A Libya with nuclear weapons would have presented an entirely different and dangerous challenge to the current coalition. Most likely it would have blocked it. By some estimates Libya was only seven years away from possessing a usable nuclear weapon when it agreed to end its program in 2003. Given the Colonel's erratic and megalomaniacal behavior, who knows what he might have done?
Ridding Tripoli of its nuclear program was one of the great, if relatively unheralded, successes of non-proliferation in the atomic age. In hindsight this outcome through highly sensitive and secret negotiations changed history.
Within months of seizing power in a military coup, Gaddafi sought to purchase nuclear weapons from China (1969-71), France (1976), India (1978) and the Soviet Union in the 1970s. Unsuccessful, he placed funds in a Swiss bank for purchasing "loose nukes" or fissionable materials from individuals or "below the horizon" groups. Still unable to make the purchases he sought, he opted for the construction of a complete nuclear fuel cycle with overtures to Argentinean, French and American companies and the recruitment of Egyptian scientists. Eventually he found a fully willing partner in A.Q. Kahn, the notorious head of the Pakistani nuclear program and leader of a clandestine network to sell technology.
Gaddafi's quest for nuclear weapons lasted 34 years with shifting motivations. Prestige and the wish to be seen as a leader in the Arab world was an early one, which when lacking in impact was repackaged into becoming an African potentate. Libya, he argued, had the military assets and political independence to lead the continent. Pointing to Israel's nuclear capabilities, he offered an "Islamic bomb" as part of a regional balance. At the same time, Libya was purchasing Mig-23 fighters and Scud missiles from the Soviet Union and was increasingly engaged in terrorist activities in Western Europe, such as the 1986 attack upon American servicemen at La Belle discotheque in Berlin, which led President Reagan to order the dropping of bombs in Tripoli, including on Gaddafi's personal residence. Following the downing in 1998 of Pan Am 103, resulting in the death of 270, the U.N. imposed economic and travel restrictions on Libya, reinforcing earlier American ones. Nevertheless, the Colonel Gaddafi was viewed in parts of the Middle East and Africa as someone who bravely stood up to the West.
So why did the supposedly erratic and unpredictable Libyan leader negotiate away his chemical, biological and nuclear programs?
First, the limitations on oil exports, upon which Tripoli was highly dependent, hurt. Revenue from these exports financed 95 percent of the nation's import of food, technology and equipment. The nation's economic stagnation and political isolation grew. The costs of the armament programs became a matter of concern. This was particularly true for Gaddafi's influential son, a British educated engineer, who came to believe that the nation's interests could better be served by giving up the nuclear quest.
Second, the technology required continued to depend not on indigenous acquisition but imports of uncertain reliability. The interdiction of the German-owned BBC China, a cargo ship on its way from Malaysia to Libya via Dubai and found to be carrying thousands of centrifuge parts obtained through the A.Q. Kahn network, changed thinking with the Libyan scientific community. Perhaps the nuclear program would demand too great a commitment and cost given other national needs.
Third, after the American attack on Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi in spite of his rhetorical bravado was said to have become concerned for his personal safety. Voice was given to worries that Libya could be vulnerable to the same fate as Iraq.
Fourth, special credit must be given to the quiet, professional and secret diplomacy of a small group of foreign affairs and intelligence officials in London, where the negotiations were located, Washington and Tripoli. Ostensibly and successfully dealing with compensation for the families of the Pan Am 103 victims, the Libyan's were put on notice that there would be no agreement and termination of the sanctions without the dismantling of their entire program of weapons of mass destruction. Wisely, the Anglo-Saxons told the leader of the Libyan delegation Musa Kusa, the foreign minister who recently defected, that the dismantlement would involve "verification" but not "inspections" the term used earlier by UNSCOM in Iraq. Libya was allowed to save face, especially important in the Arab world.
