AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: 6 Arab states want nukes
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,...attr=World

Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, UAE and Saudi Arabia are now seeking atomic technology. This is an obvious response to the failure by the UN to put an end to the Iranian nuclear program. The arab states are playing their hand to apply pressure on the international community. Israel may be concerned over potentially being surrounded nuclearly. This could push Israel into a preemptive strike.

Ask yourself on Tuesday, which party is going to prevent a nuclear middleeast? The republicans or the terrocrats who are endorsed by the terrorists?
Lest we forget who got us here.

An example of why Libs are not good for the USA

Celebrating a Liberal President Jimmy "I have lusted in my heart: Carter

Iranians mark US embassy siege
Thousands of school children and students in Tehran have marked the anniversary of the hostage-taking at the American embassy in 1979.

The speaker of the Iranian parliament compared the event to the current nuclear row, saying America always wanted to put Iran under pressure.

It was a rowdy celebration of student power, with boys and girls segregated outside the former American embassy.

A huge red flag saying "Death to America" was burned.

Many people carried banners with the same slogan and even puppets of Uncle Sam.

Addressing the crowd, the speaker of the Iranian parliament, Gholam Ali Hadad-Adel, warned America that Iranians were ready to react to any attempt to limit their access to nuclear power.

He said Iran was willing to pay the price of its independence once again.

No regrets

Iran's former President, Mohammad Khatami, had expressed regret for the seizure of the American embassy and its staff but today - with a new more conservative government in power - there is little sign of remorse.

Instead the speakers asked why America had not learned its lesson from the hostage-taking.

One young girl born after the revolution said she did not think the American embassy would ever reopen in Tehran because the United States was against Iran.

Another boy said if Iran was threatened again, he would be willing to copy the students who seized the US embassy in 1979.

All this made possible by a wimp in the White House that thought kowtowing to them was the answer, just like libs now. Nothing changes with these twits.
All Third World nations want nukes.

Not because they want to attack us, or others.

Because they think they need nukes to be taken seriously. Its a lot easier than actually developing first-class economies and democracy.
Anonymous24 Wrote:All Third World nations want nukes.

Not because they want to attack us, or others.

Because they think they need nukes to be taken seriously. Its a lot easier than actually developing first-class economies and democracy.

Yes, and the Tooth Fairey will also come and pay you for the teeth you hide under your pillow too. Wink1

If you don't think this a severe threat for the future, then I suggest you watch Obsession, or at least the short that I link to on the thread about Obsession.
I don't believe its a threat.

DUring the Cold War, many people believed it was a foregone conclusion that nuclear war between US and USSR was inevitable. It never happened. In fact, the USSR turned out to be 10X less the threat than anyone thought it was.

People generally overemphasize the threat of other nations. Its human nature to hype up the enemey.
Anonymous24 Wrote:I don't believe its a threat.

DUring the Cold War, many people believed it was a foregone conclusion that nuclear war between US and USSR was inevitable. It never happened. In fact, the USSR turned out to be 10X less the threat than anyone thought it was.

People generally overemphasize the threat of other nations. Its human nature to hype up the enemey.

Sigh,................completely different situation.

Tell me Anon, do you remember all those suicide bombers from Union of Soviet Socialists, dedicated to killing Capitalist Pigs? Can you remember all those religious zealots marching into Red Square, chanting "Death To America"?

I suggest you grow up quickly and smell the cordite, before you too are a statistic, as they gather pieces of your body for burial. "You know who" did nothing while India and Pakistan developed the bomb, and now this is happening all over the place.

Tell me Anon, do you expect all these countries to willingly submit samples of each of their enrichments, so we can record the unique trace for each production run? Do you honestly believe that we will be able to trace the residue of a terrorist detonation, without them, and go directly to the perp?

Anon, you are too naive for your own good. Fortunately, there are more, who are not, and can work around your misconceptions.
Anon,

You are dead wrong here.

In addition to what John already said, consider also this: with very minor exceptions, post-Stalin Soviet Union was mostly about keeping power within a small group of mediocre old men. While they were still expansionists, they were very careful expansionists. This is what made MAD work.

Islam, otoh, is not averse to taking risks. Given a few nuclear islamic powers it would be a very short time before we see them throwing nukes around just to see how the world reacts.

----

Attributing the current situation to Carter is IMO also wrong. (I'm not defending this creature). The Cold War balance of power made NPT very efficient (each side watched over its allies), and it is not an accident that the current failures occurred after the Cold War ended. If anyone needs to be blamed for them, it is the Clinton/Bush administrations.
mv Wrote:Anon,

You are dead wrong here.

