it may, though you're perhaps too “smart” to see that, Typhoon, my argument was only that the US attack wasn't justified; that is, this argument is one about morality, not on the sort of weapon or any such triviliaty. It's just like saying that it isn't right to kill someone if it is not in self-defense: whether one uses a knife or a gun to do that is really besides the point. Can you and RC, “the intelligent folk”, see the difference?
my argument was only that the US attack wasn't justified; that is, this argument is one about morality, not on the sort of weapon or any such triviliaty.
Nov 27th, 2011 - 04:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Was Brazil justified in taking part the most destructive war in modern times
One estimate places total Paraguayan losses — through both war and disease — as high as 1.2 million people, or 90% of its pre-war population.[2][3] A different estimate places Paraguayan deaths at approximately 300,000 people out of its 500,000 to 525,000 prewar inhabitants.[4] According to Steven Pinker the war killed more than 60% of the population of Paraguay, making it proportionally the most destructive war in modern times
Give it up Brits!
Nov 27th, 2011 - 04:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Trying to lecture anybody about geography, history....or nuclear weapons, you would be perceived as a candidate for 'Turnip Prize' 2011.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/8912847/Banksy-in-the-running-for-Turnip-Prize-2011.html
It's probably redundant to point out the submarine that Brazil is looking at getting is nuclear powered, but conventionally armed (i.e. SSN) rather than carrying nuclear weapons (i.e. SSBN)?
Nov 27th, 2011 - 05:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0with the US and Israel threatening the world with arm conflics I believe is great that Latin America will builds a good nuclear defence program in case NATO member ever deside to aim their guns against Brazil or any part of Latin America. we seen what NATO are willing to do to theft resources, and we all know what the EU will do for their own survival including using racial lines to sideline Gypsys from any political control or stability, before Latin America get charged with any WMD BS, I'll like to charge USA, UK, France, Italy, Russia and Germany fof keeping a WMD program, now before I get dictated by ignorants what's best for my people I will like to invite them to change their stand on WMD first, thank you all and don't be an ignorant sheep it makes it easyer for us to hate you. if we want Brazil to be like UK they must have a system that runs like UK including the WMD under the cover name nuclear defence program as everyone else calls it. I hear there is a lot of money to be made from the sell and trade of WMD, as UK, USA and Israel have benefited from it, it's time Brazil makes some cash arming nations under threat and making the kind of money USA and UK makers from the trade.
Nov 27th, 2011 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I wouldn't worry about the nuclear weapons.
Nov 27th, 2011 - 10:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Economic weapons are the new weapon of choice.
24 Pirat-Hunter , indocrination at work
Nov 28th, 2011 - 01:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0oh by the way, you missed out the aliens ?
@sticky
Nov 28th, 2011 - 01:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why everything has to be like this for you? I don't shy away from facing whatever my country has done wrong towards minority groups or foreign nations. I'm not a mediocre cartoon patriot like you. Even though the war was provoked by Paraguayan expansionism, I do believe our army's reaction was disproportionate and inhumane. Still, it wasn't the most destructive war in modern times. On the Paraguayan side, casualties amounted to no more than 300,000 people. The demographic impact was large only because Paraguay had a small population. However, more recent wars - WW1, WW2, Vietnam war, Iran-Iraq War, US-Iraq War - have produced far more casualties.
26 do us all favor and go watch your daily dosage of idiotic programing. I am all up for Brazil to have a nuclear defence program, as many industralized nations have them and I am not even Brazilian.
Nov 28th, 2011 - 04:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'm not a mediocre cartoon patriot like you
Nov 28th, 2011 - 09:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0You was having a pop at the Yanks, I am not a Yank,just pointing out to you nasty things happen in wars
On the Paraguayan side, casualties amounted to no more than 300,000 people. The demographic impact was large only because Paraguay had a small population.
And that makes it OK then?
Regarding the population before the war, Dr. Whigham used a census carried out in the year 1846 in order to calculate, based on a population growth rate of 1.7 to 2.5 percent annually (which was the standard rate in the time and again the aforementioned omissions), that the immediate pre-war population in 1864 was approximately 420,000-450,000 Paraguayans. This figure produces a loss of 60 to 70 percent of the population.
“You was having a pop at the Yanks, I am not a Yank,just pointing out to you nasty things happen in wars”
Nov 28th, 2011 - 10:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0No, you may not be an American, but still you have this tendency to believe that criticism against a nation can be refuted by adducing negative facts on some other nation - even if those 'facts' are irrelevant to the topic at hand. You tend to do that specially when someone points inconvenient facts on Britain.
“And that makes it OK then?”
Are you fucking retarded, sticky? Haven't I already said on the post you replied to that it was NOT justified what the Brazilian army did to Paraguayans? I said: ”(...) I do believe our army's reaction was disproportionate and inhumane“. Do ”disproportionate“ and ”inhumane” mean OK in The Dictionary of Retard? I was only saying that the Paraguayan War wasn't the most destructive, since other wars have caused more casualties. I think my words were pretty clear, though I guess I'll have to repeat myself often when I discuss with someone who's both stupid and addicted to contradicting others just for the sake of it.
