A Saudi Nuclear Option?

[Dropkick]

A Saudi Nuclear Option?

Anyone who has read Jonathan Schrek's book 'Patriot Lost' may be convinced.

For anyone who hasn't read it, the work is 90% personal rant against his former employers (the US Government), 10% plausible observation. And this is point here - what he has to say in regards Saudi and the potential for a US 'bypass' in concerns to a Saudi-Chinese deal on Weapons of Mass Destruction cannot be ignored.

Narrowed down to two points, Schrek alleges the following:

1. The Saudi Strategic Missile Force has replaced its old CSS-2 (Dong Feng-3) missiles with very more modern, road-mobile CSS-5 (Dong Feng 21) systems.

2. Even with the George W Bush Presidency knowledge, Saudi acquired nuclear warheads for these CSS-5 missiles.

Who knows the truth?

Would the US upset or block such a critical ally if it where seriously intent on gaining such a capability? (Saudi money underwrites the Western economy).

Could the US stop a covert Saudi-Chinese deal in the first place? (The CIA didn't know about Saudi's CSS-2 purchase for at least 18 months).

Further, why has Saudi renovated its known missile launch sites, spent millions on a new Missile Force Command Centre and boosted numbers serving in the SRF? Why is the US Navy launching Trident missiles off the coast of Saudi, why are Chinese Nationals walking around Jeddah dressed as Arabs?

Do you know why?

 

[STURM]

Could the US stop a covert Saudi-Chinese deal in the first place? (The CIA didn't know about Saudi's CSS-2 purchase for at least 18 months).

According to Prince Khalid in his book, Desert Warrior, the CIA only got suspicious when satelitte photos showed bearded men in Chinese training facilities.

Would the US upset or block such a critical ally if it where seriously intent on gaining such a capability? (Saudi money underwrites the Western economy).

Good question. If the U.S. were to push Saudi to hard, countries in the region might start asking about Israel's nuke detterence and American policy of not discussing it.

 

[T.C.P]

Most people think that the Saudis will eventually have the nuke, if Iran's nuclear ambitions aren't stopped. Iran's bomb will be seen as a Shia bomb and in reply the leader of the Sunni's Suadi Arabia, must develop a Sunni bomb.
Israel knows that Saudi Arabia considers Iran a bigger threat than Israel, so I don't know how much they will be against Saudi Arabia having nukes.

 

[opz]

You ask and answer to yourself !!

many sources talk about Saudi Nuclear , also we now the Saudi Arabia has supported Pakistan when the process of building nuclear reactors !!

and i think that Saudi Arabia will not be supported without any charge at all

look this source :

globalsecurity.org/org/news/2007/070217-saudi-nukes.htm

^
^
enter this link

The real reason to ignore the United States this thing, is because of Saudi support for infinite dollars, and the simplest thing is to link oil in dollars, you can imagine what would happen if the dollar peg break this !

 

[airforcegeek]

Most people think that the Saudis will eventually have the nuke, if Iran's nuclear ambitions aren't stopped. Iran's bomb will be seen as a Shia bomb and in reply the leader of the Sunni's Suadi Arabia, must develop a Sunni bomb.
Israel knows that Saudi Arabia considers Iran a bigger threat than Israel, so I don't know how much they will be against Saudi Arabia having nukes.

One thing to note is that the Saudis and Israelis probably posses nuclear capability while the north koreans and Iranians claim to have nuclear programs which are far inferior to those of the israelis and saudis

 

[My2Cents]

You ask and answer to yourself !!

many sources talk about Saudi Nuclear , also we now the Saudi Arabia has supported Pakistan when the process of building nuclear reactors !!

and i think that Saudi Arabia will not be supported without any charge at all

look this source :

globalsecurity.org/org/news/2007/070217-saudi-nukes.htm

The real reason to ignore the United States this thing, is because of Saudi support for infinite dollars, and the simplest thing is to link oil in dollars, you can imagine what would happen if the dollar peg break this !

