A Nuclear Middle East

[cwjerome]

A month ago the AIAE, the nuclear watchdog of the United Nations, revealed that its inspectors had found traces of highly enriched uranium in Egypt in 08. I don't think Egypt's apparent interest in a nuclear weapon is an isolated incident. It looks like a growing pattern of proliferation and nuclear development in the greater Middle East... a trend that has been forced by Iran's maturing (and menacing) atomic effort.

A new arms race in the Middle East, along with nuclear proliferation in one of the world's most dangerous regions, could spell disaster for global security. Is Obama's policy of "engagement" the right method? Is this dangerous outcome inevitable?

 

[Aimster]

the Arabs have contracts out for nuclear plants to be built in their countries.
Good Luck.

We dont live there so let them kill each other. We are too far away to care.

 

[MovingTarget]

We better get off their oil, asap. Otherwise, we are boned.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Aimster
the Arabs have contracts out for nuclear plants to be built in their countries.
Good Luck.

We dont live there so let them kill each other. We are too far away to care.

That's what they have missiles for. Certainly European allies would care.

I've always been sympathetic to the missile shield's [stated] goals.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Aimster

We dont live there so let them kill each other. We are too far away to care.

If there's a nuclear event in the Middle East, regardless of who/what/why, it will have some very serious effects on the US and the world, particularly if it's a nuclear exchange.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Aimster
the Arabs have contracts out for nuclear plants to be built in their countries.
Good Luck.

We dont live there so let them kill each other. We are too far away to care.

Except for when we can no longer burn their oil due to it being contaminated with nuclear fallout.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Aimster
the Arabs have contracts out for nuclear plants to be built in their countries.
Good Luck.

We dont live there so let them kill each other. We are too far away to care.

Except for when we can no longer burn their oil due to it being contaminated with nuclear fallout.

invade Venezuela?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Aimster
the Arabs have contracts out for nuclear plants to be built in their countries.
Good Luck.

We dont live there so let them kill each other. We are too far away to care.

Except for when we can no longer burn their oil due to it being contaminated with nuclear fallout.

Too bad we spend about $1 trillion a year overseas.

How much money would it take to invest in new/better technologies?

 

[Moonbeam]

What can be done. These folk are no more going to see that their hate for each other is the result of their own hate for themselves any more than we are. They, like us, would die rather than heal. We all know where it is going. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword. As it has always been so it will be.

 

[cwjerome]

Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are starting an ambitious plan for a joint nuclear energy program (even as the House of Saud is said to be enlisting Pakistani assistance to build atomic weapons). Yemen is eager to join in this effort despite the dubious distinction of being one of the world's poorest countries. Jordan's King Abdullah has signaled his government is committed to a civilian nuclear program and is currently looking for foreign partners to help build one.

Many others are demonstrating interest in attaining nuclear status. Some appear to be searching simply for a new source of energy but there are clear signs that others are doing so out of strategic motivations... efforts to have a counterweight to the emerging Iranian bomb. Nuclear proliferation in general isn't desirable but this could be really bad.

 

[Craig234]

How about 'a nuclear west, where is it all leading'. I guess our nukes are sacred cows, and others' are dangerous.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Craig234
How about 'a nuclear west, where is it all leading'. I guess our nukes are sacred cows, and others' are dangerous.

It's apples and oranges, but start a new thread anyway.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Craig234
How about 'a nuclear west, where is it all leading'. I guess our nukes are sacred cows, and others' are dangerous.

It's apples and oranges, but start a new thread anyway.

No, it's not - it's you calling middle eastern apples 'oranges'. You're missing the point that the fact that WE have nukes has implications on the Middle Eastern nations wanting nukes.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Craig234
How about 'a nuclear west, where is it all leading'. I guess our nukes are sacred cows, and others' are dangerous.

It's apples and oranges, but start a new thread anyway.

No, it's not - it's you calling middle eastern apples 'oranges'. You're missing the point that the fact that WE have nukes has implications on the Middle Eastern nations wanting nukes.

by and large, the western nuclear nations are a lot more stable than, say, Pakistan.

 

[techs]

Nuclear war or not there is one thing I am sure of.
The price of oil wil go up.

And, I wonder if people really think every middle east dictator or leader actually would use a nuke?
Unless they are a madman a nuke is only good if you DON'T use it.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Craig234
How about 'a nuclear west, where is it all leading'. I guess our nukes are sacred cows, and others' are dangerous.

It's apples and oranges, but start a new thread anyway.

No, it's not - it's you calling middle eastern apples 'oranges'. You're missing the point that the fact that WE have nukes has implications on the Middle Eastern nations wanting nukes.

