Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race

Post by Doc »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24823846
Saudi nuclear weapons 'on order' from Pakistan

Saudi Arabia has invested in Pakistani nuclear weapons projects, and believes it could obtain atomic bombs at will, a variety of sources have told BBC Newsnight.

While the kingdom's quest has often been set in the context of countering Iran's atomic programme, it is now possible that the Saudis might be able to deploy such devices more quickly than the Islamic republic.

Earlier this year, a senior Nato decision maker told me that he had seen intelligence reporting that nuclear weapons made in Pakistan on behalf of Saudi Arabia are now sitting ready for delivery.

Last month Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israeli military intelligence, told a conference in Sweden that if Iran got the bomb, "the Saudis will not wait one month. They already paid for the bomb, they will go to Pakistan and bring what they need to bring."

Since 2009, when King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia warned visiting US special envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross that if Iran crossed the threshold, "we will get nuclear weapons", the kingdom has sent the Americans numerous signals of its intentions.

Gary Samore, until March 2013 President Barack Obama's counter-proliferation adviser, has told Newsnight:
Gary Samore Gary Samore served as President Barack Obama's WMD tsar

"I do think that the Saudis believe that they have some understanding with Pakistan that, in extremis, they would have claim to acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan."
“Start Quote

What did we think the Saudis were giving us all that money for? It wasn't charity”

Senior Pakistani official

The story of Saudi Arabia's project - including the acquisition of missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads over long ranges - goes back decades.

In the late 1980s they secretly bought dozens of CSS-2 ballistic missiles from China.

These rockets, considered by many experts too inaccurate for use as conventional weapons, were deployed 20 years ago.

This summer experts at defence publishers Jane's reported the completion of a new Saudi CSS-2 base with missile launch rails aligned with Israel and Iran.

It has also been clear for many years that Saudi Arabia has given generous financial assistance to Pakistan's defence sector, including, western experts allege, to its missile and nuclear labs.

Visits by the then Saudi defence minister Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz al Saud to the Pakistani nuclear research centre in 1999 and 2002 underlined the closeness of the defence relationship.
Saudi Arabia’s undisclosed missile site Defence publisher Jane’s revealed the existence of Saudi Arabia’s third and undisclosed intermediate-range ballistic missile site, approximately 200 km southwest of Riyadh

In its quest for a strategic deterrent against India, Pakistan co-operated closely with China which sold them missiles and provided the design for a nuclear warhead.

The Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan was accused by western intelligence agencies of selling atomic know-how and uranium enrichment centrifuges to Libya and North Korea.

AQ Khan is also believed to have passed the Chinese nuclear weapon design to those countries. This blueprint was for a device engineered to fit on the CSS-2 missile, i.e the same type sold to Saudi Arabia.

Because of this circumstantial evidence, allegations of a Saudi-Pakistani nuclear deal started to circulate even in the 1990s, but were denied by Saudi officials.

They noted that their country had signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and called for a nuclear-free Middle East, pointing to Israel's possession of such weapons.

The fact that handing over atom bombs to a foreign government could create huge political difficulties for Pakistan, not least with the World Bank and other donors, added to scepticism about those early claims.
“Start Quote
Simon Henderson

The Saudis speak about Iran and nuclear matters very seriously. They don't bluff on this issue”

Simon Henderson Director of Global Gulf and Energy Policy Program, Washington Institute

In Eating the Grass, his semi-official history of the Pakistani nuclear program, Major General Feroz Hassan Khan wrote that Prince Sultan's visits to Pakistan's atomic labs were not proof of an agreement between the two countries. But he acknowledged, "Saudi Arabia provided generous financial support to Pakistan that enabled the nuclear program to continue."

Whatever understandings did or did not exist between the two countries in the 1990s, it was around 2003 that the kingdom started serious strategic thinking about its changing security environment and the prospect of nuclear proliferation.

A paper leaked that year by senior Saudi officials mapped out three possible responses - to acquire their own nuclear weapons, to enter into an arrangement with another nuclear power to protect the kingdom, or to rely on the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East.

It was around the same time, following the US invasion of Iraq, that serious strains in the US/Saudi relationship began to show themselves, says Gary Samore.

The Saudis resented the removal of Saddam Hussein, had long been unhappy about US policy on Israel, and were growing increasingly concerned about the Iranian nuclear program.

In the years that followed, diplomatic chatter about Saudi-Pakistani nuclear cooperation began to increase.

In 2007, the US mission in Riyadh noted they were being asked questions by Pakistani diplomats about US knowledge of "Saudi-Pakistani nuclear cooperation".

The unnamed Pakistanis opined that "it is logical for the Saudis to step in as the physical 'protector'" of the Arab world by seeking nuclear weapons, according to one of the State Department cables posted by Wikileaks.

By the end of that decade Saudi princes and officials were giving explicit warnings of their intention to acquire nuclear weapons if Iran did.

Having warned the Americans in private for years, last year Saudi officials in Riyadh escalated it to a public warning, telling a journalist from the Times "it would be completely unacceptable to have Iran with a nuclear capability and not the kingdom".

But were these statements bluster, aimed at forcing a stronger US line on Iran, or were they evidence of a deliberate, long-term plan for a Saudi bomb? Both, is the answer I have received from former key officials.

One senior Pakistani, speaking on background terms, confirmed the broad nature of the deal - probably unwritten - his country had reached with the kingdom and asked rhetorically "what did we think the Saudis were giving us all that money for? It wasn't charity."

Another, a one-time intelligence officer from the same country, said he believed "the Pakistanis certainly maintain a certain number of warheads on the basis that if the Saudis were to ask for them at any given time they would immediately be transferred."

As for the seriousness of the Saudi threat to make good on the deal, Simon Henderson, Director of the Global Gulf and Energy Policy Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told BBC Newsnight "the Saudis speak about Iran and nuclear matters very seriously. They don't bluff on this issue."

Talking to many serving and former officials about this over the past few months, the only real debate I have found is about how exactly the Saudi Arabians would redeem the bargain with Pakistan.