Look again at: Pak agrees to give Saudis nuclear bomb
Pakistan agreed to provide an atomic deterrent in the event of “a nuclear emergency”. The transfer of control would also occur in case Iran threatened the Persian Gulf Emirates, Egypt or Jordan.

Saudi Arabia currently does not, and may never, have possession of an atomic deterrent. But they are setting up access to one if needed.

And why should the US do anything about this kind of deal? Unless they take receipt of the deterrent, presumably missiles with warheads, before the event, this seems like a fairly reasonable response to Iran’s continuing attempts to build their own nuclear arsenal.

Saudi Arabia is also putting the world on notice that if Iran is not dealt with the nuclear arms race and fears of WWIII will be restarted in the middle east. And if the world does stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons then Saudi Arabia may, and under the terms listed will, never touch the filthy things.:sniper

 

[Beatmaster]

Hmm israel does have a few nukes, pakistan has some, India has some, Iran is on its way to produce one (At least thats what believed) and now the saudies....that might get their hands on one or 2.

Iam trying to see the picture here, what does the saudies gain by having the option to go the wmd way?

As some of you guys said in other topic's the saudies have a strong army that is able to effective stop and eventually defeat iran specially with some help from its allies.
So what does the saudies gain from having a few nukes?

Imo we all have serious problems by the idea that Iran gets a few bombs, and we all know that the western world will step in if this does happen, but somehow this aint enough to calm the fear by the nations that are against Iran's wmd drive and progress.

So lets see this in detail, the saudies might not be the best friends with Israel and egypt how ever ill bet that if Iran goes hostile that all 3 will be hitting Iran while being supported by the west.
Iam not sure what role syria is going to play as they are kinda against the west and against israel but i do not believe that Iran can effective do something about the fact that they will be crushed in the event of a full scale war.

So what does the Iranian tick to make the region this fearfull?
I mean ill bet that the world will not be happy about the fact that the saudies might gain a nuke so imo this will only hurt the saudies.
Also the goverments in the region aint exactly solid and without corruption so by having more nukes in the region this might be dangerous considering the fact that hostile rebels groups might get their hands on radioactive stuff themselfs.....wich is by far out of the question because i believe that this should be avoided......imagine...that bin laden or hezzbollah would have acces to such weapons.
And by allowing more nations in that region to get this tech and option does this not increase the danger in a already troubled region?

 

[My2Cents]

Hmm israel does have a few nukes, pakistan has some, India has some, Iran is on its way to produce one (At least thats what believed) and now the saudies....that might get their hands on one or 2.

Iam trying to see the picture here, what does the saudies gain by having the option to go the wmd way?

Insurance. There is an anonymous quote from a Turkish general shortly after joining NATO that goes “The problem with having the Americans as your allies is that you never know when they'll turn around and stab themselves in the back”. Too many people are saying “So what if Iran has nukes, we can cut a deal.”, that Saudi Arabia is feeling like Czechoslovakia in 1938 or Poland in 1939.

What people need to ask their governments now is what will they do if nuclear war breaks out in the Persian Gulf, and what they are doing to prevent it? They might also like to ask themselves how many Gulf states may have, or are negotiating, similar deals.

As some of you guys said in other topic's the saudies have a strong army that is able to effective stop and eventually defeat iran specially with some help from its allies.
So what does the saudies gain from having a few nukes? ?

The Saudi army can slow the Iranian, possibly even stop them for a while, but only in their dreams can they defeat them. So who will reinforce them, and how fast will they show up if Iran threatens to use nuclear weapons?

Imo we all have serious problems by the idea that Iran gets a few bombs, and we all know that the western world will step in if this does happen, but somehow this aint enough to calm the fear by the nations that are against Iran's wmd drive and progress.

The western world seems in no rush to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. So what do you think the world will do once Iran does have nuclear weapons? Iran is betting the answer is NOTHING. Saudi Arabia cannot afford that.

