North Korea and Iran no longer the biggest nuclear threats(to the US and its allies)

[digitalsm]

Washington Times is reporting the Saudis are giving Pakistan cheap oil for nuclear weapon technology.

Hell the Saudis are just the people we really do not need getting nukes.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Washington Times is reporting the Saudis are giving Pakistan cheap oil for nuclear weapon technology.

Hell the Saudis are just the people we really do not need to get nukes.

Would not be a smart move by the saudis.

 

[coolVariable]

Link?

 

[ReiAyanami]

that's europe's play yard, let them worry about it. they of course will ignore problems until they escalate into world wars, then its our cue to get involved.

 

[digitalsm]

Its a breaking story that the Washington Times has sent to press for tomorrows edition. Drudge has it plastered all over his story "developing hard"

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Washington Times is reporting the Saudis are giving Pakistan cheap oil for nuclear weapon technology.

Hell the Saudis are just the people we really do not need to get nukes.

Would not be a smart move by the saudis.

You're kidding right? We won't attack a nuclear power. See NK back tracking or 50 years of cold war or kissing Chineese booty.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Washington Times is reporting the Saudis are giving Pakistan cheap oil for nuclear weapon technology.

Hell the Saudis are just the people we really do not need to get nukes.

Would not be a smart move by the saudis.

You're kidding right? We won't attack a nuclear power. See NK back tracking or 50 years of cold war or kissing Chineese booty.

Who said anything about the US doing anything. I am sure Isreal has an opinion on this....

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Washington Times is reporting the Saudis are giving Pakistan cheap oil for nuclear weapon technology.

Hell the Saudis are just the people we really do not need to get nukes.

Would not be a smart move by the saudis.

You're kidding right? We won't attack a nuclear power. See NK back tracking or 50 years of cold war or kissing Chineese booty.

Who said anything about the US doing anything. I am sure Isreal has an opinion on this....

Duh

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Washington Times is reporting the Saudis are giving Pakistan cheap oil for nuclear weapon technology.

Hell the Saudis are just the people we really do not need to get nukes.

Would not be a smart move by the saudis.

You're kidding right? We won't attack a nuclear power. See NK back tracking or 50 years of cold war or kissing Chineese booty.

Saudi would be different. I dont think they would have capability of hitting Israel, and if they did Israel would attack before the US would even think about attacking the Saudis. Unless they would also aquire the capability of hitting Israel then it would be totally different.

Personally if this is true, we would end up having covert ops take out their nuclear capabilites, then who knows from there. NK is different, they could wreck havok on Japan and SK.

Saudis on the other hand probably wouldnt be able to reach Israel, and if they did Israel would beat us to the punch. The main threat with Saudi getting nukes is they are known to support terrorism even if they wont/the US wont admit to it quite yet.

This pretty much would end Saudis fair weather alliance with the US, and with our troops right in their back yard its really not the brightest idea.

 

[KenGr]

My gut feel is that this story will turn out to be bogus. It just doesn't make sense on too many levels.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: KenGr
My gut feel is that this story will turn out to be bogus. It just doesn't make sense on too many levels.

Here is a decent search string for Google News.

 

[kage69]

Be that as it may, I still believe Iran is more worrysome in it's pursuit of nukes. Saudi Arabia as a country does not have a history of actually threatening and attacking US interests - Iran does, and has a much more developed connection to terrorist networks. Said it once and I'll say it again - theocracies and nukes should never mix.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: kage69
Be that as it may, I still believe Iran is more worrysome in it's pursuit of nukes. Saudi Arabia as a country does not have a history of actually threatening and attacking US interests - Iran does, and has a much more developed connection to terrorist networks. Said it once and I'll say it again - theocracies and nukes should never mix.

Been following the Iran story, and there are things people should note.

First, the nuke program was put on the slow track until Bush made his "Axis of Evil" speech. A less useful speech would be difficult to imagine.

Second, Iran is not a centralized power run exclusively by mullahs. Yes, they exert the greatest single influence, but there is a reform movement as well, creating a certain tension.

Third, contrary to popular thought, it has been the theocracy that has resisted the nuke program, and that has been because nukes were considered immoral. It is the reformers who have been pushing for a weapons program (I think it pretty fair to say this has been an attempt to get nukes). The reform movement had been moving towards the US, and dragging the theocracy with it, but that pretty much ended when Bush made that awfully thought out speech.

 

[kage69]

I agree on the speech, it's all well and good to acknowledge the reality of the desires of these regimes, but it's completely uncalled for (not to mention down right stupid) to actually broadcast it, from our leader no less. I do really wish he'd have kept his trap shut.
As for the push for nukes by the reformists, you are correct, they feel it's a logical step towards modernizing Iran - which I still find moot as it's the mullahs that are actually running things. Regardless, that area doesn't need anymore weapons - the deterence argument doesn't hold water, real deterence comes from not invading others or giving the UN a reason to slap you with sanctions and/or military action.

