The next step in the nucular game of chess.

S

spiraltwista

Joined
Nov 29, 2002
Messages
3,229
From the Times...

Not good.

Spiral.

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.
 
Uh huh. Thanks UN. Pay no attention to nuclear Iran. Lots of restraint there.

Thanks for posting this Spiral. I love this line.

"The move, which follows the failure by the West to curb Iran’s controversial nuclear programme"



25 years from now....

"Oh honey, the fallout is so pretty this time of year..."
 
Krickets eh. No suprise here.
 
I've no idea why we're in the UN, other than it is a convenient place to talk to people we'd have to talk to anyway.

munk
 
That is the reason, Munk. Its current structure really can't do much, except deliver emergency relief and other non-controversial stuff. Everybody just vetoes as they see fit. That said, I think that international cooperation is more important now than ever. Even if the UN isn't working right or at all, the kind of dialogue and mutual assistance that it was supposed to foster should be pursued now with great earnest. I don't know about you guys, but I'm sick and tired of seeing the US have to play world police.

Chris
 
While the timing is bad, the desire for inexpensive energy in a region not known for its abundant fresh water supplies is legitimate. Desalination requires large amounts of electricity.

As for a desire for nuclear weapons, can anyone blame any nation for this? Everyone's going to have them eventually; it's not that hard to build them once the infrastructure's in place. I don't see any way to prevent this. Regulation is dependant upon the will of others to enforce those regulations. Who will be the enforcer?

It looks like we're heading back to the days of MAD.
 
There are many states with threshold nuclear capacity already, in my opinion that is what Iran is after, the ability to produce nuclear weapons within a year or so without having to withdraw from the NPT. If Iran gets nukes I am unsure about who they would use them aggainsed offensivly. Their only real rival in the area is isreal, and beleive me it has never been iranian policy to mess with isreal. Despite the presidents rhetoric to the contrary the real power lies with the ayatolas who understand that attacking isreal means total obliteration. Isreal has enough nukes to effectivly wipe out any country on earth (about 200), and regional means of delivery. If Iran tries really hard they might be able to geta handful of weapons in the next decade. Frankly if I was a ruler of a muslim country near isreal I'd want nukes too.

As to the UN, you really cant have it both ways. Either it can be a body good at humanitarian aid and a forum for discussion without any power to intervine in the internal affairs of a country. What it is now, or it can be what others fear, a body with the power to override state sovriengty when it sees fit, at that point we are talking global governance which not many people are willing to live with. So the choice really is, use the UN for what it is and dont expect it to solve many international security problems or be willing to part with some state sovreingty.

Grob
 
I don't know if Man can survive the Age where Radical Islam doesn't care about self preservation. Nuclear stalement can't exist.

I have to wonder if many liberties we take for granted now may be gone through surviving the threat.

munk
 
I agree that extremists like most al-quaeda members et al will readily sacrifice themselves to acomplish the aims of thier leadership. But that leadership has goals that require their survival to enjoy. Al-qaeda wants to see extemist theocratic governments but most people in the middle east will not support that kind of thing. By attacking the west these groups provoke retaliation that will drive your average muslim living in the middle east into the arms of the extemists. most people dont like to see their country invaded, its humiliating, and many will side with anyone who will drive the invaders out. But this plan does not include haveing counties that already fit the theocratic mode disapear under mushroom clouds. Not to mention you dont see high ranking clerics and political leaders straping explosives to themselves. Unscrupulous people with power are happy to sacrifice other for thier ends but are not willing to make the ultimate sacrifice themselves. If and when Iran gets nuclar weapons I highly doubt its leadership would be willing to bare the consequences of using them aggresivly.
 
I'm in agreement with Grob. When's the last time a bigshot or head of state performed a suicide bombing? It doesn't happen.

Also, keep in mind that it would take quite some time (and not a little money) to generate a nuclear arsenal anywhere near the size of America's. A maximum effort from a new nuclear power (assuming that a delivery system could be produced) would generate an astonishing amount of damage but the retaliation could, and likely would, completely destroy the country that initiated it for all intents and purposes.

The US has not made it a secret that official policy dictates meeting force with force, particularly when weapons of mass destruction are deployed. This implied threat was sufficient to persuade Saddam Hussein not to deploy chemical weapons during the first Gulf War. It is probably sufficient to persuade other leaders as well.

My concern is not nations deploying nuclear weapons as an act of war, but rather individuals. I have doubts that some nations striving for nuclear capability are responsible enough to maintain proper control of such things.
 
The problem is not with nations having nukes, the problem is having nations that may supply terrorists with a weapon. (even inadvertently)
 
Who builds and sells the vast majority of weapons of all sorts to the world?
Do those sales always, unimpeachably, go to the "good guys"? How many of our fine soilders find themselves in harms way from any of these weapons?