So lets see this in detail, the saudies might not be the best friends with Israel and egypt how ever ill bet that if Iran goes hostile that all 3 will be hitting Iran while being supported by the west.
Iam not sure what role syria is going to play as they are kinda against the west and against israel but i do not believe that Iran can effective do something about the fact that they will be crushed in the event of a full scale war.

If the west is not willing to accept a slight inconvenience to stop the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons, why should anyone think that they will be willing to chance their troops where a nuclear weapon could be used on them?

And then there is the threat that Iran could supply one to some extremist group. The US may not be a good target, too likely to get intercepted when smuggling it in, but European ports are easy. And too many voices will be screaming give the Iranians a little and they will be satisfied.

So, “Peace for our time” . . . again.

So what does the Iranian tick to make the region this fearfull?
I mean ill bet that the world will not be happy about the fact that the saudies might gain a nuke so imo this will only hurt the saudies.
Also the goverments in the region aint exactly solid and without corruption so by having more nukes in the region this might be dangerous considering the fact that hostile rebels groups might get their hands on radioactive stuff themselfs.....wich is by far out of the question because i believe that this should be avoided......imagine...that bin laden or hezzbollah would have acces to such weapons.
And by allowing more nations in that region to get this tech and option does this not increase the danger in a already troubled region?

Agreed. But the deal seems to be that Saudi Arabia only gets the weapons if someone else threatens to use nuclear weapons in the Gulf. If so, then the solution is simple, once we stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons the problem goes away. That is the Saudi message.

 

[Beatmaster]

2cents thx for the info

Question: Would the west US And NATO) not be forced to use military power to the full extend?
The reason why i ask this, if you take into account that most of the outside US bases are based in Turkey, Egypth, Israel, Saudi Arabia
Take a look at this picture:

Picture

Here are most of the US bases listed (2007-2010)
Blue: More than 1000 US troops
LightBlue: More than 100 US troops
Orange: Use of military facilities

As you can see there are alot of US bases and i did not even count the EU/NAVO bases.
My point here is regardless if the west steps in or not the moment Iran is using the bomb or any force at all to any of these nations then they have theoreticaly speaking attcked the west directly wich infact means that those nations will request aid and help from their so called allies and partners.
Both US and EU will have to respond even if they like it or not correct?
As to my understanding if i would kill a US soldier (Act of war) then the US has to respond and in this scenario declare war wich automaticly brings NAVO/NATO into play Article 5 of the NATO Charter:
The Article says that an attack on any member shall be considered to be an attack on all.

Because correct me if iam wrong but lets say theoretical that Iran would declare war to Israel either by attacking them or hitting them out of the blue with a nuke, then its VERY likely that they will kill alot of US personel well see where iam heading?

The point is nearly all the nations that are considered a enemy of Iran are loaded with western bases and installations and imo this alone would force any of the nations that have troops and assest in the region to step in and defend the host nation and its intrests.

I think (speculating here) that the west is not very eager to step in mainly because both US and Nato have already enough problems and mission's (Iraq, afganistan, and other NATO projects) so the last thing they need is another war.
Also on a political level NATO is kinda divided, and what NATO does need is unity within its ranks against Iran, and this will taken care off the moment Iran goes hostile.

So i think that NATO will let Iran play and poke around for a bit knowing that it will take some time for them to get a nuke in the first place, wich in turn gives the US and NATO time to prep and monitor the situation knowing that Israel and the saudies will give Iran a run for their money while US and NATO forces heading to Iran to finish them....at least that sound reasonable to me.
Just speculating here.....so if iam wrong feel free to correct me.
Still i agree with your post however the question remains:
Regardless if NATO acts lazy and seem to not care enough eventually they will have to step in right?

