Is Saudi Arabia Buying Nukes from Pakistan?

[+and-then]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24823846

If true then how long will it be before Egypt and possibly others in the region follow suit? America is detaching from the region and pivoting east so Russia may decide to build LOTS of reactors

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Honestly, in the parade of ****ty ideas we really shouldn't have developed, nuclear weapons has to be at the forefront.

[DarkHunter]

I am not really surprised by this at all, the current world's military powers seem unwilling to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons so the amount of nations that acquire them is going to increase and with that the chance that they will be used.

Honestly, in the parade of ****ty ideas we really shouldn't have developed, nuclear weapons has to be at the forefront.

I have to disagree, I would say the biological weapons developed during the cold war are far ahead of nuclear weapons in terms of ideas that shouldn't of been developed. A single nuclear bomb may take out a city, but a single bio weapon may take out 75% to 98% of humanity.

[Almagest]

This is something that seems to be overlooked in the Iran/Israel nukes debate. All these countries already feel threatened by a nuclear Israel, and are only going to get more and more paranoid if Iran develops an arsenal too. Ideally the leaders of these other ME nations would wash their hands of the whole nuclear weapon issue, but from a strategic viewpoint holding the moral high ground on the issue isn't going to deter the enemy like having your own arsenal will.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Almagest

[+and-then]

This is something that seems to be overlooked in the Iran/Israel nukes debate. All these countries already feel threatened by a nuclear Israel, and are only going to get more and more paranoid if Iran develops an arsenal too. Ideally the leaders of these other ME nations would wash their hands of the whole nuclear weapon issue, but from a strategic viewpoint holding the moral high ground on the issue isn't going to deter the enemy like having your own arsenal will.

I would say rather that they feel FRUSTRATED by Israel's arsenal. It took away any realistic hope they had of cleansing Islamic lands of the Jew. But frustration isn't in the same league as fear of imminent threat and they know through about 45 years experience that Israel has never had a design on overthrowing their governments or taking their countries. THAT is the real proof of intention - not the shrill rhetoric I hear on UM. But imagine a row that gets out of hand between Sunni Pakistan and Saudi Arabia against the Persians... where do we have an active example of Sunni vs Shia today? WMD's used for the first time in decades - and against civilian populations. Summary execution, rape, every barbarism imaginable - and ON THEIR OWN - ON BELIEVERS. Further imagine that one side has a group of old men who really believe that some messiah has been hiding in a well and will only come when the time is right.i.e. the world is in deadly turmoil. THEN add a nuclear arsenal into the mix and you begin to grasp how dangerous an Iranian bomb may be. And that bomb is a fait accompli now.

[Kaa-Tzik]

So, when will Saudi be bombed by America, anytime soon I wonder........

$$$ hypocrasy and immorality go hand in hand.

[+and-then]

While what you say about hypocrisy, cash and immorality is certainly true, I hadn't heard that S.A. was setting up the means to be a bomb factory. If ever there was a case of true self defense I'd say they have a right. Their main ally (US) is acting insane in the region and their main threat looks to being given a green light to acquire a weapon at whatever point they decide to do so. My guess is that the ONLY reason they did not long ago decide to build their own is that they had assurances (that they could trust) from America. Now that we have become a "Fundamentally Changed" country, they, like many others who used to be allies have realized they need to be looking out for themselves. It isn't at all a good thing but it IS realistic. And very predictable - seems I remember predicting something like it myself a few times.

[Kaa-Tzik]

I see a situation where Iran has unfriendly or potentially unfriendly countries surrounding it who have a nuclear capability, and Iran has none. Yet I am sure that the self serving bleating from those countries and their disgusting media will still be about how "dangerous and evil" Iran is. Rather like a gang of bullies in the playground beating a kid, yet when he tries to defend himself he is threatened even more for the "crime" of defending himself.

[+and-then]

I see a situation where Iran has unfriendly or potentially unfriendly countries surrounding it who have a nuclear capability, and Iran has none. Yet I am sure that the self serving bleating from those countries and their disgusting media will still be about how "dangerous and evil" Iran is. Rather like a gang of bullies in the playground beating a kid, yet when he tries to defend himself he is threatened even more for the "crime" of defending himself.

To the conspiracy minded everything looks like a conspiracy. I don't pretend to be privy to all the realities of that region but when a person genuinely believes Iran is no threat - either with or without nukes then the kindest thing I can say is that I find the to be seriously in error. But the back and forth does no one any good. Time will soon tell. My guess is that this news from S.A. is just a shot across the bow to let the mullahs know that any hegemony they were thinking of will be resisted very strongly - as such it's a good thing. It DOES make one wonder how long it will be before Egypt cranks up a program though...

[Kaa-Tzik]

Oh I'm not pretending that Iran is not a threat to anybody, I am simply looking at this with a cold disspasionate eye. Iran is not the problem, the people in charge are the problem. Eventually they will go.