God help the world if anybody's nuke is touched off for any reason anywhere ever.

Who do you think is the most likely candidate for using a nuclear weapon in either a strategic or tactical fashion in the next 10 years? What will be the target(s)? Who will be the casualities? What political goal is worth such an action?:mad: :mad: :mad:
 
The best case scenario I can see would be radical Islam becoming convinced that the PRK, not the US, is the great Satan.

Then, of course, China could take aggressive moves cloaked as self-defense. Hm....:(

John
 
Yes as I see it the more countrys have these, particularily third world one the more lilehood of "small local nucular war" {Egypt & israil vaporised to non existance etc.} & "terroist nukes in western cities"

Plus the general misshaps dumping more radioactivity into the atmoshpere.

I would rather no religious extremists of any persusian have nucular power.

Any Human who thinks there doing work in the name of God with divine insperation & right seems rather a scary charachter to me.

But my guess is its going to happen.

Spiral
 
As long as people feel the need for protection they will seek stronger weapons to deter potential attackers.

For instance North Korea. Hasn't it been more than 50 years since they were in a war?

How many wars have we been in? Has the US refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in any conflict we have been in recently?

True the Islamic bad guys want to get us. On the other hand terrorists need support from a large infrastructrue in order to carry out any elaborate plots and foiling those plots requires intelligence of people who have contact with them.

The US is already at a disadvantage for getting cooperation for these people due to their prejudice against the Jews and our support of Israel. That's wrong but other than trying to resolve the problems with the Israelis and Palestinians, which we have been pretty much hands off of in the last 6 years, there's not really that much we can do there to change that ingrained hatred.

However I believe that we can at least partially counter that and gain cooperation from these people, however the large amount of collateral damage our military operations are racking up, the torture thing, the policy of villifying anyone we disagree with and refusing to talk to them are undermining this opportunity to gain friendly people who might know important things about the terrorists.:thumbdn:
 
Yes, the most danger is radical elements getting nukes from radical States; but what happens after that? In the future, NY or Chicago or Seattle get nuked; the weapon is traced back to an Iran or other. Now, if we take action, Iran is a nuclear nation. Their deterence is the nuke. No matter how much top Al Queda/radical leadership values their own hides, nukes would be used in an US intervention, on both sides.

After that, what happens?
The West, Germany, England, US, etc, are not going to tolerate a nuclear event on their soil. What would one suggest they do? Be 'honorable' and obstain while the UN worked out the peace process? Sit still for more pot shots?

Perhaps the US should reinterate the chain of responsibility for a loose nuke, letting any would be rogue state know their sand fields would become glass.

None of this is going to be easy. Russia and the US were stopped by MAD.
What's stopping a 20 year old hate monger from ending the world now by what he puts in motion with a single biological or nuclear event?


munk
 
I don't think a nuclear response is appropriate from us in any situation where we could easily destroy a country with conventional weapons. Even if they nuked us first. The world climate is too important to us. Playing a spade on their spade when they had one and we have 51 is unacceptable IMO.

That said I think making Iran an example IS appropriate. Destroying their capability without invading, through a combination of air power and covert operations is possible. What would those countrys do if Iran had a nuclear "accident" at their development facilities? Might think twice about toying with the nuclear beast? We must increase our spy capability to the point that it can be used offensively again as it was during the cold war, or we'll have project after project like we have in Iraq.
 
Andy, where are these conventional forces? They are already deployed.
I don't think any of us now can imagine the impact of having a nuke or biological agent used against either one of our cities or troops already in the field. If that happens, all bets are off.

munk
 
Fortunately, targeting troops in the field is one of the least effective uses of a nuclear device. You have a dispersed target, usually with NBC gear...

If you have limited nuclear capability, the trend would be to maximize your gain by striking a target rich environment- a city.

If you're comfortable, or even happy, with peripheral/non-military personnel dying, cities are especially juicy targets.

John
 
I don't believe nation X would like irradiating it's own land.
NY get's nuked. We trace it to Nation X. We what? Bomb them? OK. Now they're bombed. Anything else? We going in to 'stablize' the enemy, crush them? We get nuked in the field. What now? Or maybe after we bomb them another nuke goes off in San Bernardino. What now? (besides the letter of thanks)

And how many troops we got to do all this?

You know, if NY gets nuked, the price is trillions to the rest of the world, and the emerging nations suffer the most with scarcity of goods. Ripples upon ripples.

This time is as bad as it gets. Remember the speculation on the prehistory, unknown event that shrank the human gene pool to almost nothing, that left the species with far less diversity than many others? It could get that bad.
Allah will be happy, but the rest of us won't be around to see the smile on His face.

munk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top