To compete with a nuclear Iran, Saudi Arabia now expresses interests in nuclear weapon development - Polidicks

[quote]The Saudi Ambassador to the United States would not rule out the possibility of the Saudis creating their own nuclear bomb to counterbalance a nuclear-armed Iran in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Thursday. "This is not something we would discuss publicly," Ambassador Adel Al-Jubeir said on "The Situation Room." Later, when pressed, he said, "This is not something that I can comment on, nor would I comment on." "But the kingdom of Saudi Arabia will take whatever measures are necessary in order to protect its security," he added. "There are two things over which we do not negotiate: Our faith and our security." Al-Jubeir said, however, the details disclosed by the Obama administration to the Saudis about the developing nuclear deal with Iran were "positive." "I can't say that we like it, because we don't know the details," he said. "The assurances we have received from the administration have been positive but we want to see the details before we can make a judgment."[/quote] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/26/politics/saudi-open-to-nuclear-bomb/index.html[/url]

While we're at it let's get one in Syria......

Haha, no. If there is anyone I don't trust with nuclear weapons, It'd be the Saudis. Knowing them, they would just sell it to a terrorist group.

imagine a nuclear bomb going off in the middle east.

Funny considering Iran doesn't even have the ability to make nuclear weapons. The enriching process for nuclear fuel they were going to use before they changed it to a system that makes even less weapons grade material as a byproduct wasn't even capable of making enough to make one bomb without having to import MASSIVE quantities of material, which would make it pretty obvious what they were doing at that point. It would be easier to just import the weapons grade material instead, which they could already do in theory anyway so.. [editline]27th March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=barrab;47408068]imagine a nuclear bomb going off in the middle east.[/QUOTE] A castle of glass.

[QUOTE=draugur;47408126]Funny considering Iran doesn't even have the ability to make nuclear weapons. The enriching process for nuclear fuel they were going to use before they changed it to a system that makes even less weapons grade material as a byproduct wasn't even capable of making enough to make one bomb without having to import MASSIVE quantities of material, which would make it pretty obvious what they were doing at that point. It would be easier to just import the weapons grade material instead, which they could already do in theory anyway so.. [/QUOTE] They would still need to make a compact device, which is not a trivial task itself. Not to mention they don't even have bombers capable of delivering nukes, which essentially makes them useless.

They were saying it for 5 years now, nothing new.

The Saudi's gaining nuclear tech would be an even bigger risk to regional security than Iran getting it. Not to mention the place is a medieval hell hole.

If the Iranians get it then I can understand the Saudis getting it, though I'd rather nobody did.

[video=youtube;hG_aqSC5hU0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hG_aqSC5hU0[/video] Huh. This exact scenario was the basis for Tom Clancy's Endwar.

[QUOTE=Waterrmelonn;47409951][video=youtube;hG_aqSC5hU0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hG_aqSC5hU0[/video] Huh. This exact scenario was the basis for Tom Clancy's Endwar.[/QUOTE] tom clancy must have been a time traveller or something, he predicted the ukraine/russia/crimea debacle as well

[QUOTE=antianan;47408276]They would still need to make a compact device, which is not a trivial task itself. Not to mention they don't even have bombers capable of delivering nukes, which essentially makes them useless.[/QUOTE] Rumor has it the Saudis helped finance Pakistan's nuclear weapons program in exchange for all their weapons specs if they wanted them. If they use that data they can make a compact weapon from the get-go.

[QUOTE=Waterrmelonn;47409951][video=youtube;hG_aqSC5hU0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hG_aqSC5hU0[/video] Huh. This exact scenario was the basis for Tom Clancy's Endwar.[/QUOTE] It's also the same deal for Homefront.

