But the more convincing logic is: why would the US want to do that? The fewer other nations have nuclear weapons, the more power the US has over them, either because it can threaten to attack them or because it can provide nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Stationing US weapons in a foreign country and getting to set up a forward base? Heck yeah. Giving up control of those weapons and maybe having them turned against you decades down the line? Not a chance.
"The US" wouldn't. People in the US with great political power would.
Many things can cross moral boundaries, but I think I d rather deal in drugs and slaves, tanks and assault rifles than uranium, if only for money. And if not for money, only for national survival.
We struggled in France to finish our fusion bomb design and a british double agent pointed us at the best model we had that was similar to the british one, we're not sure if he did it for France or because the British wanted us to have it too, but it wasn't for money, for instance, even if it was a terrible decision to make as a human for him Im sure.
1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3 : the antecedent
As the US has been observed doing similar things in the past, this is a perfectly valid hypothesis.
How might one test this?
Wait 50 years for the docs to declassify perhaps.
The US has not been observed doing similar things to your ridiculous narrative in the past.
(Also, if others have speculated, you intend to refer to Israel, their arms were homegrown, not imported, their main technology partner was France, and while by the very end of the program they were on better terms with the US, through much of the time that you conjecture this conspiracy was happening US-Israel relations weren’t great – see, e.g., the Suez Crisis – so it really doesn’t make all that much sense.)
Their nuclear tech was NOT home grown.
Israel hadn’t even crossed my mind.
If you assume an very slow conspiracy that started in 1950 when the US was denying nuclear technology to the UK despite them helping to develop it during WWII, lasted nearly twenty years to transfer 6 weapons, and involved staging a bunch of accidents and murdering US servicemembers to give it plausibility, sure.
But, realistically, no, this is bad even as conspiracy theories go.
> To me it seems viable and probably if my hypothesis is correct there's a country that became a nuclear power soon after we stopped losing them
The nearest after that would be India, and its not particularly close.
Seems like it would be pretty easy to just claim it was damaged or otherwise remove it from inventory in a way that it doesn’t appear missing…. let alone all sorts of other questions.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/warfare/id1526490428?i...
PS
I assume you are referring to Israel. Just come out and say it.
So surreptitiously gifting them isn't a permanent solution.
The greatest source(s) of raw yellowcake for building the thousands of atomic weapons tested and stored for use during that period was former French | Belgian African territories from mines that were operated with no apparent direct US control.
With US backing and former French administrators, intelligence services and military many coups were staged and puppet governments shored up to ensure the yellowcake must flow.
The following articles barely scratch the surface of the story and region, covering just the early supply period in the better known source:
https://theconversation.com/how-a-rich-uranium-mine-thrust-t...