Some think it is a cash-and-carry deal for warheads, the first of those options sketched out by the Saudis back in 2003; others that it is the second, an arrangement under which Pakistani nuclear forces could be deployed in the kingdom.

Gary Samore, considering these questions at the centre of the US intelligence and policy web, at the White House until earlier this year, thinks that what he calls, "the Nato model", is more likely.

However ,"I think just giving Saudi Arabia a handful of nuclear weapons would be a very provocative action", says Gary Samore.

He adds: "I've always thought it was much more likely - the most likely option if Pakistan were to honour any agreement would be for be for Pakistan to send its own forces, its own troops armed with nuclear weapons and with delivery systems to be deployed in Saudi Arabia".

This would give a big political advantage to Pakistan since it would allow them to deny that they had simply handed over the weapons, but implies a dual key system in which they would need to agree in order for 'Saudi Arabian' "nukes" to be launched.

Others I have spoken to think this is not credible, since Saudi Arabia, which regards itself as the leader of the broader Sunni Islamic 'ummah' or community, would want complete control of its nuclear deterrent, particularly at this time of worsening sectarian confrontation with Shia Iran.
Map of Saudi Arabia

And it is Israeli information - that Saudi Arabia is now ready to take delivery of finished warheads for its long-range missiles - that informs some recent US and Nato intelligence reporting. Israel of course shares Saudi Arabia's motive in wanting to worry the US into containing Iran.

Amos Yadlin declined to be interviewed for our BBC Newsnight report, but told me by email that "unlike other potential regional threats, the Saudi one is very credible and imminent."

Even if this view is accurate there are many good reasons for Saudi Arabia to leave its nuclear warheads in Pakistan for the time being.

Doing so allows the kingdom to deny there are any on its soil. It avoids challenging Iran to cross the nuclear threshold in response, and it insulates Pakistan from the international opprobrium of being seen to operate an atomic cash-and-carry.

These assumptions though may not be safe for much longer. The US diplomatic thaw with Iran has touched deep insecurities in Riyadh, which fears that any deal to constrain the Islamic republic's nuclear program would be ineffective.

Earlier this month the Saudi intelligence chief and former ambassador to Washington Prince Bandar announced that the kingdom would be distancing itself more from the US.

While investigating this, I have heard rumours on the diplomatic grapevine, that Pakistan has recently actually delivered Shaheen mobile ballistic missiles to Saudi Arabia, minus warheads.

These reports, still unconfirmed, would suggest an ability to deploy nuclear weapons in the kingdom, and mount them on an effective, modern, missile system more quickly than some analysts had previously imagined.

In Egypt, Saudi Arabia showed itself ready to step in with large-scale backing following the military overthrow of President Mohammed Morsi's government.

There is a message here for Pakistan, of Riyadh being ready to replace US military assistance or World Bank loans, if standing with Saudi Arabia causes a country to lose them.

Newsnight contacted both the Pakistani and Saudi governments. The Pakistan Foreign Ministry has described our story as "speculative, mischievous and baseless".

It adds: "Pakistan is a responsible nuclear weapon state with robust command and control structures and comprehensive export controls."

The Saudi embassy in London has also issued a statement pointing out that the Kingdom is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and has worked for a nuclear free Middle East.

But it also points out that the UN's "failure to make the Middle East a nuclear free zone is one of the reasons the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia rejected the offer of a seat on the UN Security Council".

It says the Saudi Foreign Minister has stressed that this lack of international action "has put the region under the threat of a time bomb that cannot easily be defused by manoeuvring around it".
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race

Post by Ibrahim »

The story is that Saudi Arabia has talking about possibly acquiring nuclear weapons, and that according to an unnamed NATO source and a former Israeli intelligence official Pakistan has offered to help them. So nobody has "won" anything yet.


I will say that if the KSA decides they really want nuclear weapons there is no clear way to stop them. It doesn't look like anybody can stop Iran, and they are much more politically and strategically isolated than Saudi Arabia.

I think they are just posturing, but anything is possible.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race

Post by Mr. Perfect »

A lot of naivete.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:The story is that Saudi Arabia has talking about possibly acquiring nuclear weapons, and that according to an unnamed NATO source and a former Israeli intelligence official Pakistan has offered to help them. So nobody has "won" anything yet.


I will say that if the KSA decides they really want nuclear weapons there is no clear way to stop them. It doesn't look like anybody can stop Iran, and they are much more politically and strategically isolated than Saudi Arabia.

I think they are just posturing, but anything is possible.
Are you kidding me? There is no way on earth that the Saudis are not actively working on getting control of a nuke. No way at this point. They know Iran will have one as soon a a month from now. They figure the USand / or Israel is not going to strike Iran and pritect them if Iran launches a nuclear strike on the KSA. The US no longer needs Saudi Oil. I can't imagine anyone else stepping up to protect them.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
noddy
Posts: 11325
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race

Post by noddy »

somedays i really count my blessings to be born in the southern hemisphere, yay for prevailing winds..
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11574
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Doc wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24823846
Saudi nuclear weapons 'on order' from Pakistan

Saudi Arabia has invested in Pakistani nuclear weapons projects, and believes it could obtain atomic bombs at will, a variety of sources have told BBC Newsnight.

While the kingdom's quest has often been set in the context of countering Iran's atomic programme, it is now possible that the Saudis might be able to deploy such devices more quickly than the Islamic republic.

Earlier this year, a senior Nato decision maker told me that he had seen intelligence reporting that nuclear weapons made in Pakistan on behalf of Saudi Arabia are now sitting ready for delivery.

Last month Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israeli military intelligence, told a conference in Sweden that if Iran got the bomb, "the Saudis will not wait one month. They already paid for the bomb, they will go to Pakistan and bring what they need to bring."

Since 2009, when King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia warned visiting US special envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross that if Iran crossed the threshold, "we will get nuclear weapons", the kingdom has sent the Americans numerous signals of its intentions.