[QUOTE=antianan;47408276]They would still need to make a compact device, which is not a trivial task itself. Not to mention they don't even have bombers capable of delivering nukes, which essentially makes them useless.[/QUOTE] depending on the weapon, they do have a large amount of f-15,f-16s and multi-role aircraft, and while its not quite the same, the US did have low yield nuclear weapons for those types of multi-role aircraft quite early on, really plutonium gun-type bombs are easy enough to size down to something that maybe an f-16 can use still its a horrible idea, the countries of the middle east are not nearly responsible enough, nor do they really understand the seriousness of nuclear weapons, i mean the US and Russia were very nieve about nuclear weapons in the 50s and we had to detonate hundreds of them to realize these weapons are not trivial

[QUOTE=download;47410362]Rumor has it the Saudis helped finance Pakistan's nuclear weapons program in exchange for all their weapons specs if they wanted them. If they use that data they can make a compact weapon from the get-go.[/QUOTE] Saudi Arabia injects a ton of cash into Pakistan annually, it's almost certain that's where they'll get their build instructions and even possibly materials from.

Remember that the only country that owns nuclear bombs that ever used them on another country in the middle of a city to kill mostly normal citizens is the US of A. I doubt an action that deliberate can be explained by 'naivete' If anybody should set an example to get rid of their nukes and still maintain their security using other kind of deterrence, then USA should be the first to do so.

[QUOTE=hakimhakim;47417288]Remember that the only country that owns nuclear bombs that ever used them on another country in the middle of a city to kill mostly normal citizens is the US of A. I doubt an action that deliberate can be explained by 'naivete' If anybody should set an example to get rid of their nukes and still maintain their security using other kind of deterrence, then USA should be the first to do so.[/QUOTE] Yeah that's a great idea, they should have went for the more humane option of invading Japan. Although is it really more humane when they expected even more deaths from an invasion than dropping the bombs? I would say no.

How about we [B]don't[/B] go around giving nuclear tech like it's candy?

That is, to me, the only feasible situation in which a nuclear deployment in the Middle East is likely in the next twenty years. No thanks. Any country which talks about its faith in a statement about nuclear weapons should be actively prevented from having them; sounds odd but there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that a nuclear state does not factor in any interpretation of religion when deciding whether to use their weapons. Also, it would be poetic irony - that nobody would be left to observe - if the US was forced to invoke MAD against Saudi Arabia after all these years of pretending they can do no wrong. Speaking of MAD, why are there still nations which believe that gaining nuclear capability will have [i]any[/i] effect on their world power? It's clear at this point that the principle has been successful and we've managed to scare each other to a standstill. Nobody will ever touch that button unless insanity takes hold. So why bother?

[QUOTE=Jon27;47420120]That is, to me, the only feasible situation in which a nuclear deployment in the Middle East is likely in the next twenty years. No thanks. Any country which talks about its faith in a statement about nuclear weapons should be actively prevented from having them; sounds odd but there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that a nuclear state does not factor in any interpretation of religion when deciding whether to use their weapons. Also, it would be poetic irony - that nobody would be left to observe - if the US was forced to invoke MAD against Saudi Arabia after all these years of pretending they can do no wrong. Speaking of MAD, why are there still nations which believe that gaining nuclear capability will have [i]any[/i] effect on their world power? It's clear at this point that the principle has been successful and we've managed to scare each other to a standstill. Nobody will ever touch that button unless insanity takes hold. So why bother?[/QUOTE] It lets you act like North Korea without getting invaded.

"As the New Year is fresh in mind, the dominant question in mind of everyone is, “How will you make 2015 a great year?” (\__/) (='.'=) (")_(") _________________ [img]http://ww2.sinaimg.cn/mw600/df45abebjw1e8cokze1jqj20gn0l5di4.jpg[/img] [url=http://www.rsgpfast.com]www.rsgpfast.com[/url] [url=http://www.runescapemart.com]RS Gold[/url] [url=http://www.rsgoldmall.com]Cheap RS Gold[/url]

Considering ISIS is pretty much a Saudi Arabian pet project that ran seriously out of hand, I really think giving these guys nuclear technology would be a terrible idea.

Saudi Arabia is a dick. Friends don't let dicks get nukes.

