The 1st Arab nation to go nuclear?

[swerve]

...
The information above brings more question to mind. I.e. Did Iraq had enough funds to re-divert to nuclear program when war was ongoing with Iran? ..

Saddam found the money from somewhere. I don't know how far from producing a bomb they were, but they certainly had the programme. You don't install thousands of calutrons ("electromagnetic isotope separation" or EMIS process) in clandestine plants for fun: you do it to produce enriched uranium surreptitiously, and there's only one reason for anyone to do that. Same for cascades of centrifuges.

This bloke has written up a lot of what the IAEA found, in considerable detail. References here. He & his collaborators thought Iraq was several years from a bomb.

Here's what the IAEA said in 1992 - http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Iraq/iraqindex.html

No doubt there was a large-scale clandestine programme. How advanced it was is debatable.

 

[SABRE]

Saddam found the money from somewhere. I don't know how far from producing a bomb they were, but they certainly had the programme. You don't install thousands of calutrons ("electromagnetic isotope separation" or EMIS process) in clandestine plants for fun: you do it to produce enriched uranium surreptitiously, and there's only one reason for anyone to do that. Same for cascades of centrifuges.

This bloke has written up a lot of what the IAEA found, in considerable detail. References here. He & his collaborators thought Iraq was several years from a bomb.

Here's what the IAEA said in 1992 - http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Iraq/iraqindex.html

No doubt there was a large-scale clandestine programme. How advanced it was is debatable.

Well I did some digging & realized funds were really no problem as west made sure money kept flowing into the Iraq as war was going on. Perhaps we can agree on that Iraq had clandestine program but still the time period (by which they could have the bomb) would remain questionable.

 

[Firehorse]

In the second scenario, which Heisbourg dubs "Compromise," Iran successfully launches a Shahab rocket and orbiting satellite, proving it has a functioning delivery vehicle, then announces it has produced sufficient fissionable material at its Natanz facility to build two nuclear bombs in 2009 and begins work on underground test facilities in the basalt formations beneath the great salt desert of Dacht-e-Kavir. (Another nod to the database of the IISS.) Heisbourg calls even this option one with "disastrous consequences from every angle." Non-proliferation is all but totally discredited, North Korea resumes its nuclear program and Japan reopens its nuclear debate, Saudi Arabia decides it needs a bomb and buys a dozen or so from Pakistan, which desperately needs the oil.

I don't read French, but hope it will be translated & published in English soon! Perhaps someone here who's fluent in French can share their impression of that book?

 

[SABRE]

Just to make few points here:

1. Pakistan would not proliferate nuclear weapons to any Arab state or for that matter any Muslim state, especially since the inception of the Strategic Plans Division (under the National Command Authority) & its export control regime. - This I can assure since I have been around some of people from SPD & they take their jobs seriously.

Secondly; Pakistan already has a ghost of proliferation lurking around. It wont do any marketing of the bomb in anyways.

2. Don't forget the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Any state can withdraw from it but the outcome that might follow may be so tough that may be an oil rich state might not be able to sustain it.

 

[Firehorse]

Pakistan never signed the NPT: a treaty in crisis! The Saudis did, but IMO their regional and energy clout will keep the fallout to a minimum.
As a whole, Arab states can get uranium from FSU, Kazakhstan, Niger and/or SA.

As I wrote earlier, the Saudis probably already posess warheads designated for them.

 

[Feanor]

Do you have any sources with evidence that the Saudi's have nuclear weapons, or access to nuclear weapons or the techonology to produce them? Or are these just your personal mental (I really want to say "astral" ) projections?

 

[Firehorse]

I have no sources, but looking at the bigger picture, it would be foolish of them not to make arrangements with the Pakistanis. There are also some missing Russian "suitcase nukes" that, even if no longer operational, could be exploited for technology. I bet some of them found their way to the ME!
But even without them, their oil wealth could be used with no less devastating effect: just reducing the output would send the crude prices through the roof worlwide, and if anyone tries to capture those oil fields, there is probably a system in place to blow them all up!

.. planners must operate on the assumption the sabotage system is in place and prepare for the consequences. If this single-button self-destruct system does exist and were used, what would be its impact? The U.S. and other governments hold about 1.3 billion barrels of oil and gas in strategic reserves, a stock that would last about six months. Disaster would follow, Posner posits. "Once the strategic reserves proved inadequate, a nuclear environment in Saudi Arabia would create crippling oil price increases, political instability, and economic recessions unrivaled since the 1930s."If such a system is in place, two implications leap to mind. Should the Saudi monarchy retain its grip on power (which I consider likely), it has created for itself a unique deterrence against invasion. http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2601

Back to that book, suppose the Arabs get nukes in a tit-for tat with Iran. Then there will be reduced risk of an all-out war with either Iran or Israel, as MAD doctrine among states will keep everyone in their places.

 

[Aliph Ahmed]

Pakistan never signed the NPT: a treaty in crisis! The Saudis did, but IMO their regional and energy clout will keep the fallout to a minimum.
As a whole, Arab states can get uranium from FSU, Kazakhstan, Niger and/or SA.

As I wrote earlier, the Saudis probably already posess warheads designated for them.

Pakistan for the recrord proposed India on several occasions signing the NPT together but India always refused for " unknown " reasons.

but that was all before the tests. Now it is simply logical to sign NPT as a declared nuclear weopon state. Something the west are refusing to accept and therefore, the doom of NPT is inevitable.

 

[Feanor]

Firehorse it sounds like generalized speculations to me. Unless we can get info, I recommend you consider the Saudi's as not being anywhere near possessing nuclear capabilities.

