小滬尾:
As promised from below, here is the topic for the speculation.

My speculative guess is, at least two nuclear devices.
Original manufacturer: South Africa.

In the 1960s when South Africa was still under white minority rule, the then apartheid government commenced the nuclear weapons development program with assistance from France and Israel. The nuclear weapons were developed for the purpose of the last option against any hostile forces and the Total Onslaught strategies taken by the African liberation organisations intending to force a black majority rule. It is believed that the first nuclear test occured in the 1970s in the south Atlantic. This test blast was only unofficially confirmed in 1994/1995.

Although there have been intense speculations concerning the possible collaborations in sharing the nuclear weapons technologies between South Africa and Taiwan, these allegations were constantly denied by both governments. However, two events in the 1970s and 1980s gave these speculations some credence. They are:

In 1977, the Taiwanese maritime research and expeditions ship Hai Gong arrived in Cape Town en route to Antartica for maritime research. It is widely believed that the actual mission for Hai Gong is to obtain weapon-grade nuclear material (enriched Uranium?) for Taiwan for weapons fabrication. This was a failed mission because of US intervention. (See Black Box of the National Defence Policy, written by Abian in his heyday as a member of Legislative Yuan specialising in Defence Matters)

Ten years later in 1987, South African Airways Flight SA287 Heidelberg departing from Taipei crashed under mysterious circumstances in the Indian Ocean off Mauritius, killing all on board (including many Taiwanese passengers). (One of them is a family friend of mine). Despite an Investigation Commission chaired by an esteemed judge (Judge Cecil Margo passed away a few months ago, possibly bringing some of the hidden secrets to the grave with him) with international participants
(the Taiwanese representative was an air-force general named Liang Long), the Margo Commission could not determine the actual cause of the crash other than possible two fires in the cargo compartment. In reality, a cover-up operation was underway both in Taiwan and in South Africa. It is believed that the fateful flight was transporting material relating to the Nuclear Weapons/Long-range missiles development Programme in South Africa and Taiwan. To date, there were many unanswered questions concerning the content of the cargo and a proper investigation cannot take place due to resistance met in many quarters. However, it is almost certain that the flight was carrying dangerous material strictly forbidden under international civil aviation regulations and these materials caused fire.

In 1995, the last South African President under the apartheid regime, Mr. F W de Klerk, finally admitted the existence of the South African Nuclear Weapons Development Programme just before the pending visit by the IAEA and the signing of the non-nuclear prolification treaty. He has indicated 6 nuclear devices were developed in the 1980s and these 6 devices were dismantled in the early 1990s and the nuclear materials were disposed of. However, the official document records for such dismantling and disposals were either incomplete, destroyed or simply did not exist. This has fuelled the speculations that the six nuclear devices have been removed from South Africa and in safe storage in friendly countries. Taiwan has been mentioned as one of the two countries holding part of these nuclear arsenal. (The other countries being Israel). The reason these nuclear devices (20-100 KT range for each device) were deposited with these friendly countries was that the then apartheid regime feared with the eventual transfer of political power to African hand, this would have meant that an African Black country would have access to Nuclear Weapons. Since African National Congress (ANC) lead by Mr. Nelson Mandela has maintained a close relationship with rogue states such as Libya and Cuba, after the political transition had taken place, these rogue States might have gained invaluable knowledge (and even weapons themselves) from South Africa should these nuclear devices were not removed. In the dying days of the apartheid regime, it still maintained a close military cooperation with Taiwan and it was speculated that one of the agendas of the visit by Mr. de Klerk to Taiwan in 1993 was to negotiate the safe transfer of part of these nuclear devices to Taiwan. It is designed that Taiwan will keep these devices in safe storage and perhaps one day when another government lead by whites arises in the future (a real possibility in 2014 because the high incidence of HIV-infected cases in the black population may reduce the population drastically) they may ask for the return of these nuclear devices. Taiwan received at least two of these devices, according to credible sources.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

小滬尾 　於　2001/01/11 07:14
發表內容：

DH兄,
Thank you very much.
I still do not know how many nukes in Taiwan.ccccc
p.s I am sorry for the misfortune of your friend. May him rest in peace.