 

[My2Cents]

Question: Would the west US And NATO) not be forced to use military power to the full extend?
The reason why i ask this, if you take into account that most of the outside US bases are based in Turkey, Egypth, Israel, Saudi Arabia

As you can see there are alot of US bases and i did not even count the EU/NAVO bases.
My point here is regardless if the west steps in or not the moment Iran is using the bomb or any force at all to any of these nations then they have theoreticaly speaking attcked the west directly wich infact means that those nations will request aid and help from their so called allies and partners.
Both US and EU will have to respond even if they like it or not correct?
As to my understanding if i would kill a US soldier (Act of war) then the US has to respond and in this scenario declare war wich automaticly brings NAVO/NATO into play Article 5 of the NATO Charter:
The Article says that an attack on any member shall be considered to be an attack on all.

Because correct me if iam wrong but lets say theoretical that Iran would declare war to Israel either by attacking them or hitting them out of the blue with a nuke, then its VERY likely that they will kill alot of US personel well see where iam heading?

The point is nearly all the nations that are considered a enemy of Iran are loaded with western bases and installations and imo this alone would force any of the nations that have troops and assest in the region to step in and defend the host nation and its intrests.

I think (speculating here) that the west is not very eager to step in mainly because both US and Nato have already enough problems and mission's (Iraq, afganistan, and other NATO projects) so the last thing they need is another war.
Also on a political level NATO is kinda divided, and what NATO does need is unity within its ranks against Iran, and this will taken care off the moment Iran goes hostile.

So i think that NATO will let Iran play and poke around for a bit knowing that it will take some time for them to get a nuke in the first place, wich in turn gives the US and NATO time to prep and monitor the situation knowing that Israel and the saudies will give Iran a run for their money while US and NATO forces heading to Iran to finish them....at least that sound reasonable to me.
Just speculating here.....so if iam wrong feel free to correct me.
Still i agree with your post however the question remains:
Regardless if NATO acts lazy and seem to not care enough eventually they will have to step in right?

War is never automatic. If Iran deliberately targets US installations for attack while ignoring domestic military forces in those countries it would be a casus belli if the US chose to make it so. The president could rush in more forces and counter attack, but Congress would still have to approve a formal war. Building up enough forces will take time that will not exist if Iran achieves surprise. Releasing nuclear weapons without an actual nuclear attack on US soil would be extremely unlikely.

But the point of nuclear weapons is NOT TO USE THEM. Nuclear weapons are best as a threat to limit your opponent’s options, or as blackmail to deter attack.:duel

So Iran launches a conventional invasion of Saudi Arabia, but threatens to use nuclear weapons either mounted on missiles that can reach the NATO countries or smuggled into unnamed NATO countries if they intervene. Missile defenses could be in place, but they are not absolutely reliable, so it is unlikely that European politicians would be willing to take the risk. They in turn would put pressure on the US not to intervene if Iran states that the US alone would be considered as NATO intervention.

Oh, and your map shows no US troops in Israel.hwell

 

[Beatmaster]

True i agree WMD's sould be there as threat just incase...or even better get rit of them.
Still personally i think that NATO does not have mutch options when it comes to a hostile Iran, the middle east will be screaming for help.
And the last thing we need is that a already troubled region goes beserk i think that NATO and the US are well aware of that and will try to avoid that at all costs.
So eventually if the european politicians are faced with a desision to step in or not they will not have the luxury to say no.
Another thing is that the US and NATO are arming the saudies to fight this war if this ever happens:

A senior defense official said that the Obama administration would formally notify Congress this week or next week, about the ground breaking deal which is the largest ever between the US and the Kingdom. The Obama administration will authorize Saudi-Arabia to buy 84 new F-15 fighter jets and upgrade 70 more. Also in the package are three types of helicopters: 70 Apaches, 72 Black Hawks and 36 Little Birds. The package will include HARM anti-radar missiles and other precision guided missiles as well.Furthermore, the Obama administration is planning to sell to Saudi-Arabia weapon systems and ships to upgrade the Kingdom’s naval forces.
Source

Also i did read something that the US (and nato) are putting Israel, Egypth, Saudi under a protection umbrella wich wil enable nato to step in at any time.

btw yeah the map is not complete it dates back from 2007 (wikipedia) but you get the idea...