It's the difference between a known and an unknown. If you would like to discuss the potential impact of nuclear weapons in the hands of those that have them, feel free to make a topic on that. Here the idea was to discuss the effect of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East and the impact that could have on the rest of the world.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Craig234
How about 'a nuclear west, where is it all leading'. I guess our nukes are sacred cows, and others' are dangerous.

It's apples and oranges, but start a new thread anyway.

No, it's not - it's you calling middle eastern apples 'oranges'. You're missing the point that the fact that WE have nukes has implications on the Middle Eastern nations wanting nukes.

by and large, the western nuclear nations are a lot more stable than, say, Pakistan.

I agree. But that's not the same as 'it's great for us to have them, and for no one else to'. The fact we have them does cause issues with others wanting them - legitimately.

It's a little like the militarization of space - where we may get satellites that can destroy ground targets at will. How can any nation permit that in terms of their own security?

We might like to say 'hey, we're stable, so don't worry that we can destroy you any time and you can do nothing about it', but that's the road to tyranny.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: techs
Nuclear war or not there is one thing I am sure of.
The price of oil wil go up.

And, I wonder if people really think every middle east dictator or leader actually would use a nuke?
Unless they are a madman a nuke is only good if you DON'T use it.

People love to imagine crazy leaders who would use them, but they fail to remember history that it was the two supposedly responsible superpowers who came so close to global nuclear war where one had given tactical nukes to their forces in Cuba for use against a US invasion that was strongly recommended by US leadershup and likely to happen, while the other side was willing to risk nuclear war to win the battle over not publically agreeing to remove its nukes from the USSR's border, insisting that be secret.

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: Craig234

I agree. But that's not the same as 'it's great for us to have them, and for no one else to'. The fact we have them does cause issues with others wanting them - legitimately.

...

We might like to say 'hey, we're stable, so don't worry that we can destroy you any time and you can do nothing about it', but that's the road to tyranny.

From this statement, I can infer that you support the right of ever man, woman, and child in America to own a firearm (pistol, shotgun, assault rifle, whatever they want). After all, the police have them... so everyone else has a legitimate claim to own one as well.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Craig234
How about 'a nuclear west, where is it all leading'. I guess our nukes are sacred cows, and others' are dangerous.

It's apples and oranges, but start a new thread anyway.

No, it's not - it's you calling middle eastern apples 'oranges'. You're missing the point that the fact that WE have nukes has implications on the Middle Eastern nations wanting nukes.

by and large, the western nuclear nations are a lot more stable than, say, Pakistan.

Yet, we used nukes on Japanese civillians... i haven't heard of pakistan nuking anyone. yeah, we're the 'stable' one.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Craig234
How about 'a nuclear west, where is it all leading'. I guess our nukes are sacred cows, and others' are dangerous.

It's apples and oranges, but start a new thread anyway.

No, it's not - it's you calling middle eastern apples 'oranges'. You're missing the point that the fact that WE have nukes has implications on the Middle Eastern nations wanting nukes.

by and large, the western nuclear nations are a lot more stable than, say, Pakistan.

Yet, we used nukes on Japanese civillians... i haven't heard of pakistan nuking anyone. yeah, we're the 'stable' one.

/facepalm

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Yet, we used nukes on Japanese civillians... i haven't heard of pakistan nuking anyone. yeah, we're the 'stable' one.

Is there some type of troll school you attend?

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Phokus

Yet, we used nukes on Japanese civillians... i haven't heard of pakistan nuking anyone. yeah, we're the 'stable' one.

Is there some type of troll school you attend?

He takes online classes. Comes here to do his homework.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Phokus

Yet, we used nukes on Japanese civillians... i haven't heard of pakistan nuking anyone. yeah, we're the 'stable' one.

Is there some type of troll school you attend?

I was assured by him in another thread this is not a troll, just a "bringing us down to earth".

Of course he fails to mention in his alternate Earth the sky is yellow and he lives under powerlines while sniffing glue.

 

[yllus]

First, kudos for posting threads regarding policy, as opposed to what amount to gotcha threads about what politician said something vaguely incorrect in the last thirty minutes. If only this forum had more of this instead of that.

My contribution: On the flip side, it may be possible that the possession of nuclear weapons will cause nations in the Middle East to "grow up". The dictators (excuse me, I meant "monarchies") of the Middle East will have to think twice about making veiled or outright threats against fellow nations who possess the ability to wipe them out completely.

After all, the one objective that we can all rely upon the nutballs of the third world having is an extremely well-developed sense of self-preservation. Maybe possessing the world's biggest guns will force them all to shut up and attempt to actually solve some of the squabbles they have with each other and the rest of us.