各位
DH兄已在開頭說Speculation
所以......
另外這些都是從媒體得來。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

小滬尾 　於　2001/01/11 07:35
發表內容：

DH兄
我政府多次宣示沒擁有核武﹐有發展核武能力但不做核彈﹐核能研究用在和平用途﹗

小弟相信政府的話﹐並支持政府﹗

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DH 　於　2001/01/11 07:43
發表內容：

小滬尾:
Many thanks for the reply.
Reading from the various local media reports, one thing which puzzles me was the stance taken by the United States back in 1993/1994. I know that even today the Yanks have no right to despatch a team of people to remove any suspected nuclear facilities here in this country (as compared to what happened to Taiwan in early 1988 after the death of Chiang Ching-Kuo) I suppose the Yanks would have to make a choice then - either letting the new government having the weapons (and then these nuclear devices would eventually find their way to Colonel Gaddafi) or let the allies such as Taiwan and Israel have them.

I recall when the local media reported about the nuclear devices, they mentioned that these devices were housed in the form of the bombs designed to be carried by the Mirage III/Mirage F1s. If these devices as speculated eventually found their way to the Taiwanese military inventory, then there will no prize in guessing which aircraft will the obvious choice to run the bombing mission should this becomes necessary......

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

小滬尾 　於　2001/01/11 08:33
發表內容：

DH兄
Nuke is very complicated issue. There are lot speculations. The news from SA was one. Part of it was verified by the deflector in 1988.

There was another speculation in 1988 when US dispatched team to dismantle the equipment. It was reported several Kg of Uranium was missing. The CSIST claimed it was due mass-energy tranformation.

They are just speculation. ^_^

It is really nice to learn some info about SA from you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ㄚ易 　於　2001/01/11 08:40
發表內容：

如果台灣有核彈,那也得有載具將它投到中國去才行,不論是F16或是中程地對地飛彈,甚至於是改裝潛艇來發射核武,有了載具核武才有嚇阻力吧....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

小滬尾 　於　2001/01/11 08:47
發表內容：

ㄚ易兄
sky horse

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ㄚ易 　於　2001/01/11 11:15
發表內容：

小滬尾兄:
天馬計劃還有在執行嗎??如果沒有試射過(其實也不能試射九鵬基地隨時都有衛星監視)怎麼樣取得數據??這才是大問題

以色列的耶利哥飛彈起碼也試射過吧

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tsky 　於　2001/01/11 14:01
發表內容：

台灣現行的非核政策是對的, 武力畢竟只是手段, 不是最後目的. 台灣不部署核武是綜合各種利弊得失的考量, 但不代表台灣沒有在短時間部署的能力.
真要揣測, 台灣的核彈頭可能遠多過兩枚, 石門核研所被美國的特種部隊幹掉後, 就有人搖頭搖尾謠言新的地點, 年前媒體批露英國核專家在訪台後發言表示台灣有能力在三十日內部署核武, 剩下大家慢慢推敲吧... 日本也沒有核武, 但是猜一下日本幾天可以部署完有核彈頭的彈道飛彈? 很明顯地台灣在火箭成就上落後日本, 不過.. ...
中國雖然大, 但要用武力來完成屈服台灣的事業根本不是一件可行的事, 就怕國人被唬住了, 然後我們的信心跟經濟就跟著完蛋了. 我們為什麼要鳥一隻紙老虎?
有時說這樣的話是很矛盾的, 我知道彼岸有像ra這樣的朋友, 但是在比例上太少了, 仇恨跟毀滅性是不值得鼓吹的東西, 不過大部份的人是鄉愿的, 只有火燒到手覺得痛才知道收手, 才知道尊重.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DH 　於　2001/01/11 17:31
發表內容：

小滬尾:
The stance taken by the TW government on the non-nuclear prolifiration is the correct one.

Just a few more questions:

Has IAEA conducted any inspection on the Taiwanese nuclear facilities? Is Taiwan a signatory of the non-nuclear prolification treaty? On the same token, is China also a signatory of the non-nuclear prolifiration treaty?
I can safely assume that IAEA has never done any in-depth inspections on the Chinese Nuclear Weapons manufacturing facility.

If TW is not part of the signatories, I think TW should make an effort to become part of the signatories because:

(1) Taiwan does not need any nuclear weapons and Taiwan shall not use nuclear weapons under ANY circumstances. (What for? Fighting the Aliens? ..... :=P )
(2) By signing the treaty, this will raise the international standings of Taiwan and in fact a good vehicle to gain support from the normally apathetic West. It also indirectly opens a back door for Taiwan to join international bodies/organisations and therefore improves the chance (albeit slightly) for TW to gain admission to the membership of UN. (I know this second point is political and therefore contravenes the content rules of this column - but I still have to mention it...)