I think you're missing the bigger picture here. A nuclear Iran (or almost-nuclear Iran) is something that is making all the other regional powers in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia and Egypt very very nervous, because it allows Iran to make power plays all over the region like thy're doing now in Syria and Iraq and Yemen, but with impunity. Like I said above, nuclear nations have a lot more freedom to be dicks without even the superpowers being able to do much about them. For example, a nuclear Iran would have made everyone think long and hard before intervening in Yemen like they're doing now. This means that if the talks with Iran actually lead to a deal that has the sanctions lifted off Iran and leaves it less than a year away from atomic bombs, other regional powers are going to have to adjust one way or another. And this being the Middle East it's probably not going to be pretty.

Yeah, let's allow Saudi Arabia to have nuclear weapons. Not only do they fund terrorism, they do it while sitting back smoking a cigar saying "Yeah, so?" And I don't mean They fund groups we just don't see eye to eye with and label as terrorist, I mean they give shit to groups of sub-human violent savages like ISIS. I still don't know why the USA sucks its dick. We produce the same amount of oil, we get more oil from fucking Venezeula than we do Saudi Arabia... so what's the deal

lol at all these tweens hopped up on Tom Clancy novels acting the like the saudis will just unload ICBM's if they get nukes newsflash, chucks: nukes get less dangerous the more people have them. they are a deterrent. if only one party has nukes, then that party holds all the cards, but if every party has nukes then that puts them all on equal footing and prevents them from making harsh strikes against each other for fear of retaliation. MAD is genuinely a good thing because it prevents power-play and the usage of nuclear weapons. plus you have to be fucking braindead to think that any state would use nuclear weapons in a first-strike scenario. they'd be almost imminently gangfucked by every other state with nukes in response. honestly im just going to chalk this up to racism and middle-eastern prejudice rather than anyone here actually thinking that the saudis are somehow inherently worse with nukes. [editline]30th March 2015[/editline] and by the way yes i am saying that not even ISIS would use nukes if given the tech. they might be mass-murdering twats but they want to establish their own state, and using a nuclear device isn't exactly conducive to that.

[QUOTE=Roger Waters;47423251]lol at all these tweens hopped up on Tom Clancy novels acting the like the saudis will just unload ICBM's if they get nukes newsflash, chucks: nukes get less dangerous the more people have them. they are a deterrent. if only one party has nukes, then that party holds all the cards, but if every party has nukes then that puts them all on equal footing and prevents them from making harsh strikes against each other for fear of retaliation. MAD is genuinely a good thing because it prevents power-play and the usage of nuclear weapons. plus you have to be fucking braindead to think that any state would use nuclear weapons in a first-strike scenario. they'd be almost imminently gangfucked by every other state with nukes in response. honestly im just going to chalk this up to racism and middle-eastern prejudice rather than anyone here actually thinking that the saudis are somehow inherently worse with nukes. [editline]30th March 2015[/editline] and by the way yes i am saying that not even ISIS would use nukes if given the tech. they might be mass-murdering twats but they want to establish their own state, and using a nuclear device isn't exactly conducive to that.[/QUOTE] Phew Can you teach me to be an alpha poster? Mad works true. But its somewhat irresponsible to allow a potentially unstable country have something as devastating as a nuke. Look at Iraq and Syria, chemical weapons in storage fell into the hands of terrorists and were subsequently used. If the Saudi regime lost its stability then you are risking those nuclear weapons falling into the hands of bad guys, bad guys who don't have a defined state to retaliate against, rendering MAD impossible. That said, Iran also has the potential (arguably less) for such instability yet I would support them being given the means to defend themselves against the Saudis and Israel. That's probably just my bias though.