 

[My2Cents]

True i agree WMD's sould be there as threat just incase...or even better get rit of them.
Still personally i think that NATO does not have mutch options when it comes to a hostile Iran, the middle east will be screaming for help.
And the last thing we need is that a already troubled region goes beserk i think that NATO and the US are well aware of that and will try to avoid that at all costs.
So eventually if the european politicians are faced with a desision to step in or not they will not have the luxury to say no.

The European politicians have the same options that the Allied nations had in 1938 at Hungary and the Sudetenland, and 1939 at Czechoslovakia. They too were “screaming for help”.

Frankly, the pattern in Europe looks very similar – underfunded and undermanned militaries, and feckless politicians pandering to a public convinced anything is better than is better than going to war, but refusing to consider the cost if that war is lost.uke

 

[Beatmaster]

True the pattern looks the same, however this is not 1930/40's NATO might be underfunded and undermanned as the economic crisis cuts on places where it hurts.
And feckless politicians you will find everywhere, however NATO is a beast that needs a few hard slaps in the face before it wakes up.
This is what most people forget, NATO as an organisation and defence coalition does have serious power and does have everything it needs to bring the fight to any agressor, so in case of war NATO will get the job done.
I agree feckless politicians will make the weels turn slow very slow, but trust me they are turning.
Another aspect that comes into play is that if Iran goes hostile is that the international community will look at NATO and will pressure NATO to act, as the economic situation does not allow NATO to look away there is just to mutch at stake.
Personally iam not a fan of NATO and neither am i a fan of the US however iam pertty sure that both will never allow Iran to act.
Either by proxy or either directly they will sweep Iran clean.
The average EU politicians will obviously be against a war of any kind, however talks between the US and NATO/EU have made sure that IF Iran does use force than NATO will act, as the US knew on front that the EU goverments aint that keen on going to war.
However as i said the US did mke sure they have the full support by NATO:

Brussels has been asked to draw up a military strike against Iran.
This indirect publicity would serve the Obama administration in four ways:
1. Tehran would be made aware that the US president has taken another big step towards American military action against Iran.
2. The Iranians would understand they could be in for a confrontation not just with US forces but a coalition of Western allies.
3. It would turn the heat on Iran ahead of a new round of nuclear talks due to begin this month with the Six Powers (the five Permanent UN Security Council Members + Germany).
4. The knowledge that the US is preparing to destroy their nuclear installations – even though Washington was not seeking a full-scale war – would keep Iran’s rulers on tenterhooks for D-Day.

So iam not saying you are wrong however this issue with Iran has a mutch bigger footprint then any conflict that NATO ever faced so it will also be a test for NATO.
So as i was saying the weels turn slow really slow but they are turning.
The west and the international community just aint going to accept a nuke capable Iran so regardless who is going to do the dirty work either Israel, or US or US + Coalition or even a proxy war involving the saudies and israel it really does not matter in the end as iam pretty sure that Teheran will understand that this is one of those fights they are NOT going to win.
However another thing that pops up in my mind this war is already lost for both ways as it has been proven again that diplomatic channels failed again and have to resort to military power.
So the biggest challenge will be for the west to improve their diplomatic channels, as the only true power that NATO has is its military strenght.
And for a organisation as NATO it would be mutch better to have more diplomatic weight rather then keep swinging everytime diplomatic channels fail.

 

[My2Cents]

True the pattern looks the same, however this is not 1930/40's NATO might be underfunded and undermanned as the economic crisis cuts on places where it hurts.
And feckless politicians you will find everywhere, however NATO is a beast that needs a few hard slaps in the face before it wakes up.
This is what most people forget, NATO as an organisation and defence coalition does have serious power and does have everything it needs to bring the fight to any agressor, so in case of war NATO will get the job done.
I agree feckless politicians will make the weels turn slow very slow, but trust me they are turning.
Another aspect that comes into play is that if Iran goes hostile is that the international community will look at NATO and will pressure NATO to act, as the economic situation does not allow NATO to look away there is just to mutch at stake.
Personally iam not a fan of NATO and neither am i a fan of the US however iam pertty sure that both will never allow Iran to act.
Either by proxy or either directly they will sweep Iran clean.
The average EU politicians will obviously be against a war of any kind, however talks between the US and NATO/EU have made sure that IF Iran does use force than NATO will act, as the US knew on front that the EU goverments aint that keen on going to war.
However as i said the US did mke sure they have the full support by NATO:

Sir,
You appear to have contracted a very serious case of “Wishful Thinking”

Brussels has been asked to draw up a military strike against Iran.