On the South African information, hey, thanks for having the patience to listen to me. A few years ago the Defence Force here ran a well-oiled army fighting machine. Their air force was not too good and the navy here is a total joke, though. Then again, some of the tech guys were innovative under extremely tight budget and adverse arms procurement conditions (US only lifted arms embargo against S Africa in 1998, FOUR years after the democratic government was installed). For example, the front-line main fighter/interceptor of the SA air force is called Cheetah, which is a patched-up derivative of Mirage III with some Israeli technology added to it. In recent years the defence spending is non-existent and the French did not supply the engines so the aviation guys here went to Russia and bought the reconditioned Mig-29 engines to fit onto the Mirage III.......

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ㄚ易 　於　2001/01/11 17:47
發表內容：

南非的國防自主政策值得我們效法,用老舊的Mirage III改裝成印度豹,現在又將RD93裝進Mirage III,他們的變通精神值得我們效法

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DH 　於　2001/01/11 20:58
發表內容：

ㄚ易:
Yes. The RD-93 deal was a stop-gap measure to lengthen the lifespan of the Cheetah fighter. South Africa has ordered a squadron of SAAB Gripen fighters but as far as I know these ones will only be delivered in 5 years time at least. I was told that these RD93 bought from Russians didnt cost that much.....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

小滬尾 　於　2001/01/11 22:12
發表內容：

ㄚ易兄
1。天馬計劃是20年前的事﹐試射也是20年前的事﹐現在有沒有作﹐當然就要相信政
府的說法啦﹗^_^
2。九鵬上空的衛星不是24小時的﹐會拍照的那幾個都是有規律的﹐所以得按“課表
操課”﹗只是某些科研船就比較“驚喜”些﹗
3。研發ATBM﹐總要打一些靶彈吧﹐靶彈好像。。。。

T兄
完全贊同老兄的看法。

DH兄

台灣所有的核能設備都在國際原子能總署的監督下﹐兩岸應該都有簽署非核擴散條
約﹐不過﹐在老共簽署之前﹐倒是傳授給巴基斯坦不少技術﹗
至於IAEA當然是對台灣進行比中國還嚴苛的監督囉﹗

其實台灣就是這樣﹐雖然沒什麼國際組織會籍﹐或多或少國際上還是睜一眼閉一眼
知道我們的存在﹐想為自己的生存抗爭﹐國際上的協助﹐明的﹐暗的﹐都會有﹐若
是什麼都不想負出﹐國際上就會閉上眼睛﹐然後我們就被某國給吞了﹗

還有﹐老兄請別客氣﹐老兄所提供南非的消息﹐讓我們學到不少﹗

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tsky 　於　2001/01/16 03:11
發表內容：

The person I mentioned above is named Gerald Segal, who is director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. Related articles to be found are dated late 1999..if you are interested.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

小滬尾 　於　2001/01/16 04:13
發表內容：

T兄
Very interesting obsevation from Mr.Segal. Where could I find corrosponding articles?
THX

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Armstrong 　於　2001/01/16 04:54
發表內容：

Just a short footnote (if you havnt known already):
Dr. Gerald Segal died last summer. He was an ardent supporter
of the democratic Taiwan.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tsky 　於　2001/01/16 05:50
發表內容：

滬兄:
先做兩個更正 一是相關文章早在1998就有了 並非在1999年底 二是小弟先前提到的三十日之內部署來自於國內媒體報導 正確性要考證 照Segal在亞洲華爾街日報的說法 需要3~4個月
http://ds.dial.pipex.com/gsegal/wsj5au98.htm
這篇文章釋放出大量的訊息 不過沒有真正精確的情報價值 真正的內幕大概只有圈內人(or 中C央I情A報局? 希望88年已經學到教訓)才知道吧...
網上還有許多相關資料 Seagle也不只在這家媒體刊文 弟貼這篇接近核心的文章先
強臂兄:
是的 小弟先前看過了http://www.taiwandc.org/nws-9942.htm 台灣需要更多朋友

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

小滬尾 　於　2001/01/16 07:03
發表內容：

謝謝T兄
有些消息與小弟得知的類似﹐所以希望大家相信並配合政府﹗
從Dr.Seagle的文筆來看﹐他的確是台灣的友人﹐小弟一向感謝國外友人的關懷與幫
助﹐記得96飛彈危機﹐小弟的美國﹐俄國朋友們﹐甚至還有位大陸朋友誠心向小弟
表示關懷﹐其實台灣不是那種被人遺忘的地方﹗

但是﹐更重要的﹐只有自己愛自己﹐關懷自己的未來﹐用心改善自己的環境﹐才會
有更多的朋友們來幫助我們﹐大家共勉﹗

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DH 　於　2001/01/16 07:10
發表內容：