 

[rudder]

I predict in 10 years the whole middle east will be a big sheet of radioactive glass.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: kage69
I agree on the speech, it's all well and good to acknowledge the reality of the desires of these regimes, but it's completely uncalled for (not to mention down right stupid) to actually broadcast it, from our leader no less. I do really wish he'd have kept his trap shut.
As for the push for nukes by the reformists, you are correct, they feel it's a logical step towards modernizing Iran - which I still find moot as it's the mullahs that are actually running things. Regardless, that area doesn't need anymore weapons - the deterence argument doesn't hold water, real deterence comes from not invading others or giving the UN a reason to slap you with sanctions and/or military action.

Logically you are correct about deterrence. Consider though that logic does not always dominate in matters of national security. Witness our current situation in Iraq, although you might disagree. Nevertheless, before the current administration, it would have appeared that countries who were non-aggressors would be safe from attack at least as far as the US goes, which has never officially had a first strike policy except perhaps in the most dire of circumstances. Iraq could hardly be called a comparable threat to a fleets of USSR subs and bombers sailing directly for the East Coast.

That unalterable fact has changed. No one there knows when or where or for what justification the US may strike an a year or two. Clearly, hard evidence is not necessary, suspicion will do.

Iran and others have been prodded into a Cold War mentality of MAD.

The rational is that nukes exact a hideous price for war for a certainty, but depending upon the international community for security in a unipolar world is not a guarantee of safety.

 

[kage69]

Logically you are correct about deterrence. Consider though that logic does not always dominate in matters of national security. Witness our current situation in Iraq, although you might disagree. Nevertheless, before the current administration, it would have appeared that countries who were non-aggressors would be safe from attack at least as far as the US goes, which has never officially had a first strike policy except perhaps in the most dire of circumstances. Iraq could hardly be called a comparable threat to a fleets of USSR subs and bombers sailing directly for the East Coast.

Yeah I know, I'm an optimist. Iraq was dealt with as the US-Brit camp just got tired of maintaining a watch on a guy they knew they couldn't trust, I don't think there was ever any illusion that Iraq could muster a fraction of the firepower the USSR could bring to bear. As much as I hate to admit it, I can see why the Bush group, in a post 9/11 world, would want to do away with a leader who had already proved his ruthlessness and desire for bigger and better toys. I do still see a large difference in how Iraq had conducted itself and the behavior of Iran.

That unalterable fact has changed. No one there knows when or where or for what justification the US may strike an a year or two. Clearly, hard evidence is not necessary, suspicion will do.

Agreed, although that's all the more incentive to not fvck around now isn't it?

Iran and others have been prodded into a Cold War mentality of MAD.

Maybe so, but how does that explain NK's nuclear ambitions predating both 9/11 and the Bush Administration coming into power? Iran is a little more sketchy, although I do think the desire for nukes wasn't just a sudden, recent reaction to world events.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Regarding NK,

I agree that it has always been the intent of Kim to acquire nukes, however consider his change in behavior since the "Axis" speech.

We know he had a program in place, but there is every indication that since then he has accelerated it dramatically. He is also redoubling efforts to develop or purchase technology that would greatly expand the ability to launch ICBMs with the capability to strike ever deeper in to US territory.

This increase in posturing is also new. Not that he hasnt done something to a much smaller degree, but I do not recall him actively pursuing a policy that openly challenges the international community and us in particular to this degree.

What I do believe is that an unstable Kim has been pushed further over the edge. This man worries me. Saddam did not, at least from an international perspective. While Saddam postured, I believe that was an attempt to make himself more dangerous that he really wanted to be. He did want power, but that was more over his own people. Saddam valued his personal security above all, and saying over and over again that he was going to nuke Israel, and demonstrated the ability to do so would have resulted in his death. That he wanted to avoid, but his posturing backfired and IMO was read incorrectly by an administration all too glad to do so. Now, Kim is not just sadistic, I believe he is unbalanced.


In any case, now or later, Kim would have nukes (best intel suggests he had some before all this started) but not the seeming propensity to use them.

Regarding Iran, SA and other countries... for all their problems, the construction of nukes did not seem something likely to have happened, but the current insecurity of governments could reverse that.

Remember that the primary function of any government is to keep itself in power. Anything else is secondary. It would seem at first that being obedient would best guarantee that, however when a people feel their way of life is threatened, they may choose less constructive (read more deadly) means to retain control. A government who must obey is someone elses govt.