Gary Samore, until March 2013 President Barack Obama's counter-proliferation adviser, has told Newsnight:
Gary Samore Gary Samore served as President Barack Obama's WMD tsar

"I do think that the Saudis believe that they have some understanding with Pakistan that, in extremis, they would have claim to acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan."
“Start Quote

What did we think the Saudis were giving us all that money for? It wasn't charity”

Senior Pakistani official

The story of Saudi Arabia's project - including the acquisition of missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads over long ranges - goes back decades.

In the late 1980s they secretly bought dozens of CSS-2 ballistic missiles from China.

These rockets, considered by many experts too inaccurate for use as conventional weapons, were deployed 20 years ago.

This summer experts at defence publishers Jane's reported the completion of a new Saudi CSS-2 base with missile launch rails aligned with Israel and Iran.

It has also been clear for many years that Saudi Arabia has given generous financial assistance to Pakistan's defence sector, including, western experts allege, to its missile and nuclear labs.

Visits by the then Saudi defence minister Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz al Saud to the Pakistani nuclear research centre in 1999 and 2002 underlined the closeness of the defence relationship.
Saudi Arabia’s undisclosed missile site Defence publisher Jane’s revealed the existence of Saudi Arabia’s third and undisclosed intermediate-range ballistic missile site, approximately 200 km southwest of Riyadh

In its quest for a strategic deterrent against India, Pakistan co-operated closely with China which sold them missiles and provided the design for a nuclear warhead.

The Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan was accused by western intelligence agencies of selling atomic know-how and uranium enrichment centrifuges to Libya and North Korea.

AQ Khan is also believed to have passed the Chinese nuclear weapon design to those countries. This blueprint was for a device engineered to fit on the CSS-2 missile, i.e the same type sold to Saudi Arabia.

Because of this circumstantial evidence, allegations of a Saudi-Pakistani nuclear deal started to circulate even in the 1990s, but were denied by Saudi officials.

They noted that their country had signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and called for a nuclear-free Middle East, pointing to Israel's possession of such weapons.

The fact that handing over atom bombs to a foreign government could create huge political difficulties for Pakistan, not least with the World Bank and other donors, added to scepticism about those early claims.
“Start Quote
Simon Henderson

The Saudis speak about Iran and nuclear matters very seriously. They don't bluff on this issue”

Simon Henderson Director of Global Gulf and Energy Policy Program, Washington Institute

In Eating the Grass, his semi-official history of the Pakistani nuclear program, Major General Feroz Hassan Khan wrote that Prince Sultan's visits to Pakistan's atomic labs were not proof of an agreement between the two countries. But he acknowledged, "Saudi Arabia provided generous financial support to Pakistan that enabled the nuclear program to continue."

Whatever understandings did or did not exist between the two countries in the 1990s, it was around 2003 that the kingdom started serious strategic thinking about its changing security environment and the prospect of nuclear proliferation.

A paper leaked that year by senior Saudi officials mapped out three possible responses - to acquire their own nuclear weapons, to enter into an arrangement with another nuclear power to protect the kingdom, or to rely on the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East.

It was around the same time, following the US invasion of Iraq, that serious strains in the US/Saudi relationship began to show themselves, says Gary Samore.

The Saudis resented the removal of Saddam Hussein, had long been unhappy about US policy on Israel, and were growing increasingly concerned about the Iranian nuclear program.

In the years that followed, diplomatic chatter about Saudi-Pakistani nuclear cooperation began to increase.

In 2007, the US mission in Riyadh noted they were being asked questions by Pakistani diplomats about US knowledge of "Saudi-Pakistani nuclear cooperation".

The unnamed Pakistanis opined that "it is logical for the Saudis to step in as the physical 'protector'" of the Arab world by seeking nuclear weapons, according to one of the State Department cables posted by Wikileaks.

By the end of that decade Saudi princes and officials were giving explicit warnings of their intention to acquire nuclear weapons if Iran did.

Having warned the Americans in private for years, last year Saudi officials in Riyadh escalated it to a public warning, telling a journalist from the Times "it would be completely unacceptable to have Iran with a nuclear capability and not the kingdom".

But were these statements bluster, aimed at forcing a stronger US line on Iran, or were they evidence of a deliberate, long-term plan for a Saudi bomb? Both, is the answer I have received from former key officials.

One senior Pakistani, speaking on background terms, confirmed the broad nature of the deal - probably unwritten - his country had reached with the kingdom and asked rhetorically "what did we think the Saudis were giving us all that money for? It wasn't charity."

Another, a one-time intelligence officer from the same country, said he believed "the Pakistanis certainly maintain a certain number of warheads on the basis that if the Saudis were to ask for them at any given time they would immediately be transferred."

As for the seriousness of the Saudi threat to make good on the deal, Simon Henderson, Director of the Global Gulf and Energy Policy Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told BBC Newsnight "the Saudis speak about Iran and nuclear matters very seriously. They don't bluff on this issue."

Talking to many serving and former officials about this over the past few months, the only real debate I have found is about how exactly the Saudi Arabians would redeem the bargain with Pakistan.

Some think it is a cash-and-carry deal for warheads, the first of those options sketched out by the Saudis back in 2003; others that it is the second, an arrangement under which Pakistani nuclear forces could be deployed in the kingdom.

Gary Samore, considering these questions at the centre of the US intelligence and policy web, at the White House until earlier this year, thinks that what he calls, "the Nato model", is more likely.

However ,"I think just giving Saudi Arabia a handful of nuclear weapons would be a very provocative action", says Gary Samore.

He adds: "I've always thought it was much more likely - the most likely option if Pakistan were to honour any agreement would be for be for Pakistan to send its own forces, its own troops armed with nuclear weapons and with delivery systems to be deployed in Saudi Arabia".

This would give a big political advantage to Pakistan since it would allow them to deny that they had simply handed over the weapons, but implies a dual key system in which they would need to agree in order for 'Saudi Arabian' "nukes" to be launched.