[QUOTE=Roger Waters;47423251]lol at all these tweens hopped up on Tom Clancy novels acting the like the saudis will just unload ICBM's if they get nukes newsflash, chucks: nukes get less dangerous the more people have them. they are a deterrent. if only one party has nukes, then that party holds all the cards, but if every party has nukes then that puts them all on equal footing and prevents them from making harsh strikes against each other for fear of retaliation. MAD is genuinely a good thing because it prevents power-play and the usage of nuclear weapons. plus you have to be fucking braindead to think that any state would use nuclear weapons in a first-strike scenario. they'd be almost imminently gangfucked by every other state with nukes in response. honestly im just going to chalk this up to racism and middle-eastern prejudice rather than anyone here actually thinking that the saudis are somehow inherently worse with nukes. [editline]30th March 2015[/editline] and by the way yes i am saying that not even ISIS would use nukes if given the tech. they might be mass-murdering twats but they want to establish their own state, and using a nuclear device isn't exactly conducive to that.[/QUOTE] There are quite a few things wrong with what you just said: MAD - For starters MAD is generally discredited by the experts in the field of strategic nuclear warfare. Mostly because it assumes nuclear warfare is not survivable when most military leaders believe it is. Both sides in the Cold War took many many steps to improve their survivability and were confident that they could survive. The more popular theory is [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_utilization_target_selection]Nuclear Utilization Target Selection (NUTS)[/url]. Secondly, even if MAD was credible, it doesn't work on suicidal nutjobs like many people in the Saudi Royal Family because it relies on a country's leaders wanting to survive above all else. MAD is mostly espoused by the layman with little understanding of nuclear warfare. And Greenpeace. ICMBs - Not sure if you were implying it but the Saudis already have an intermediate ballistic missile system they bought form the Pakistanis. First-strike - A number of nations including the US and West Germany espoused a first use option when responding to a chemical or biological attack, against a conventional attack by the Soviets (It's a long story but in short they would have used tactical nuclear weapons in East Germany to buy time for the US Army to arrive from the States), and if they believed a nuclear capable enemy was about to launch a nuclear attack. It would be bloody but survivable. It's level of bloodiness dependent on whether the enemy responds with a counter-value or counter-force attack. Counter-force is the sane option, counter-value is the insane option. Of course, it would also be foolish for the Soviets to respond to tactical nuclear weapons use with strategic nuclear weapons against targets in the US because then the US would nuke Russian strategic targets rather than the East Germans. Racism - It's a well known fact that the Middle-East is a violent shithole. It's not racism, it's a fact. ISIS - Ever heard of martyrdom? Suicide bombing? These people do not give a shit about anyone else and believe that if they die in the service of Allah they will get free virgins in heaven. Even if ISIS as a group says it's against nuclear warfare, it doesn't mean everyone will follow it. ISIS is far from a homogenous group.

Let's not take anything the ambassador said on CNN too seriously. It's all very well thought out posturing and positioning.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;47410334]tom clancy must have been a time traveller or something, he predicted the ukraine/russia/crimea debacle as well[/QUOTE] Forget that, Ghost Recon came out in 2001 and it predicted the Russian invasion of South Ossetia in 2008 to within three months of the actual thing. [quote]Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon begins in April 2008, with civil unrest in Russia. Ultra-nationalists have seized power with plans to rebuild the Soviet Union. Their first step is clandestine support of rebel forces in Georgia and the Baltic States. Alarmed by the threat, the U.S. deploys the Ghosts into Georgia to stop the Russians.[/quote] [quote]After a prolonged lull, relations between Georgia and Russia began to worsen in April 2008. Ossetian separatists began shelling Georgian villages on 1 August, with a sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers in the region. Georgia launched a large-scale military operation during the night of 7–8 August, recapturing most of Tskhinvali in hours. The Georgian government said it was responding to attacks on its villages in South Ossetia, and that Russia was moving non-peacekeeping units into the country. Russia officially deployed units of the Russian 58th Army and airborne troops into South Ossetia on 8 August, launching air strikes against targets in Georgia proper.[/quote] Anyways, I'm having a hard time understanding the reactions in this thread. When the US applies political pressure to keep Iran from developing nuclear power, then it's the US being world police, being heavy-handed, ought to stop interfering, but when Saudi Arabia is developing nuclear power, they 'can't be trusted with it' or 'shouldn't be allowed'? What does that mean exactly?