小滬尾/Tsky:
Now you have mentioned about the Project Skyhorse and this reminds me of an old news I saw a few years ago and my associates were talking about it.
In 199x, a local company called SOMCHEM ,which was a subsidiary company of ARMSCOR (now called DENEL - the SA government-controlled arms manufacturer) were busy testing some medium to long range rocket engines in a place called Sutherland, a few hundred kilometers away from Cape Town. (Sutherland is in the middle of nowhere and it is arid area - close to the desert). What I saw on the TV newsclip was some large rocket engine (looks to be using single-stage solid fuel?) busy firing and the news announcer explained that the test-firing of the rocket engine was to prepare for some satellite-launching rockets in the future. (but the same rocket may have different applications)

Subsquently, my associates told me that at the test-firing, there were some Taiwanese civilians in full attendance. Dont ask me what these Taiwanese people were doing there. I wonder if these Taiwanese gentlemen had anything to do with Sky Horse?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DH 　於　2001/01/16 07:20
發表內容：

小滬尾:
Oh by the way, I think I am really lousy with the Search Engine stuff, but when I log onto IAEAs website, I couldnt find references indicating Taiwan has signed anything about non-prolification of nuclear weapons. Most of the data quoted there concerning Taiwan was under the name Taiwan, China.
Hey, if TW has signed NPNW, did our representative(s) signed using the name Taiwan, China, or China has signed on TWd behalf? In any countries when this kind of treaty is signed, the press will make a song and dance about it. I seem not to remember anything like that ever happened in Taiwan. It is appreciated if you (or anyone else in this site) can provide me with some insight over this issue.
Thank you in advance....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

小滬尾 　於　2001/01/16 07:44
發表內容：

DH兄
1.What happened in SA, just let it be.
We dont know anything. My friend,if there is some info more in-depth, I may delete it for some consideration.

2.Sky horse is the project developed in 1980. Iseral had offered some assistance of Ineratioa guidance system. The other parts were developed by Taiwan mostly.
The rocket was 2-stage propulsion and the test was successful. It was belived that the range is about 950Km,

However, this project leaked. And China threatened US to force Taiwan abort this project. Otherwise, China was going to shut down the USs intelligence network in China, which served for collecting valuable USSR inteligence.

Then, the Sky Hourse was forced to be shut down. However, Taiwan already obtained valuable experience.
Thus, regarding Taiwans TBM, I would say, she is definitely capable, and the project will be caldestine.

3. Taiwan did sign some traety with IAEA. I read that from lot medias. Even, I saw some photo about IAEAs supervision camera installed in those nuclear plant.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DH 　於　2001/01/16 19:32
發表內容：

小滬尾:
Thanks a lot for the reply.

Hey, if you think the information here touches the boundry of sensitivity, please delete it without delay.

What I have said are only speculations. I post the information for reference purposes. There are some other information concering the PLAs attempts to get the military cooperation going with SA National Defence Force. However, I think these news are not really suitable here because their levels of amusement are really great.... :=)

I believe TW definitely has TBM deterrent capability. If the guys across the strait want to invade, I am sure they will run into many nasty surprises.

I wonder, that after all these years, does US still have any intelligence assets (such as listening stations, electronic signal gathering apparatus) in China? I am sure after the demise of USSR the Yanks have pulled out these assets already. On this subject, one of the weaknesses that US have against China is that the HUMINTEL
(human intelligence) is very thin on the ground. I think, in any situation, no matter how far the technology has advanced, there are always some vital information which only HUMINTEL is able to provide. I suppose this is only of the reasons why clandestine cooperations between the State-security organs of Taiwan and US carry on regardless of what the political masters may say in public.

So, by signing the NPNW, Taiwan is part of the IAEA, like it or not. I still feel that the TW government can use this as a stepping stone to get into more world organisations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

小滬尾 　於　2001/01/16 22:27
發表內容：

DH兄
It is really nice to have you here, and your understanding of my concern is deeply appreciated. ^_^

Speaking of the US listening station in China, there used to be one in XinJiang. It is beleived US already withdrawed the facility due to the demise of USSR.
So, I think the principle intelligence operation is HUMINTEL.

Regarding joining more world organizations, the key part is the will, a strong will which never give up and never surrender. Unfortunately, although not too may pro-China scum in this country, they still paly as key part to jeopardize to deter Taiwans movenment.

p.s. I am not talking the Galaxy Quest. heh heh

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tsky 　於　2001/01/17 02:36
發表內容：

ne~~ver gi--up ne~eee~ver s~surren--der...靠.. 滬兄 泥也看了那部片白爛片...hehee
DH兄 謝您的INFO..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

小滬尾 　於　2001/01/17 02:47
發表內容：