Others I have spoken to think this is not credible, since Saudi Arabia, which regards itself as the leader of the broader Sunni Islamic 'ummah' or community, would want complete control of its nuclear deterrent, particularly at this time of worsening sectarian confrontation with Shia Iran.
Map of Saudi Arabia

And it is Israeli information - that Saudi Arabia is now ready to take delivery of finished warheads for its long-range missiles - that informs some recent US and Nato intelligence reporting. Israel of course shares Saudi Arabia's motive in wanting to worry the US into containing Iran.

Amos Yadlin declined to be interviewed for our BBC Newsnight report, but told me by email that "unlike other potential regional threats, the Saudi one is very credible and imminent."

Even if this view is accurate there are many good reasons for Saudi Arabia to leave its nuclear warheads in Pakistan for the time being.

Doing so allows the kingdom to deny there are any on its soil. It avoids challenging Iran to cross the nuclear threshold in response, and it insulates Pakistan from the international opprobrium of being seen to operate an atomic cash-and-carry.

These assumptions though may not be safe for much longer. The US diplomatic thaw with Iran has touched deep insecurities in Riyadh, which fears that any deal to constrain the Islamic republic's nuclear program would be ineffective.

Earlier this month the Saudi intelligence chief and former ambassador to Washington Prince Bandar announced that the kingdom would be distancing itself more from the US.

While investigating this, I have heard rumours on the diplomatic grapevine, that Pakistan has recently actually delivered Shaheen mobile ballistic missiles to Saudi Arabia, minus warheads.

These reports, still unconfirmed, would suggest an ability to deploy nuclear weapons in the kingdom, and mount them on an effective, modern, missile system more quickly than some analysts had previously imagined.

In Egypt, Saudi Arabia showed itself ready to step in with large-scale backing following the military overthrow of President Mohammed Morsi's government.

There is a message here for Pakistan, of Riyadh being ready to replace US military assistance or World Bank loans, if standing with Saudi Arabia causes a country to lose them.

Newsnight contacted both the Pakistani and Saudi governments. The Pakistan Foreign Ministry has described our story as "speculative, mischievous and baseless".

It adds: "Pakistan is a responsible nuclear weapon state with robust command and control structures and comprehensive export controls."

The Saudi embassy in London has also issued a statement pointing out that the Kingdom is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and has worked for a nuclear free Middle East.

But it also points out that the UN's "failure to make the Middle East a nuclear free zone is one of the reasons the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia rejected the offer of a seat on the UN Security Council".

It says the Saudi Foreign Minister has stressed that this lack of international action "has put the region under the threat of a time bomb that cannot easily be defused by manoeuvring around it".

.

Paki will take the money and put their DICK on the table :lol: :lol: (can't stop laughing)

look, DOC, America, West has accepted Iran as a nuclear power

and

Iran is a responsible nation .. like China or India

but Saudi Arabia ? ? ? Al Saud on slippery slope, they having nuclear weapon same as Al Qaida have nuclear weapon, NY here we come

Saudi Arab kept alive by Western intelligence services and commandos, sometimes outsourced to Paki

In that sense, relaaaax

and

you wanna bet Ibn Saud mafia no more in less than 2-3 yrs ? ? ? .. not Assad but Ibn Saud will be no more

.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race

Post by Doc »

Heracleum Persicum wrote:
Doc wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24823846
Saudi nuclear weapons 'on order' from Pakistan

.

Paki will take the money and put their DICK on the table :lol: :lol: (can't stop laughing)

look, DOC, America, West has accepted Iran as a nuclear power

and

Iran is a responsible nation .. like China or India

but Saudi Arabia ? ? ? Al Saud on slippery slope, they having nuclear weapon same as Al Qaida have nuclear weapon, NY here we come

Saudi Arab kept alive by Western intelligence services and commandos, sometimes outsourced to Paki

In that sense, relaaaax

and

you wanna bet Ibn Saud mafia no more in less than 2-3 yrs ? ? ? .. not Assad but Ibn Saud will be no more

.
"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."
Instead if Iran being cintained by the US it is now being contained by the Sunni Muslim world. Do you imagine that is a good thing?

Year ago when Pakistan first exploded an atomic bomb I happened to be walking across the national mall in Washington DC I walked past a rally of Pakistanis celebrating the fact they they could kill millions of Indians in less than two minutes and of course India could do the same.

Does that sound like something to celebrate?
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:The story is that Saudi Arabia has talking about possibly acquiring nuclear weapons, and that according to an unnamed NATO source and a former Israeli intelligence official Pakistan has offered to help them. So nobody has "won" anything yet.


I will say that if the KSA decides they really want nuclear weapons there is no clear way to stop them. It doesn't look like anybody can stop Iran, and they are much more politically and strategically isolated than Saudi Arabia.

I think they are just posturing, but anything is possible.
Are you kidding me? There is no way on earth that the Saudis are not actively working on getting control of a nuke. No way at this point.
That's not what your article says.

They know Iran will have one as soon a a month from now.
I've been hearing this for ten years. But usually they say "six months."

The US no longer needs Saudi Oil.
:lol:

Do you understand how the price of oil is set?
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:The story is that Saudi Arabia has talking about possibly acquiring nuclear weapons, and that according to an unnamed NATO source and a former Israeli intelligence official Pakistan has offered to help them. So nobody has "won" anything yet.


I will say that if the KSA decides they really want nuclear weapons there is no clear way to stop them. It doesn't look like anybody can stop Iran, and they are much more politically and strategically isolated than Saudi Arabia.

I think they are just posturing, but anything is possible.
Are you kidding me? There is no way on earth that the Saudis are not actively working on getting control of a nuke. No way at this point.
That's not what your article says.

They know Iran will have one as soon a a month from now.
I beg to differ first line of article
Saudi Arabia has invested in Pakistani nuclear weapons projects, and believes it could obtain atomic bombs at will, a variety of sources have told BBC Newsnight.
I've been hearing this for ten years. But usually they say "six months."