 

[T-Rex]

Pakistan for the recrord proposed India on several occasions signing the NPT together but India always refused for " unknown " reasons.

but that was all before the tests. Now it is simply logical to sign NPT as a declared nuclear weopon state. Something the west are refusing to accept and therefore, the doom of NPT is inevitable.

The PNT is a tool of the super powers to maintain their nuclear supremacy by preventing other states from acquiring nuclear weapons. Before any other state, the nuclear weapons of the US, Britain and Israel should be dismantled or taken into the custody of the UN, for these states pose the greatest threat to world peace and stability.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The PNT is a tool of the super powers to maintain their nuclear supremacy by preventing other states from acquiring nuclear weapons. Before any other state, the nuclear weapons of the US, Britain and Israel should be dismantled or taken into the custody of the UN, for these states pose the greatest threat to world peace and stability.

And not China, India, Russia or North Korea? Hmmm..... You know only time two nuclear states were in direct conflict was during the kargil conflict between India and Pakistan and during several border clashes between the USSR and PROC including a vicious conflict over Damansky Island. It seems these states are more likely to start a nuclear war than Britain or isreal.

 

[RubiconNZ]

The PNT is a tool of the super powers to maintain their nuclear supremacy by preventing other states from acquiring nuclear weapons. Before any other state, the nuclear weapons of the US, Britain and Israel should be dismantled or taken into the custody of the UN, for these states pose the greatest threat to world peace and stability.

1st it's NPT, 2nd Wow being around forums for a couple of years has allowed me to read alot but thats about the biggest load of BS ever. Why not France or Russia as well, you don't think a nuclear armed North Korea is a greater threat to world stability?

Even without the NPT, which countries current signatories of the NPT
(that don't currently have nuclear weapons) would have a chance of challenging the US in a nuclear arms race?

Seriously:loony

 

[SABRE]

There is pinned thread on NPT. It contains the complete text. If you have to talk about NPT take it there & lets keep this thread to limited to the what the topic heading says.

In addition I think this thread will lead into trouble sometimes soon, therefore it is now under observation.

 

[Firehorse]

Firehorse it sounds like generalized speculations to me. Unless we can get info, I recommend you consider the Saudi's as not being anywhere near possessing nuclear capabilities.

I agree that those are my speculations, but I noticed that more often than not, and not only on this forum, but in my personal life, I've guessed things right. And here is something that can raise many eyebrows:

Israel, while supposedly observing an ironclad boycott of all things Iranian, is happily buying Iranian oil http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/richard_silverstein/2008/04/israels_tehran_connection.html

What does it have to do with the Arabs? Diring the Iran-Iraq war, only Syria was on Iran's side, given their animosity with Iraq, while the Gulf states supported Iraq. Now, with Israel in the West and Iran in the East, they are facing 2 nuclear states (not to mention US, UK, & France that had been periodically invading/colonizing them), that may or may not directly fight each other. What would you do if you were the Saudi King?

 

[Feanor]

What would you do if you were the Saudi King?

Let me rephrase your question to say "What could you do if you were the Saudi King?"

That way it's more accurate of the situation. Again I highly doubt they have nukes simply because they're antagonistic with both Iran and Israel. Pakistan isn't likely to be involved in any real nuclear proliferation because the international problems as a result would be likely to bring down the already unstable regime. Finally their capabilities and actual production of nuclear weapons has been highly limited. As a result they don't have very many warheads themselves.

If I was the Saudi King I'd get an effective strat-SAM network and large numbers of modern interceptors to cover all the major population centers. I'd also modernize and unify equipment for my Armed forces, and restructure them into coherent formations.

 

[SABRE]

Pakistan isn't likely to be involved in any real nuclear proliferation because the international problems as a result would be likely to bring down the already unstable regime. Finally their capabilities and actual production of nuclear weapons has been highly limited. As a result they don't have very many warheads themselves.

1st you have to upgrade your knowledge because regime already changed in Pakistan. This one has popular support plus the military backing.

2nd; AFAIK Pakistan's weapons production has been fairly moderate not limited, especially since Uranium is locally available. & the number of warheads are not easy to determine since they are never made public. --- But I'll only add that Pakistan does not maintain large number stockpile, enough to distribute it to any country.

Few years back Saudi Crown Prince (now King) Abduallah did ask for nuclear assistance in terms of weapons capability but was refused outright by Pakistan.

 

[Pro'forma]

I wouldn't like to see any progress less with delight the Arabian
Eurasia and Mediterranean neighbourhood with cooperation OSCE (the organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe).

No matter the location, nuclear is not to left out of its own luck.

Anti nuclear epitome is understood as long as state of disunity lacks
any morality.

 

[Firehorse]

Let me rephrase your question to say "What could you do if you were the Saudi King?"

Well, in addition to BMD, they could get 2 fleets of SSKs, one in the Gulf and the other in the Red Sea, armed with ASh/SLCMs, that could be used for 2nd strike & blockade of the straits & SLOCs around the Arabian peninsula.
The last post is hard to make sense of. Could you rephrase it?
The Libyans probably copied the technical documents they had before turning them over to the US; and they have

exchanged ratification documents of the treaty for economic, commercial, investment, technical, cultural and sports cooperation..

with Saudi Arabia 3.5 years ago!

 

[Feanor]

So? Knowing how to make nuclear weapons (and that itself is uncertain, you're simply speculating) is very different from possesing warheads at your disposal.

 

[Firehorse]

Japan is considered a de-facto nuclear state, having big plutonium stockpile & necessary know-how, besides American security guarantees. If those guarantees weren't there, it wouldn't make much of difference now anyway- they can get nukes in about 1 year from today if need be. But Japan has to import most of her oil from the Iran & GCC states, including Saudi Arabia! So, even without any warheads, they hold more cards!