In addition to what John already said, consider also this: with very minor exceptions, post-Stalin Soviet Union was mostly about keeping power within a small group of mediocre old men. While they were still expansionists, they were very careful expansionists. This is what made MAD work.

Islam, otoh, is not averse to taking risks. Given a few nuclear islamic powers it would be a very short time before we see them throwing nukes around just to see how the world reacts.

----

Attributing the current situation to Carter is IMO also wrong. (I'm not defending this creature). The Cold War balance of power made NPT very efficient (each side watched over its allies), and it is not an accident that the current failures occurred after the Cold War ended. If anyone needs to be blamed for them, it is the Clinton/Bush administrations.

I didn't attribute the current situation soley to Carter. I attribute the mishandling and aquiesence to him, which contributed as much, if not more so, since he preceded both. I presume you meant Bush 41.
More of it devolves to Clinton than Bush but he does enjoy his share.
I stand as stated.
Anonymous24 Wrote:I don't believe its a threat.

DUring the Cold War, many people believed it was a foregone conclusion that nuclear war between US and USSR was inevitable. It never happened. In fact, the USSR turned out to be 10X less the threat than anyone thought it was.

People generally overemphasize the threat of other nations. Its human nature to hype up the enemey.

Depends on what you mean by 'threat'. A full blown Cold War blow up with literally thousands of warheads exchanged probably would have been a "real threat" to humanity. On the other hand, the world can probably sustain some fairly minor nuclear skirmishes and a few hundred million casualties (both initial and cancer and rad poisoning deaths later on) without any "real threat" of sending us back to the stone age. Given the impotence of the world community in dealing with contemporary (albiet minor) threats posed by Iran, NK ... the list of countries from the initial post ... probably Japan before too long ... I figure that a wake up call is in order. I don't really see it as avoidable. (I just hope the wind is in my favor when it happens)
mr_yak Wrote:
Anonymous24 Wrote:I don't believe its a threat.

DUring the Cold War, many people believed it was a foregone conclusion that nuclear war between US and USSR was inevitable. It never happened. In fact, the USSR turned out to be 10X less the threat than anyone thought it was.

People generally overemphasize the threat of other nations. Its human nature to hype up the enemey.

Depends on what you mean by 'threat'. A full blown Cold War blow up with literally thousands of warheads exchanged probably would have been a "real threat" to humanity. On the other hand, the world can probably sustain some fairly minor nuclear skirmishes and a few hundred million casualties (both initial and cancer and rad poisoning deaths later on) without any "real threat" of sending us back to the stone age. Given the impotence of the world community in dealing with contemporary (albiet minor) threats posed by Iran, NK ... the list of countries from the initial post ... probably Japan before too long ... I figure that a wake up call is in order. I don't really see it as avoidable. (I just hope the wind is in my favor when it happens)
Of course the 'World' is a threat. Humansv populate it. I didn't worry about it then, I'm not going to now.
Why does anyone think we have the ability to even slow this desire? I don't understand the thought process here.

I wish we did,but India and Pakistan made them,why won't everyone else? What exactly were we going to do to prevent their building them?

I think Iran is why these Arabs suddenly want one so bad(whcih leads directly to the lie about them really caring about Israel,it's just a pimple on their as.s to use for pr purposes) and we're not doing anything to stop that.
Palladin Wrote:Why does anyone think we have the ability to even slow this desire? I don't understand the thought process here.

I wish we did,but India and Pakistan made them,why won't everyone else? What exactly were we going to do to prevent their building them?

I think Iran is why these Arabs suddenly want one so bad(whcih leads directly to the lie about them really caring about Israel,it's just a pimple on their as.s to use for pr purposes) and we're not doing anything to stop that.
Nothing will be done to stop them, except possibly by Israel as they understand they are target number one.
Its naivety to believe that people won't destroy themselves with nuclear weapons?

There is a reverse form of naivety. It is called paranoia.

I don't think it is possible to stop all these various nations from getting nukes. but that doesnt mean theyre going to use those weapons.

One thing I think people have been naive about is the power of so-called 'non-state actors'. I think, in the end, the nature of governments of states, made of men who are concerned about their personal power, will constrain the use of nuclear weapons.

Any state knows that if a nuke does go off in a terrorist attack, that gives us free license to attack that state.