[+and-then]

Oh I'm not pretending that Iran is not a threat to anybody, I am simply looking at this with a cold disspasionate eye. Iran is not the problem, the people in charge are the problem. Eventually they will go.

True enough - but until they do they will be much more dangerous with a nuke than without one. They have an iron grip on that beautiful country and it's a sickening shame for the young people.

[Kaa-Tzik]

Well, if the British and Americans had not caused a coup and installed the moronic Pahlavi regime for oil revenues, then maybe the conditions for an Islamic revolution would not have occured and this discussion would not be taking place. We cannot turn back time and have to deal with reality, but we need to know why we are where we are, and it is not pretty for those who shout loudest against Iran.

[+and-then]

Well, if the British and Americans had not caused a coup and installed the moronic Pahlavi regime for oil revenues, then maybe the conditions for an Islamic revolution would not have occured and this discussion would not be taking place. We cannot turn back time and have to deal with reality, but we need to know why we are where we are, and it is not pretty for those who shout loudest against Iran.

Of course we have to recognize WHY the situation exists. But is that more important than WHERE it may be taking us? I'm curious KT - do you believe that a nuclear Iran will be a threat to anyone other than Israel or the US? No intention to argue here, just genuinely interested in your thoughts on this regime.

[Kaa-Tzik]

It would of course be better if there were no nukes, though an argument could be made that MAD has prevented WWIII so far. That nukes have spread to unstable areas is a disaster. I predict nuclear war between Pakistan and India, I don't know when but I think it will happen. And I predict major war in the Levant and surrounding area. I think that Iran should not have nuclear weapons, but I also think that no country in that area should have these weapons. Though MAD has worked in the East - West situation, I do not believe it will work as well in other areas of the world. As for Iran and threats. They, or any country, know if they launched nukes against America then that is suicide. Against Israel is not so clear cut. Clearly Isreal will retaliate, but would the American public, or that of any other country, then want to escalate to WWIII. If countries in that region launch nukes at each other it will of course be a terrible tragedy, but it would be better if it was restricted to them, and not involve us. To stop Iran getting nukes will mean nuking them first or invading them, and they will be different to Iraq. Israel is the only country in that are that has nukes so far, this in itself is a cause of tension and they should disarm as the conventional power of America would ensure survival.

[+and-then]

It would of course be better if there were no nukes, though an argument could be made that MAD has prevented WWIII so far. That nukes have spread to unstable areas is a disaster. I predict nuclear war between Pakistan and India, I don't know when but I think it will happen. And I predict major war in the Levant and surrounding area. I think that Iran should not have nuclear weapons, but I also think that no country in that area should have these weapons. Though MAD has worked in the East - West situation, I do not believe it will work as well in other areas of the world. As for Iran and threats. They, or any country, know if they launched nukes against America then that is suicide. Against Israel is not so clear cut. Clearly Isreal will retaliate, but would the American public, or that of any other country, then want to escalate to WWIII. If countries in that region launch nukes at each other it will of course be a terrible tragedy, but it would be better if it was restricted to them, and not involve us. To stop Iran getting nukes will mean nuking them first or invading them, and they will be different to Iraq. Israel is the only country in that are that has nukes so far, this in itself is a cause of tension and they should disarm as the conventional power of America would ensure survival.

Assuming that America doesn't follow the advice of the many who want them to wash hands of the Jewish state. THEN they would be in a pickle pretty quickly - assuming the secular view anyway. But I really don't think Israel would ever first use against anyone. They are about LIFE. If Iran were to nuke an Israeli city their country (Iran) would not survive. Israel has sufficient second strike submarine capacity to destroy every major population area in Iran if they chose to do so.

The deal that is being hammered out will never satisfy Israel because it will leave Tehran with enrichment capability that makes any other concession pointless. My guess is that not long after this agreement is signed we will know if Bibi has been serious or not. Oby's true intentions vis a vis Iran will finally have been fully unmasked. It won't surprise me if Iran announces a bomb sometime next year or the next. It also wouldn't surprise me to wake up to the news that multiple sites in Iran were smoking holes in the ground. Either way it will be a really bad outcome for everyone.

[Kaa-Tzik]

Oby's true intentions vis a vis Iran will finally have been fully unmasked. It won't surprise me if Iran announces a bomb sometime next year or the next. It also wouldn't surprise me to wake up to the news that multiple sites in Iran were smoking holes in the ground. Either way it will be a really bad outcome for everyone.

I think you mean "Darth's", Oby was the good guy

[Yamato]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-24823846

If true then how long will it be before Egypt and possibly others in the region follow suit? America is detaching from the region and pivoting east so Russia may decide to build LOTS of reactors

And why isn't this a threat? Because they stone people to death? Because they teach terrorism and hatred in grade schools? Because they treat their women like cattle? Because they're Sunni? Because a gang of Saudis attacked us on 9/11? Nope, none of the above. It's because there isn't a pitcher of rhetorical kool aid in the media about wiping Israel off the map and the Zionist establishment isn't driving us to war over it.