Within the Gaddafi regime there had been a gradual realization that nuclear weapons would not enhance Libya's power and prestige, nor be worth the economic costs. Not long after the December 2003 nuclear renunciation, the charismatic colonel went to Brussels, the first trip to Europe in fifteen years. "Libya, which has led the liberation movements of the Third World" he declared, has now decided to lead the peace movements. The first step taken out of my own volition is to discard all weapons of mass destruction".
Does he regret this today?
Andrew J. Pierre is at the U.S. Institute of Peace writing a book Getting to 'No': Why Nations Decide Not to Develop Nuclear Arms
Those assuming he could have succeeded with sabotaged imports haven't been paying attention.
What making silly the situation is that there is countries which is on stand by,they murmuring and making mu mu,looks like they paid off for shut up or shaking itself in afraid of inside revolutions:China,Russia.IF China would let its currency float free-USA would go military on China,because USA is bankrupted country which can not protect any more own citizens from inflation and high prices in oil,America became from country of the Stability into country of the questionable future,the speed at each oil prices rise and food going up it really makes wonder-where had been looking mr.Obama and Congress going to the War being financially expoused to the currency collapse.The only thing left at America is weapons of mass distruction,its pitty that americans and World at whole have suffer from absolutly self centrist governments ,which using any conflict for its own benefits.
With the information available to Gaddafi at the time, investing in nuclear weapons was not worth it. In fact, if Gaddafi had paid more attention to the unrest beforehand, he would not be in this situation - wishing he had a nuke.
A buoyant Muammar Gaddafi made his first television appearance for five days on Saturday and his troops engaged rebels in new fighting on the eastern front in Libya's civil war. Skip related content
While fighting flared up again on the war's only active frontline, a Red Cross ship brought medical supplies to the besieged western city of Misrata, scene of bitter street battles, where conditions are said to be desperate.
Gaddafi's forces shelled the western outskirts of Ajdabiyah, launch point for rebel attacks towards the Mediterranean oil port of Brega.
A Reuters correspondent heard artillery impacts and machinegun fire for around 30 minutes, coming from the western boundary of the town, the gateway to the rebel stronghold of Benghazi 150 km (90 miles) to the northeast.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20110409/tts-uk-libya-ca02f96.html
Al Jazeera television said Gaddafi forces had entered Ajdabiyah.
Gaddafi smiled and pumped his fists in the air as he received an ecstatic welcome at a school in Tripoli, where women ululated and pupils chanted anti-western slogans. One woman cried with emotion as he passed.
Gaddafi, wearing his trademark brown robes and dark glasses, was last seen on television on April 4.
He looked confident and relaxed, confirming the impression among analysts that his administration has emerged from a period of paralysis and is hunkering down for a long campaign.
Not buying it.
Just because you can't hear anything else due to the racket of all the parrots saying so...doesn't make it so.
Gaddafi said the greatest threat to his country's security was posed by uncontrolled immigration from sub-Saharan Africa. He was of course correct.
Has Pakistan puts its own security at risk, due to its nuke programme?
Oh wait, that didn't happen EITHER!
Bush cut a deal with Gaddafi: We'll forget about your blowing up that airliner if you give the oil to our oil companies. There were no nukes. There weren't going to BE any nukes. But there was money to be made from oil so we wrote off the dead from Pan Am flight 103 as acceptable losses.
In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, Bloomberg petitioned under to Freedom of Information Act to review where the dollars loaned by the Federal Reserve went. Perhaps the most staggering revelation is that quite a bit of money went to the Arab Banking Corp., in which the Libyan Central Bank owned about a third of its stock. This occurred while Libya, a declared state sponsor of terrorism, was under strict economic sanctions.
Go figure.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-31/libya-owned-arab-banking-corp-drew-at-least-5-billion-from-fed-in-crisis.html
Right, the only "brave" way to attack in a war is to send a bunch of troops in front of machine guns ensuring 95% casualties on our side, right?