“Economic weapons are the new weapon of choice.” Destiny #25
Nov 28th, 2011 - 12:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm reading that the 'mixed economy' of weaponry, economic sequestering, area control, and cyber interference gives a 'country' something called Coercive Force.
This can be deployed as a grand strategy over years and generations to manage world affairs to the progressively greater benefit of the party deploying the strategy most successfully.
I see the strategy behind China's advancement into the modern (Western) world as being managed through the principles of Art of War, the 2000 year old Chinese military treatise, attributed to Sun Tzu - a bit like the ancient game Go (Chinese: 圍棋, Pinyin: Weiqi) but working with the wholw world.
Though Wiki is good on the military dimension, and makes passing reference to the business environment, it nowhere takes the global picture and tests the propositions against what is happening around us today.
This is the 'elephant in the room', as, once you open your eyes to the proposition you can see the evidences all around you.
Stratfor and World Politics Review should be the discussion hubs of this proposition, but they are strangely quiet.
Are you fucking retarded, sticky
Nov 28th, 2011 - 01:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0no, but you might, if you think 60 to 70 percent of A population being killed doesnt compare with Vietnam war, Iran-Iraq War, US-Iraq War - .
Try using your toes when counting :-)
So by your logic, if a nation of only 10 persons is destroyed by some small scale event, say a hurricane, then this otherwise trivial phenomenon of nature must be worse than the 2004 tsunami that killed 200,000 persons in South and Southeast Asian - after all, that tsunami didn't manage to wipe out anyone nation from existence.
Nov 28th, 2011 - 03:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And using your logicl, that Atomic bomb didn't manage to wipe out anyone nation from existence.
Nov 28th, 2011 - 04:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hiroshima Nagasaki
Pre-raid population 255,000 195,000
Dead 66,000 39,000
Injured 69,000 25,000
Total Casualties 135,000 64,000
the japs got off light then
“And using your logicl, that Atomic bomb didn't manage to wipe out anyone nation from existence”
Nov 28th, 2011 - 06:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's not my logic, Einstein, that's yours.
I'm glad the less knowledgable of matters nuclear have stayed with the thread until a common understanding has come about.
Nov 28th, 2011 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm really surprised about this as nuclear fusion/fission is part of every schoolboy textbook.
But the post was about WHY Brasil wants a nuclear-powered submarine.
The arguments presented in the text ALL seem plausible, but all are presented as single competing rationales.
It's my guess that the reason is 'all of the above'.
There is little mileage in being the BRIC Peace Candidate Nation.
They are called the great Powers for a reason, and the ability to create, manage and control nuclear-based technologies fundimentally segregates the greater powers from the lesser powers. That's why we are trying hard to not need to come to terms with North Korea and Iran.
Domestically, and within Unasur, there is an unacceptible asymmetry in having the lame-duck Argentina WITH the technology, and Brasil without it. It's a bit like letting Greece control the European Union.
As for the technology transfer from military submarines to non-military vessels - it's novel, even plausible, but I'm not persuaded.
An interesting posting.
28 Pirat-Hunter
Nov 28th, 2011 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0your reply tells us you are impersonating arnt you,
but who you really are is even less of interest
37 your opinion is your own go share it with someone who actually cares, now I strongly support Brazil rights to have a nuclear defence program we all agree in here that it's noy ok for Argentina to have alone, and as an Argentine I agree we need more nuclear weapons in the south to stop colonist from occupying any part of our continet. this can all be done by arming nations who suffer under UK or USA occupation., this is how UK and USA done it against other nations, why couldn't Brazil do it what are they black ???
Nov 28th, 2011 - 09:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 038 Pirat-Hunter
Nov 29th, 2011 - 12:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0“why couldn't Brazil do it; what are they black ???”
And what's so wrong with black?
8 out of 10 people around here in Bahia - Brasil - are black .
Fail to see your logic.
38 Pirat-Hunter
Nov 29th, 2011 - 12:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0very clever, but are you not colonist, in part
no one suffers under uk occupation,
and with an attatute like that, you will never obtain weapons of mass destruction, bacause you cant be trusted,,
silly people like you think nuclear weapons are a game, little rocket you can throw at people and then bang bang your dead,
.............
the reality is, nuclear weapons are the END GAME, and for irrational children who just want revenge,?
“Domestically, and within Unasur, there is an unacceptible asymmetry in having the lame-duck Argentina WITH the technology, and Brasil without it. It's a bit like letting Greece control the European Union”
Nov 29th, 2011 - 05:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0I don't know who told you Brazil lacks the technology, Geoff, but you're wrong. When Sarney announced during the late 80s that Brazil had finally come to dominate the full nuclear cycle, it was estimated that it would takebut a few years for it to produce the nukes. Of course, this path has been blocked after the anti-nationalist Fernando Collor dismantled the nuclear program in an attempt, a failed attempt, to promote a rapproachment with the US. And mind you, it took so long for Brazil to control the nuclear cycle because the technology it imported from Germany was only experimental; Brazilian scientists had to work their way into improving the inefficient German technology to achieve their aims. And finally, it's not like the knowledge to produce nukes is very exclusive. Though there are less than 10 nuclear armed nations, the IAEA estimates that there are 40 nations with that capability. And Brazil is among them.
maybe I didn't really made my point by saying more then I should, lets try that again, I support the rights to a nuclear defence program in Latin America to rid the land from occupation, colonization or subjugation. now if you want to do some of this things or even part of this things then you deserve to be punished, that's all simple, and by the way I am not asking anyone for this rights, as you can see any nations can claim them and under national security, do what ever it takes to achieve them just like Brazil did, read the report ! see ?? LOL now we have to see if Venezuela likes them as much as Cristina did. maybe Russia and China will help a little, don't be paranoid people it's busyness as usual, this is nothing personal but the world needs many of this subs there is too many thieves and Pirats in the ocean.