The US no longer needs Saudi Oil.
:lol:

Do you understand how the price of oil is set?
Did you know:


http://realmoney.thestreet.com/articles ... il-exports
The U.S. is on track to become the world's leading producer of oil in a few years. We are already one of the world's lowest-cost producers of natural gas and perhaps the only country with the combination of a structural advantage in natural gas prices and the industrial base to make use of it. Yet Washington, D.C., has not yet come to grips with this; it may still be years before Washington does.
Contrary to what many analysts believe, it is not illegal to export to crude oil from the U.S., but exports do require Commerce Department approval and are highly restricted.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11574
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Doc wrote:
Heracleum Persicum wrote:
Doc wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24823846
Saudi nuclear weapons 'on order' from Pakistan

.

Paki will take the money and put their DICK on the table :lol: :lol: (can't stop laughing)

look, DOC, America, West has accepted Iran as a nuclear power

and

Iran is a responsible nation .. like China or India

but Saudi Arabia ? ? ? Al Saud on slippery slope, they having nuclear weapon same as Al Qaida have nuclear weapon, NY here we come

Saudi Arab kept alive by Western intelligence services and commandos, sometimes outsourced to Paki

In that sense, relaaaax

and

you wanna bet Ibn Saud mafia no more in less than 2-3 yrs ? ? ? .. not Assad but Ibn Saud will be no more

.
"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."
Instead if Iran being cintained by the US it is now being contained by the Sunni Muslim world. Do you imagine that is a good thing?

Year ago when Pakistan first exploded an atomic bomb I happened to be walking across the national mall in Washington DC I walked past a rally of Pakistanis celebrating the fact they they could kill millions of Indians in less than two minutes and of course India could do the same.

Does that sound like something to celebrate ?

.

Iran will be a nuclear power as japan is, Germany is, Brazil is, Argentina is .. meaning have the capability to but will not produce nuclear weapon .. reason for this is, beside other issues, Nuclear Weapon have neither military nor strategic value, nuclear weapon is a genocide weapon and no military weapon

but

nuclear technology essential, key, to many non military science, medical, energy and industrial use .. Iran too will participate in all this

Iran will not produce nuclear weapon, but will have the capacity

.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race

Post by Doc »

Heracleum Persicum wrote:
Doc wrote:
Heracleum Persicum wrote:
Doc wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24823846
Saudi nuclear weapons 'on order' from Pakistan

.

Paki will take the money and put their DICK on the table :lol: :lol: (can't stop laughing)

look, DOC, America, West has accepted Iran as a nuclear power

and

Iran is a responsible nation .. like China or India

but Saudi Arabia ? ? ? Al Saud on slippery slope, they having nuclear weapon same as Al Qaida have nuclear weapon, NY here we come

Saudi Arab kept alive by Western intelligence services and commandos, sometimes outsourced to Paki

In that sense, relaaaax

and

you wanna bet Ibn Saud mafia no more in less than 2-3 yrs ? ? ? .. not Assad but Ibn Saud will be no more

.
"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."
Instead if Iran being cintained by the US it is now being contained by the Sunni Muslim world. Do you imagine that is a good thing?

Year ago when Pakistan first exploded an atomic bomb I happened to be walking across the national mall in Washington DC I walked past a rally of Pakistanis celebrating the fact they they could kill millions of Indians in less than two minutes and of course India could do the same.

Does that sound like something to celebrate ?

.

Iran will be a nuclear power as japan is, Germany is, Brazil is, Argentina is .. meaning have the capability to but will not produce nuclear weapon .. reason for this is, beside other issues, Nuclear Weapon have neither military nor strategic value, nuclear weapon is a genocide weapon and no military weapon

but

nuclear technology essential, key, to many non military science, medical, energy and industrial use .. Iran too will participate in all this

Iran will not produce nuclear weapon, but will have the capacity

.
It is only a matter of time before one is built as a deterent and used either out of fear or paranoia or by some nut case with a hormone problem. I am not even sure about the current occupant of the White House given his statement about being good at killing people. Does he imainge himself another stlain Mao or Hitler?
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:The story is that Saudi Arabia has talking about possibly acquiring nuclear weapons, and that according to an unnamed NATO source and a former Israeli intelligence official Pakistan has offered to help them. So nobody has "won" anything yet.


I will say that if the KSA decides they really want nuclear weapons there is no clear way to stop them. It doesn't look like anybody can stop Iran, and they are much more politically and strategically isolated than Saudi Arabia.

I think they are just posturing, but anything is possible.
Are you kidding me? There is no way on earth that the Saudis are not actively working on getting control of a nuke. No way at this point.
That's not what your article says.

They know Iran will have one as soon a a month from now.
I beg to differ first line of article
Saudi Arabia has invested in Pakistani nuclear weapons projects, and believes it could obtain atomic bombs at will, a variety of sources have told BBC Newsnight.
I've been hearing this for ten years. But usually they say "six months."

The US no longer needs Saudi Oil.
:lol:

Do you understand how the price of oil is set?
Did you know:


http://realmoney.thestreet.com/articles ... il-exports
The U.S. is on track to become the world's leading producer of oil in a few years. We are already one of the world's lowest-cost producers of natural gas and perhaps the only country with the combination of a structural advantage in natural gas prices and the industrial base to make use of it. Yet Washington, D.C., has not yet come to grips with this; it may still be years before Washington does.
Contrary to what many analysts believe, it is not illegal to export to crude oil from the U.S., but exports do require Commerce Department approval and are highly restricted.
Saudi production and reserves are key in setting the global price per barrel, which is crucial to the American economy. The physical location of oil isn't as important as the global supply (or perception thereof). The Saudis could simply reduce production and seriously damage the US economy.


As for what the article says, I read the article and it clearly doesn't say that the Saudis are actually constructing nuclear weapons at present. Do they have the capability? Every developed country or wealthy country has the capability.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:The story is that Saudi Arabia has talking about possibly acquiring nuclear weapons, and that according to an unnamed NATO source and a former Israeli intelligence official Pakistan has offered to help them. So nobody has "won" anything yet.


