• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Six Arab states join rush to go nuclear

B

BuckNaked

Diamond Member
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2436948,00.html

Six Arab states join rush to go nuclear
By Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor
Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, UAE and Saudi Arabia seek atom technology
THE SPECTRE of a nuclear race in the Middle East was raised yesterday when six Arab states announced that they were embarking on programmes to master atomic technology.

The move, which follows the failure by the West to curb Iran?s controversial nuclear programme, could see a rapid spread of nuclear reactors in one of the world?s most unstable regions, stretching from the Gulf to the Levant and into North Africa.

The countries involved were named by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Saudi Arabia. Tunisia and the UAE have also shown interest.

All want to build civilian nuclear energy programmes, as they are permitted to under international law. But the sudden rush to nuclear power has raised suspicions that the real intention is to acquire nuclear technology which could be used for the first Arab atomic bomb.

?Some Middle East states, including Egypt, Morocco, Algeria and Saudi Arabia, have shown initial interest [in using] nuclear power primarily for desalination purposes,? Tomihiro Taniguch, the deputy director-general of the IAEA, told the business weekly Middle East Economic Digest. He said that they had held preliminary discussions with the governments and that the IAEA?s technical advisory programme would be offered to them to help with studies into creating power plants.

Mark Fitzpatrick, an expert on nuclear proliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said that it was clear that the sudden drive for nuclear expertise was to provide the Arabs with a ?security hedge?.

?If Iran was not on the path to a nuclear weapons capability you would probably not see this sudden rush [in the Arab world],? he said.

The announcement by the six nations is a stunning reversal of policy in the Arab world, which had until recently been pressing for a nuclear free Middle East, where only Israel has nuclear weapons.

Egypt and other North African states can argue with some justification that they need cheap, safe energy for their expanding economies and growing populations at a time of high oil prices.

The case will be much harder for Saudi Arabia, which sits on the world?s largest oil reserves. Earlier this year Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Foreign Minister, told The Times that his country opposed the spread of nuclear power and weapons in the Arab world.

Since then, however, the Iranians have accelerated their nuclear power and enrichment programmes.
Click to expand...

This should help stabilize the region... :roll:
 
Let's see...9/11 hijackers were from:

Saudi Arabia (Wants nukes? Check)
Egypt (Wants nukes? Check)
UAE (Wants nukes? Check)
 
Originally posted by: dahunan
Bush and the Neocons are 1000% to blame
Click to expand...

Oh, I wouldn't go that far. It's just a matter of time. NK, Iran, and Pakistan were all looking to go nuclear before the chimp took office.
 
Oh God no. Security in these countries are lacking....I can't bear to this of a nuke going off and essentially destroying a city. That is not a good thing by any means, not from the POV that we don't want others to get nukes, but because the more nukes there are out there, the greater the potential for an accident to occur
 
Originally posted by: dennilfloss
Algeria, Morocco & Tunisia are not middle eastern countries.
Click to expand...

They are considered "Arab Countries" and are part of the Arab League. Those countries also have the term "Al Maghrib" or essentially "The West" which would be the Arab Equivalent of the United States West. Geographically they are isolated from the rest of Africa because of the "Sahrah", or the Arabic word for "Desert".

They maybe in North Africa, but they share FAR more in terms of language, culture, religion with the Middle East that extends eastwards up till Iraq then they do with anything pertaining to Sub Saharan Africa.

Iran yeah maybe we can argue that....but that can still be considered part of the Mid East to a degree since they do have some significant arab populations in specific locations~ Afghan/Pakistan would be where I would agree with you
 
It has been made crystal clear: If you want freedom from a Super Power gone amock and want to pursue what's in your best interest, you possess Nukes. Nukes are the great Equalizer.
 
So instead of complaining and blaming Bush why doesn?t some one offer a solution?

Mine would be to tell Iran in perfectly clear terms that they need to stop their program, or we will stop it for them.

We don?t have to invade Iran to send them a message. Plus if we kicked some ass in Iran the other nations might decide that working on that nuke is not such a good idea after all.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So instead of complaining and blaming Bush why doesn?t some one offer a solution?

Mine would be to tell Iran in perfectly clear terms that they need to stop their program, or we will stop it for them.

We don?t have to invade Iran to send them a message. Plus if we kicked some ass in Iran the other nations might decide that working on that nuke is not such a good idea after all.
Click to expand...

Six other nations want nuclear technology, or rather those six are open about it. They might see Iran get beaten up, and decide, "Damn, we'd best work on this stuff FAST." Our attacking could be a strong motivator. We've already destroyed two countries, and that hasn't made us many friends. Destroying another one probably won't help. The true extremists are willing to die for their cause. It's quite difficult to influence people who've decided that they have nothing to lose.
Nuclear technology was the secret, but the secret's out now, and everyone wants in.

We'd also have to have a different technique than used in Iraq, assuming there is to be a ground war. "Shock and Awe" didn't really do all that much, at least in a military context. I think a lot of people in this country though are still in shock about the incompetent handling of the war, and in awe of the apparent wullful blindness who still believe that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.



