who should we invade next? i know, Brazil!

i guess since Brazil has the ability to build a nuclear weapon, they are now on our "to invade" list.

Brazil has the world's fifth-largest known natural reserves of uranium, and the plant at the center of the controversy, in Resende, 100 miles northwest of here, would allow it to join a select group of about a dozen nations that produce enriched uranium. Both the plant and the enrichment program are partly operated and controlled by the Brazilian Navy, and therefore are considered to have possible civilian and military applications.

Brazil's official position, as expressed by Defense Minister José Viegas this year, is that it deserves a "dignified and differentiated" treatment, recognizing that it is not a rogue state and that its nuclear program exists exclusively for peaceful purposes. But arms control analysts in the United States and Europe have rejected that approach.

"If we give Brasília a pass at the same time that we are bearing down on Tehran, it not only will send exactly the wrong message to would-be proliferators, but will sharply diminish any prospects for success with Iran," Brent Scowcroft, a former United States national security adviser, wrote in June in an essay in The Washington Post.

there comes a time when we have to ask ourselves, are we stopping nuclear proliferation or perpetuating it? too soon, every major industrialized nation in the world will acquire nuclear weapons because it is neccessary for their countries survival. otherwise they will have no bargaining power.

we invaded iraq on the grounds that saddam was building the bomb (which was a lie). meanwhile the rest of the world is in fact doing just that. i don't think we will invade any of these nations because the stakes are too high. no sane person wants a nuclear confrontation. that said, i don't think bush is sane.

update:

for some insight into Brazil's economy and its desire to have a real voice in world affairs, check out this piece from the Council on Hemispheric Affairs. Brazil wants to be a player, and having the bomb would help get them on the security council. i'm not saying they will for sure build nuclear weapons, but it seems the next logical step.

•  security council

  what would be the problem with brasil getting on the security council?  

  anyone have a link to the countries that are on the SC?  are any of them from south america?  it seems like we ignore that part of the world unless we're trying to overthrow democratically-elected governments.

  by anna on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 11:13:05 AM PDT

  •  Current UNSC members

    Americas:  Brazil (until end of 05), Chile (04), United States (permanent)

    Europe:  France (permanent), Germany (04), Romania (05), Russia (permanent), Spain (04, current President), United Kingdom (permanent)

    Africa:  Algeria (05), Angola (04), Benin (05)

    Asia:  China (permanent), Pakistan (04), Philippines (05)

    by BSJinx2 on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 11:43:23 AM PDT

  •  SC

    BBC radio, I think, had an article on some ongoing negotiations to expand the security council's permanent members. Apparently, India, Germany, Japan, and Brazil would be added for sure. People want to have an African seat, either Nigeria or S. Africa, or perhaps a rotating seat. I didn't hear whether or not these new seats would have veto power. Apparently Italy is opposed, since it wouldn't get a seat. It also wants to have an Arab country get a permanent seat.

    Personally, I think that a good SC would be something like: US, Britain, Germany, Russia, Egypt, Brazil, S. Africa, India, China, and Japan. (Drop France -- they're not much of an economic or military power these days, nukes aside.) Permanent, but no veto. Then 10 other rotating countries. 3/4 majority to pass resolutions. But, I'm not in charge. :)
    

    by HarlanNY on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 11:53:53 AM PDT

    •  in theory you're right

      But the US will never give up our veto power.  

      by Beowulf on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 03:24:28 PM PDT

•  actually

  i have no problem with Brazil getting on the security council. i think their stance is what the council needs. what scares me is the spread of nukes and how they are used as leverage. i don't want to see Brazil follow that same path. i don't want to see a nuclear south america. i hope Brazil finally gets a voice in world affairs, but on their own merit.

  i think my snarkness came off wrong. not enough coffee. i am a big supporter of south american growth, as my other diary entries will show. sorry for the confusion.

  by just another vet on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 11:34:11 AM PDT

•  Perfect talking point.

  Ask your GOP friends if we should invade Brazil, since they have shown interest in developing nukes and they have some of the the world's largest uranium reserves.

  by Eternal Hope on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 11:42:20 AM PDT

•  This may yet happen

  I have a Brazilian-American friend who says he is concerned that W might just try to invade Brazil due to the Brazilian President's strong opposition, towards W.

  by IhateBush on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 11:42:47 AM PDT

  •  Not gonna happen....

    But we'd certainly sabotage his economy or make sure friendly Brazilian journalists plant stories to discredit him.

    by scorponic on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 12:57:11 PM PDT

•  Cool!

  Personally, if we are going to be an imperialist power with colonies around the world Brazil would be awesome to have in the fold. We would have Carnival AND Mardi Gras in our empire! Par-tay!

  by joejoejoe on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 12:10:36 PM PDT

  •  Of course ...

    ... Carneval and the Mardi Gras celebration are one and the same, but don't let me spoil your fun. ;)

    by SeltzerDuke on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 04:55:34 PM PDT

•  followup

  IhateBush: i heard the same thing from a canadian friend the other day. scary.

  here is a good article giving insight into the brazilian president's stance on the war on terror.

  Brazil's Lula: War Is Not the Answer to Terror

  With reference to terrorism, Lula declared that terrorism cannot be fought exclusively by military means. "We have to develop strategies combining solidarity and firmness that are rigidly within the rule of law," said the President of Brazil.

  He added that Brazil is opposed to "interfering in the affairs of other nations, but at the same time could not remain indifferent to problems that affect other nations."  

  also, here is an article about reforming the security council and how it affects Brazil.

  Brazil's Rocky Road to a Security Council Seat

  Reform proposals that simply dress the current structure in new clothes and do not provide for an increase in the number of permanent members are manifestly insufficient. The difficulties inherent to any reform process must not make UN Member States lose sight of its urgency.

  Many high representatives specifically mentioned the expansion of the Security Council in both permanent and non-permanent categories, and the inclusion of countries like Brazil as permanent members as a first step in the process of making the United Nations a truly representative body.  

  by just another vet on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 12:14:15 PM PDT

•  Here's the rub.

  Brazil has already done the legwork for the development of nuclear weapons; so too has Argentina, with the obvious motive of maintaining military parity with its much-larger neighbour.  They both, however, have since signed various treaties (under the urging of the existing nuclear powers) to keep South America a nuclear weapon-free zone.  More information on this can be found here.

  So if Brazil were to embark on another quest to become nuclear-armed, this would involve upsetting the existing balance and would grow into a wider regional issue, if not actual conflict.  (While not known as a particularly war-torn corner of the globe, South America has its fair share of unrest and instability and the potential for conflict, in particular with relations between Colombia and Venezuela at one of its lowest points currently, is there.)

  Brazil's attempts to gain a permanent seat on the UN Security Council (its eagerness is only second to India's ambitions for same) are well-intentioned and reasonable, and I'd like to see them succeed on merits beyond its status of nuclear capability.  Unfortunately, considering that the five supposedly 'legitimate' nuclear powers also happen to have permanent seats on the UNSC, one can't blame Brazil for discerning that unofficial qualification.

  by SeltzerDuke on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 04:53:44 PM PDT

  •  thanks

    SeltzerDuke for the link. it is a sad commentary on our world when otherwise peaceful nations feel the need to aquire nuclear technology just so the world will listen to them.

    by just another vet on Sun Sep 26, 2004 at 08:17:10 AM PDT

•  and thank you

  to everyone who commented on this thread. i have cross posted all of this at my blog and will update this if and when more info emerges.

  by just another vet on Sun Sep 26, 2004 at 08:31:03 AM PDT