I will say that if the KSA decides they really want nuclear weapons there is no clear way to stop them. It doesn't look like anybody can stop Iran, and they are much more politically and strategically isolated than Saudi Arabia.

I think they are just posturing, but anything is possible.
Are you kidding me? There is no way on earth that the Saudis are not actively working on getting control of a nuke. No way at this point.
That's not what your article says.

They know Iran will have one as soon a a month from now.
I beg to differ first line of article
Saudi Arabia has invested in Pakistani nuclear weapons projects, and believes it could obtain atomic bombs at will, a variety of sources have told BBC Newsnight.
I've been hearing this for ten years. But usually they say "six months."

The US no longer needs Saudi Oil.
:lol:

Do you understand how the price of oil is set?
Did you know:


http://realmoney.thestreet.com/articles ... il-exports
The U.S. is on track to become the world's leading producer of oil in a few years. We are already one of the world's lowest-cost producers of natural gas and perhaps the only country with the combination of a structural advantage in natural gas prices and the industrial base to make use of it. Yet Washington, D.C., has not yet come to grips with this; it may still be years before Washington does.
Contrary to what many analysts believe, it is not illegal to export to crude oil from the U.S., but exports do require Commerce Department approval and are highly restricted.
Saudi production and reserves are key in setting the global price per barrel, which is crucial to the American economy. The physical location of oil isn't as important as the global supply (or perception thereof). The Saudis could simply reduce production and seriously damage the US economy.
The US by 2017 will be self reliant WRT oil The natural gas is just an added bonus and that will lower domestic oil demand. IE The Saudis can eat their oil. Can burn it. Can pour it in the ocean and there will be no direct effect on the US if the US choses not to let it have an effect.

As for what the article says, I read the article and it clearly doesn't say that the Saudis are actually constructing nuclear weapons at present. Do they have the capability? Every developed country or wealthy country has the capability.
"Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race" Does not say the Saudis are building a bomb.
Last edited by Doc on Sat Nov 09, 2013 3:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Doldrums to the Rescue of Oz........

Post by monster_gardener »

noddy wrote:somedays i really count my blessings to be born in the southern hemisphere, yay for prevailing winds..
Thank You VERY MUCH for your post, Noddy.

Quite Right!

Doldrums to the Rescue of Oz.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doldrums

Probably but good to be as far South as possible........

Exactly where the Zone is can vary......
The location of the intertropical convergence zone varies over time. Over land, it moves back and forth across the equator following the sun's zenith point. Over the oceans, where the convergence zone is better defined, the seasonal cycle is more subtle, as the convection is constrained by the distribution of ocean temperatures. Sometimes, a double ITCZ forms, with one located north and another south of the equator. When this occurs, a narrow ridge of high pressure forms between the two convergence zones, one of which is usually stronger than the other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intertropi ... gence_Zone

Still build a fallout shelter......

And hope the nukes aren't salted with Cobalt.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Beach_%28novel%29

Or be on a sustainable Moon, Mars or Asteroid Colony......
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:Saudi production and reserves are key in setting the global price per barrel, which is crucial to the American economy. The physical location of oil isn't as important as the global supply (or perception thereof). The Saudis could simply reduce production and seriously damage the US economy.
The US by 2017 will be self reliant WRT oil The natural gas is just an added bonus and that will lower domestic oil demand. IE The Saudis can eat their oil. Can burn it. Can pour it in the ocean and there will be no direct effect on the US if the US choses not to let it have an effect.

By this statement do you mean to say that the US will not participate in the global commodities market and become and internally subsidize fuel costs for its citizens? Very Hugo Chavez socialist.




As for what the article says, I read the article and it clearly doesn't say that the Saudis are actually constructing nuclear weapons at present. Do they have the capability? Every developed country or wealthy country has the capability.
"Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race" Does not say the Saudis are building a bomb.
Then please explain exactly what you mean when you say "Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race."
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:Saudi production and reserves are key in setting the global price per barrel, which is crucial to the American economy. The physical location of oil isn't as important as the global supply (or perception thereof). The Saudis could simply reduce production and seriously damage the US economy.
The US by 2017 will be self reliant WRT oil The natural gas is just an added bonus and that will lower domestic oil demand. IE The Saudis can eat their oil. Can burn it. Can pour it in the ocean and there will be no direct effect on the US if the US choses not to let it have an effect.

By this statement do you mean to say that the US will not participate in the global commodities market and become and internally subsidize fuel costs for its citizens? Very Hugo Chavez socialist.
I am saying we don't need the oil.
As for what the article says, I read the article and it clearly doesn't say that the Saudis are actually constructing nuclear weapons at present. Do they have the capability? Every developed country or wealthy country has the capability.
"Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race" Does not say the Saudis are building a bomb.
Then please explain exactly what you mean when you say "Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race."
They already have one in the pipeline to in anticipation of Iran having one. It means teh US has very little national interest in the Middle East/ We don't need teh Oil and everyone will have nukes to defend themselves with. Good luck.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Past Time to Get Off Planet or Become Neighbors with Noddy..

Post by monster_gardener »

Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:Saudi production and reserves are key in setting the global price per barrel, which is crucial to the American economy. The physical location of oil isn't as important as the global supply (or perception thereof). The Saudis could simply reduce production and seriously damage the US economy.
The US by 2017 will be self reliant WRT oil The natural gas is just an added bonus and that will lower domestic oil demand. IE The Saudis can eat their oil. Can burn it. Can pour it in the ocean and there will be no direct effect on the US if the US choses not to let it have an effect.

By this statement do you mean to say that the US will not participate in the global commodities market and become and internally subsidize fuel costs for its citizens? Very Hugo Chavez socialist.
I am saying we don't need the oil.
As for what the article says, I read the article and it clearly doesn't say that the Saudis are actually constructing nuclear weapons at present. Do they have the capability? Every developed country or wealthy country has the capability.
"Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race" Does not say the Saudis are building a bomb.
Then please explain exactly what you mean when you say "Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race."
They already have one in the pipeline to in anticipation of Iran having one. It means teh US has very little national interest in the Middle East/ We don't need teh Oil and everyone will have nukes to defend themselves with. Good luck.
Thank You VERY MUCH for your post, Doc.
everyone will have nukes to defend themselves with. Good luck.
We will need it.... The Luck that is....