The truth is so-called non-state actors have not increased in power. The terrorists who plotted 9/11 were supported by a state - Saudi Arabia(and Afghanistan, of course). Without those states they would have been powerless.
Anonymous24 Wrote:Its naivety to believe that people won't destroy themselves with nuclear weapons?

Why is it that you assume differentiate between a nuke and a suicide vest? If you haven't noticed people in the ME blow themselves up at least once pretty much every single day of the week ... (and twice during Ramadan). Do you really think that these same folks really 'see' the same line that you appear to draw between Plutonium and TNT?? :roll:

Your position is exactly why I see a mushroom cloud as nothing but inevitable ... and perhaps necessary to avert an even nastier outcome. Quit thinking in terms of 'if' and start thinking in terms of 'when'.

Paranoid or simply prepared for it? ... I guess you might call my position preparanoid Wink1
Actually getting a nuclear weapon is not the easiest thing in the world.

Its been 10+ years since the Soviet Union broke up and its own nukes floating around Russia, yet one hasn't fallen into the hands of a suicide bomber yet.
Anonymous24 Wrote:Actually getting a nuclear weapon is not the easiest thing in the world.

Its been 10+ years since the Soviet Union broke up and its own nukes floating around Russia, yet one hasn't fallen into the hands of a suicide bomber yet.

Yeah ... wow! A whole decade! ... what is that about a half a generation? We went something like a half century with only two major players ... difficult or not to obtain the technology ... we are now looking at something like a dozen or so new contestants. More and more rocking chairs ... and more and more cats in the same room ... and at some point ... boom.

It doesn't keep me up at night ... but on the other hand I won't delude myself into thinking it can't/won't happen. When people start deciding that catastrophe is impossible ... I can't help but start thinking about the Titanic. Wink1
Maybe so.

However, the best way to avoid catastrophe, or at the least minimize it, is to work with other nations, instead of invading/intimidating them.
Look folks, it is not about who has the bomb. It is about accountability, pure and simple. There are very few, who realize that ANY batch of enriched Uranium OR Plutonium is a unique process, and is different from all the rest. It is like a fingerprint, or the signature of the noise that Every propeller screw makes on a submarine or surface ship. If you know the signature, you can ALWAYS know or trace that signature back to the source.

If there are many countries with the bomb, especially Arab ones, there may well be one, or more, who will not willingly agree to open their process to inspection. And that is where the real problem comes in. If terrorists get their hands on a bomb, that was clandestinely processed and fabricated without the signature being registered, the event will not be traceable to it's source. And that means that blame cannot be assigned to anyone, and the terrorists AND rogue state get off clean.

This is what makes this such a dangerous situation for the future. If we cannot account for the production, we cannot go after the Real culprit.

Can't you folks see this?




Tracing The Steps In Nuclear Material Trafficing
John L Wrote:This is what makes this such a dangerous situation for the future. If we cannot account for the production, we cannot go after the Real culprit.

Can't you folks see this?

John L,

We might not go after the 'real' culprit ... but we will go after somebody ... guaranteed.

Personally I figure that the odds of a terrorist strike on the U.S. with a real nuke device are alot lower than Iran attacking Israel ... or Israel attacking Iran ... or the Saudi's attacking Iran ... or Pakistan going after India ... or Pakistan going after Iran ... or India going after China ... or Taiwan taking on China ... or Japan taking on China ... or China taking on Japan ... or [fill in the blank with an entirely new cast of characters from I4B's initial post]

What makes things dangerous for somebody/everybody is that there is going to be alot more nuclear armed somebodys potentially going after even more nuclear armed sombodys. If it wasn't for the damn wind blowing my way eventually ... I'd be more than content to let them all bomb themselves back to the stone age ... but the wind does blow ... and I think that tomorrow I'm gonna order myself some ProKI just in case ... S4

I get your point. Proliferation should be controlled ... with the appropriate 'fingerprints' taken ... so the "usual suspects" can be identified. But it isn't going to work out that way. Anonymous24 blames the U.S. and it's invasions and intimidation (big shock there eh?). I blame circumstances. There simply isn't the will to deal with this sh^&. Frankly, it will take some catastrophe to generate that will. Let's just hope it's a 'fairly' small scale horror.
John,

I see the potential problems,there is nothing we can do to slow or stop this process.

We're helpless here.

If 6 Arab states openly are seeking them,Iran and NK are,what exactly do you think WE can do to prevent it?

Stop trading with them? We haven't traded with NK or Iran in 30 years already,big difference that makes. Invade them all? Nuke them all?

EU,Russia and China basically assisting the Muslims,this is an out of our control situation.
Pages: 1 2