Originally posted by: sandorski
It has been made crystal clear: If you want freedom from a Super Power gone amock and want to pursue what's in your best interest, you possess Nukes. Nukes are the great Equalizer.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately this seems true.
I said this in another thread, but of course the search function can't find it.
First stone weapons were invented. Then everyone had to have them.
Then came bronze weapons. Everyone had to make bronze weaponry then.
Then iron weapons. Another arms race ensued.
Then gunpowder, and the era of ballistics weaponry dawned.
Now we're at the nuclear weapons arms race. What'll be next? Everyone will probably want the upgrade to fusion weapons. After that, maybe the next century will have antimatter weaponry to look forward to.
I don't know about anyone else, but this isn't exactly what I consider to be progress.

 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So instead of complaining and blaming Bush why doesn?t some one offer a solution?

Mine would be to tell Iran in perfectly clear terms that they need to stop their program, or we will stop it for them.

We don?t have to invade Iran to send them a message. Plus if we kicked some ass in Iran the other nations might decide that working on that nuke is not such a good idea after all.
Click to expand...

If we resort to force in Iran it may only speed up the others programs so they don't get invaded by the US. That's exactly what happened with Iran when the US invaded Iraq....
 
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Unfortunately this seems true.
I said this in another thread, but of course the search function can't find it.
First stone weapons were invented. Then everyone had to have them.
Then came bronze weapons. Everyone had to make bronze weaponry then.
Then iron weapons. Another arms race ensued.
Then gunpowder, and the era of ballistics weaponry dawned.
Now we're at the nuclear weapons arms race. What'll be next? Everyone will probably want the upgrade to fusion weapons. After that, maybe the next century will have antimatter weaponry to look forward to.
I don't know about anyone else, but this isn't exactly what I consider to be progress.
Click to expand...
Albert Einstein said "I don't know what weapons will be used in the third world war. But, I can tell you what will be the weapons in the fourth: rocks."
 
every nation has a right to nuclear technology.

solution?

International monitoring of all countries with nuclear tech and an international site for uranium enrichment, storage, (whatever is required to make the bomb).

However, the U.S and Russia and probably all the other main nuclear powers will never agree to such a thing.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So instead of complaining and blaming Bush why doesn?t some one offer a solution?

Mine would be to tell Iran in perfectly clear terms that they need to stop their program, or we will stop it for them.

We don?t have to invade Iran to send them a message. Plus if we kicked some ass in Iran the other nations might decide that working on that nuke is not such a good idea after all.
Click to expand...

You didn't blame democrats?...

Wow...

You feeling alright?

As for a solution?

Let them blow themselves up, than go in and grab the oil 🙂 (this is sarcasm for people who might not get it)
 
As I said here before, why haven't these nations pursued nukes before? The only declared enemy most have is Israel, and it has been nuclear since the 60's. Only with the recent advancement of the Iranian nuclear program they feel threatened. Egypt attacked Israel long after it became nuclear and didn't fear for itself.

For sure, neither Egypt or UAE should feel like a candidate for invasion, both receive military equipment in vast quantities from the USA and UAE has very good trading with the USA.

It's not Bush, neither is it Israel, it's their will to object an Iranian scheme to become the new leader of the Arab world by possessing nuclear arms.
Iran is the danger, the Arabs know it very well.
 
Originally posted by: sandorski
It has been made crystal clear: If you want freedom from a Super Power gone amock and want to pursue what's in your best interest, you possess Nukes. Nukes are the great Equalizer.
Click to expand...

Unless they possess ICBMs capable of hitting the US, they would cause themselves more harm than good. US isn't a part of this story, for a change.

 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So instead of complaining and blaming Bush why doesn?t some one offer a solution?

Mine would be to tell Iran in perfectly clear terms that they need to stop their program, or we will stop it for them.

We don?t have to invade Iran to send them a message. Plus if we kicked some ass in Iran the other nations might decide that working on that nuke is not such a good idea after all.
Click to expand...

If North Korea and Iran are allowed to continue on their present course, the message will be clear ? the world allows nuclear proliferation. Unless we kill them, they will have nuclear technology with radiological and nuclear weapons soon after.

Then, when you?re glowing in the dark, you might realize the meaning behind their ?religion of peace?.
 
Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Originally posted by: sandorski
It has been made crystal clear: If you want freedom from a Super Power gone amock and want to pursue what's in your best interest, you possess Nukes. Nukes are the great Equalizer.
Click to expand...

Unless they possess ICBMs capable of hitting the US, they would cause themselves more harm than good. US isn't a part of this story, for a change.
Click to expand...

Cause apparently you think our borders are somehow secure? 😕
ICBMs are for the super powers, no one needs them to deliver a weapon ? you can drive a truck or plane across the border and NO ONE is going to stop you.
 
Originally posted by: Aimster
every nation has a right to nuclear technology.

solution?

International monitoring of all countries with nuclear tech and an international site for uranium enrichment, storage, (whatever is required to make the bomb).

However, the U.S and Russia and probably all the other main nuclear powers will never agree to such a thing.
Click to expand...

No, sir, not countries with deluded, mentally ill dictators. Do you really believe that drivel you just posted?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top