Past time to get off planet... :D

Or at least to the Southern Hemisphere....

Become neighbors with Noddy ;) ....
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:Saudi production and reserves are key in setting the global price per barrel, which is crucial to the American economy. The physical location of oil isn't as important as the global supply (or perception thereof). The Saudis could simply reduce production and seriously damage the US economy.
The US by 2017 will be self reliant WRT oil The natural gas is just an added bonus and that will lower domestic oil demand. IE The Saudis can eat their oil. Can burn it. Can pour it in the ocean and there will be no direct effect on the US if the US choses not to let it have an effect.

By this statement do you mean to say that the US will not participate in the global commodities market and become and internally subsidize fuel costs for its citizens? Very Hugo Chavez socialist.
I am saying we don't need the oil.
I'm saying your economy needs the price of oil to be stable, and Saudi production (along with the production of many other major oil producers) is a crusial part of that. It doesn't matter is the gas that goes into your car originated in Saudi Arabia. It doesn't work that way.

As for what the article says, I read the article and it clearly doesn't say that the Saudis are actually constructing nuclear weapons at present. Do they have the capability? Every developed country or wealthy country has the capability.
"Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race" Does not say the Saudis are building a bomb.
Then please explain exactly what you mean when you say "Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race."
They already have one in the pipeline to in anticipation of Iran having one.
That's not what the article says.
It means teh US has very little national interest in the Middle East/ We don't need teh Oil and everyone will have nukes to defend themselves with. Good luck.
Better tell it to your government/military.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:Saudi production and reserves are key in setting the global price per barrel, which is crucial to the American economy. The physical location of oil isn't as important as the global supply (or perception thereof). The Saudis could simply reduce production and seriously damage the US economy.
The US by 2017 will be self reliant WRT oil The natural gas is just an added bonus and that will lower domestic oil demand. IE The Saudis can eat their oil. Can burn it. Can pour it in the ocean and there will be no direct effect on the US if the US choses not to let it have an effect.

By this statement do you mean to say that the US will not participate in the global commodities market and become and internally subsidize fuel costs for its citizens? Very Hugo Chavez socialist.
I am saying we don't need the oil.
I'm saying your economy needs the price of oil to be stable, and Saudi production (along with the production of many other major oil producers) is a crusial part of that. It doesn't matter is the gas that goes into your car originated in Saudi Arabia. It doesn't work that way.
And again I am sayng the US doesn't have to export a drop. If there is an excess of oil in the US and there are no exports the price of oil willreflect actual production not the price fixing of OPEC
As for what the article says, I read the article and it clearly doesn't say that the Saudis are actually constructing nuclear weapons at present. Do they have the capability? Every developed country or wealthy country has the capability.
"Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race" Does not say the Saudis are building a bomb.
Then please explain exactly what you mean when you say "Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race."
They already have one in the pipeline to in anticipation of Iran having one.
That's not what the article says.
That is exactly what the article says

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24823846
Earlier this year, a senior Nato decision maker told me that he had seen intelligence reporting that nuclear weapons made in Pakistan on behalf of Saudi Arabia are now sitting ready for delivery.
That is pretty straight forward
It means teh US has very little national interest in the Middle East/ We don't need teh Oil and everyone will have nukes to defend themselves with. Good luck.
Better tell it to your government/military.
Like the congressional democrats ? (They just gave Obama a 72 hour ultimatum on Obamcare) :lol:
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
noddy
Posts: 11325
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race

Post by noddy »

the one headf*ck for me is that the biggest baddest terrorist, civilian bombing extremist groups are a saudi funded thing and yet the saudis are an american ally (??????)

ive heard many indonesian muslims spit the word salafi out and they lose no sleep at all when the indonesian government guns them down in the street or imprisons them on flimsy charges.
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Re: Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race

Post by monster_gardener »

noddy wrote:the one headf*ck for me is that the biggest baddest terrorist, civilian bombing extremist groups are a saudi funded thing and yet the saudis are an american ally (??????)

ive heard many indonesian muslims spit the word salafi out and they lose no sleep at all when the indonesian government guns them down in the street or imprisons them on flimsy charges.
Thank You VERY Much for your post, Noddy.
the one headf*ck for me is that the biggest baddest terrorist, civilian bombing extremist groups are a saudi funded thing and yet the saudis are an american ally (??????)
Seconded....

Also when Saudi Government financed literature tells:
Muslims living in the United States to “behave as if on a mission behind enemy lines,
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... z2kUc4VaYa
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


Remembering 19 :twisted: :evil: who did just that...

Most were from Saudi Arabia....
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:Saudi production and reserves are key in setting the global price per barrel, which is crucial to the American economy. The physical location of oil isn't as important as the global supply (or perception thereof). The Saudis could simply reduce production and seriously damage the US economy.
The US by 2017 will be self reliant WRT oil The natural gas is just an added bonus and that will lower domestic oil demand. IE The Saudis can eat their oil. Can burn it. Can pour it in the ocean and there will be no direct effect on the US if the US choses not to let it have an effect.

By this statement do you mean to say that the US will not participate in the global commodities market and become and internally subsidize fuel costs for its citizens? Very Hugo Chavez socialist.
I am saying we don't need the oil.
I'm saying your economy needs the price of oil to be stable, and Saudi production (along with the production of many other major oil producers) is a crusial part of that. It doesn't matter is the gas that goes into your car originated in Saudi Arabia. It doesn't work that way.
And again I am sayng the US doesn't have to export a drop. If there is an excess of oil in the US and there are no exports the price of oil willreflect actual production not the price fixing of OPEC
Again, this makes no sense unless you plan to isolate the US from global markets and organize some kind of centrally planned domestic economy. Is that the plan, comrade?