Nov 29th, 2011 - 06:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 42 WELL SAID, BLOODY C*NT, IT'S BUSINESS, SO NO COUNTRY WILL PUT ITS OWN PEOPLE AT RISK FOR ARGENTINA, UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING TO WIN, BECAUSE LIKE YOU'VE JUST SAID IT'S ALL BUSINESS. IT'S NOT LIKE COUNTRIES WILL FIGHT THE BATTLES OF ARGENTINA, OUR COUNTRY IS AS ALONE AS ALWAYS, BUT NOW THERE IS SOME MONEY TO WIN, BUT IF THIS CEASE TO BE, ALL THOSE COUNTRIES YOU CALL FRIENDS OF ARGENTINA WILL FLY AWAY FROM ARGENTINA.
Nov 29th, 2011 - 07:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Forgetit,
Nov 29th, 2011 - 11:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0where have I made any reference to nuclear arms?
My comments @ #36 concerned the ability to manage nuclear technologies and the political advantage that accrues from this.
I'm well aware of Brasil's history of development of its capabilities.
However, your statement about Germany's inferior nuclear technology needing Brasil's intellectual input to make it work does a great disservice to the German nationals that have been at the forefront of the developments of nuclear technology since its inception, across Western Europe, the USA and Russia/USSR.
Though I have not the proof to hand, it's my guess that Germans have also played a significant part in the transfer of nuclear technologies to other nations with nuclear capabilities; it could not have ALL been the French!
And I am very much in favour of Brasil's mixed energy production sector including nuclear power stations - alongside the Rio Xingo/Bel Monte hydroelectric scheme.
It doesn't matter what Germans' achievements were. That the nuclear technology they exported to the BR army was substandard and needed adjustments - adjustments national scientists had to make by themselves - is a well known fact. Supposing Germans have exported their technology to other countries, and this technology has worked without having to go through unplanned improvements, then Germany exported a different technology than that which Brazil imported from it.
Nov 29th, 2011 - 11:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0I too am in favour of a diversified energy sector.
43 that's why we need UK to find the oil fast....LOL Russia and China lost quite a lot in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, now will be the perfect time to anounce to Russia and China that they will get at least 50% of the oil in the sea if they place all their military might at Argentina's service as UK, USA, France and Italy did with the NTC in Libya, a good Argentine inteligence service could turn the whole situation around and create a lot of jobs for any nation taking our side, for UK it's just too far to travel, strategically speaking Argentina is on the driver seat with UK and the illegal aliens as just spectator to another Argentine joy ride. get used to it, it'is not the first nor will it be the last, I think we are going have a long lasting hatefull relationship, that is if Iran, Pakistan the Libyan NTC or the Muslims don't put an end to London tomorrow.
Nov 29th, 2011 - 11:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Boy you totally live in cuckoo land,
Nov 30th, 2011 - 12:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0No one will put their military forces at argentine command, or send forces to Argentina,
If you can prove otherwise let us know .
47 we will have enought oil to offer Russia and China and that offer will still be open and more subtantial when the oil starts pumping, don't you wish UK and USA would have made friends rather then sow enemyes ?? there might not be enought oil today, but as peak oil aproaches Russia and China will not sit by the sideline, there is already a Russian ship in Egypt and that is just a warning !!! untill a few years ago we had UK to protect our water, untill they used the excuse to theft the land, now it's time we took it back and a bio-weapons should rid the land from all this british illegal aliens pesants, and no I don't live in cuckoo land, cuckoo land is also illegaly occupyed by british pest.
Nov 30th, 2011 - 02:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0I don't live in cuckoo land,
Nov 30th, 2011 - 03:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The jury's out on that one
bio-weapons? what you going to do drop your shitty pants on them
Wish UK and USA would have made friends [we are]
Nov 30th, 2011 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is already a Russian ship in Egypt [and a Russian ship in the black sea]] and your point is .
,,,,,,,,,
And a bio-weapons,,, [are they bio-de-gradable .
British illegal aliens [what planet] we can send them back, pesky aliens .
I don't live in cuckoo land,[just the chicken bit then .]
And your point is,
The tip of the pencil,
Pencil used for writing,, read by the eyes, and used by the mouth for talking,
And you argie love to talk,
Just a gibberish thought .
As Brazil will likely implode within the next 10 years, just can't see the US allowing nuclear weapons of any description going missing in their own backyard.
Dec 01st, 2011 - 04:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!