As for what the article says, I read the article and it clearly doesn't say that the Saudis are actually constructing nuclear weapons at present. Do they have the capability? Every developed country or wealthy country has the capability.
"Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race" Does not say the Saudis are building a bomb.
Then please explain exactly what you mean when you say "Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race."
They already have one in the pipeline to in anticipation of Iran having one.
That's not what the article says.
That is exactly what the article says

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24823846
Earlier this year, a senior Nato decision maker told me that he had seen intelligence reporting that nuclear weapons made in Pakistan on behalf of Saudi Arabia are now sitting ready for delivery.
That is pretty straight forward
Yes, it is. Is shows that Saudi Arabia neither has, nor is building, nor is actually scheduled to receive shipment of a nuclear weapon. It says that an unnamed source says that Pakistan has weapons ready to deliver to Pakistan.

It means teh US has very little national interest in the Middle East/ We don't need teh Oil and everyone will have nukes to defend themselves with. Good luck.
Better tell it to your government/military.
Like the congressional democrats ? (They just gave Obama a 72 hour ultimatum on Obamcare)
You're mistaken if you think the artificial distinction between your two political parties has any bearing on foreign policy.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race

Post by Ibrahim »

noddy wrote:the one headf*ck for me is that the biggest baddest terrorist, civilian bombing extremist groups are a saudi funded thing and yet the saudis are an american ally (??????)
Its easy when you can buy congressmen so cheaply. Presidents line up to kiss the ring.


ive heard many indonesian muslims spit the word salafi out and they lose no sleep at all when the indonesian government guns them down in the street or imprisons them on flimsy charges.
Few Americans know or care anything about Indonesia. The Orientalist conception of "Muslim" is intertwined with "Arab" and essentially informed by Hollywood. This is relatively harmless in and of itself, except its easily exploited for propaganda purposes.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:

And again I am sayng the US doesn't have to export a drop. If there is an excess of oil in the US and there are no exports the price of oil willreflect actual production not the price fixing of OPEC
Again, this makes no sense unless you plan to isolate the US from global markets and organize some kind of centrally planned domestic economy. Is that the plan, comrade?
We don't need ME oil. Deal with it




That is exactly what the article says

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24823846
Earlier this year, a senior Nato decision maker told me that he had seen intelligence reporting that nuclear weapons made in Pakistan on behalf of Saudi Arabia are now sitting ready for delivery.
That is pretty straight forward[/quote]

Yes, it is. Is shows that Saudi Arabia neither has, nor is building, nor is actually scheduled to receive shipment of a nuclear weapon. It says that an unnamed source says that Pakistan has weapons ready to deliver to Pakistan.[/quote]



Any fair reading of the article would conclude that the Saudis will have a nuke as soon as they take delivery.
It means teh US has very little national interest in the Middle East/ We don't need teh Oil and everyone will have nukes to defend themselves with. Good luck.
Better tell it to your government/military.
Like the congressional democrats ? (They just gave Obama a 72 hour ultimatum on Obamcare) [/quote]

You're mistaken if you think the artificial distinction between your two political parties has any bearing on foreign policy.[/quote]

Hmmm Are you saying if i like my political party I can keep it PERIOD? What if it turned out I am a Democrat? Would you guarantee it that I will be able to keep my Democratic party after 2014? :lol:
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 1305
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Saudi Arabia beats Iran in nuclear arms race

Post by Alexis »

Doc wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24823846
Saudi nuclear weapons 'on order' from Pakistan
No factual news here:

- That Saudi Arabia had got the longest range IRBMs in the ME (DF-3A, 3,000 km, Israel built longer-range Jericho III only by 2008) is known for more than 20 years. It's not a secret, it has been public for ages. It's just not as widely debated as Iraq's then Iran's missiles were / are.

- That Pakistani nuclear weapon program received significant financial help from Saudi Arabia also has been known since the 1990s. Not a secret either, or more exactly such a thinly veiled secret as to be public.


The only thing that would be news is Pakistan being willing to actually provide nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia. That is certainly a possibility. Also, discussing that possibility is a valid pressure tactic at the time when possible agreement with Iran is discussed. That being said, a number of points must be recalled:

- Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have a strong and longstanding relationship, reinforced by the very strict interpretation of Islam that they share. However, agreements "in case of need" are not necessarily respected, because nations will cater to their own interests in case of need, in priority to those of friends. Are Pakistani and Saudi interests linked enough for Pakistan to make the extraordinary step of giving nuclear weapons to another country without a "double key" security?

I don't know. I have to remark that such a move would be unprecedented.

- Chinese missiles maintained by Chinese specialists on the one hand, nuclear weapons provided by Pakistanis on the other hand do not a deterrent force make. Even if missiles and nukes are supposed to be compatible with one another. Tests would need to be carried out. At a minimum ballistic missile firing with representative mockup of the warhead. Those tests would be detectable and provide advance warning.

Moreover, engineers and technicians would be needed to carry those tests out. I have personal anecdotal evidence of technical proficiency levels in Saudi Arabia, which goes the same way as anecdotal evidence from about every other source, and I don't believe the technicians could be Saudis. So, more Pakistanis and/or Chinese?

And the resulting force would be controlled by Saudis... right? :) The Saudis would say so... and we would be expected to believe them, right ? :lol:


What looks a more believable possibility than the "Saudi independent nuclear deterrent" scenario is Pakistan agreeing to provide nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia under security of "double key", similar to America providing to this day nuclear weapons to Germany, Italy, etc: the aircraft pilot is e.g. German, but he is physically prevented from firing the bomb carried by his aircraft except if he receives a key in two parts, one of which is under control of German government, other under control of US government.

Of course, nobody is saying that Germany has an operational nuclear force. These weapons are just a particular case of US nuke where additional agreement from German government is required in addition to US one.

If Pakistan agreed to provide such arrangement to Saudi Arabia, that would be a very strong political statement, but these weapons would remain a particular case of Pakistani nuclear weapon.

(that's a If...)
Post Reply