Propaganda for public consumption. They should already have dozens of these studies on file as part of their normal contingency planning.

1. Tehran would be made aware that the US president has taken another big step towards American military action against Iran.

How so? The US is a NATO member, it does not control NATO nor is it controlled by NATO. Though it is certainly possible politicians on both sides will pretend otherwise to pass the blame for inaction.

2. The Iranians would understand they could be in for a confrontation not just with US forces but a coalition of Western allies.

Only if they believe that the NATO members are willing to go along. Will Turkey be willing to go along? They are getting awfully close with Iran these days.

3. It would turn the heat on Iran ahead of a new round of nuclear talks due to begin this month with the Six Powers (the five Permanent UN Security Council Members + Germany).

China is their biggest trading partner and they are China’s biggest oil supplier. China will not permit greater trade sanctions and will veto any substantive UN resolution. Nothing has changed, and Iran will go for another propaganda victory lap while running out the clock.

4. The knowledge that the US is preparing to destroy their nuclear installations – even though Washington was not seeking a full-scale war – would keep Iran’s rulers on tenterhooks for D-Day.

And this is something NEW? This threat has been made regularly for what, 4 years? 6 years? I have lost track.

Most of the target facilities are now deep underground. Iran believes that they are bomb proof, they could be wrong. They also believe that the US does not know their location with sufficient accuracy (We can see the entrance, but how long is the tunnel and in which directions?) to destroy them with a reasonably sized force, they might be right. In addition, a number of these buried faculties are located beneath civilian population and an attack would create unacceptable civilian casualties.

The west and the international community just aint going to accept a nuke capable Iran so regardless who is going to do the dirty work either Israel, or US or US + Coalition or even a proxy war involving the saudies and israel it really does not matter in the end as iam pretty sure that Teheran will understand that this is one of those fights they are NOT going to win.

Iran does not think that the US can attack on their own given other commitments, and that the NATO countries will not provide sufficient assistance to overcome this. They are probably also betting the current regime in Turkey will find an excuse to stay neutral in any conflict.

That leaves the proxy war option. Saudi Arabia is getting ready to play their part, which is why they are trying to acquire a nuclear capability to counter Iran’s.

The west and the international community just aint going to accept a nuke capable Iran so regardless who is going to do the dirty work either Israel, or US or US + Coalition or even a proxy war involving the saudies and israel it really does not matter in the end as iam pretty sure that Teheran will understand that this is one of those fights they are NOT going to win.

Iran thinks that the world lacks the will to stop them, so that the world will accept an ascendant nuclear Iran which will then lead the global Jihad that will result in the Shia caliphate. They are wrong of course, but maybe not yet. We will pay for failure to act on this now in the future with compound interest.

 

[Beatmaster]

Sir,
You appear to have contracted a very serious case of “Wishful Thinking”

Lol seriously buddy this made me laugh, do you really think that Iran will get away with this and do you really think that the west will allow a hostile Iran?
China and Russia both have solid relations with Iran, however those relations will be dropped really fast if Iran goes hostile or gets a nuke.
Keep in mind this problem is alot bigger then it looks at the first glance.
There is not a single country that will like the fact that Iran gets a nuke, or that Iran shows its colors and invade or a attack one of the neightbouring countries?
Hell no.
I see what you are trying to say and yes i can relate and agree to what you are saying however you have to keep in mind that both US and NATO trying to play by the book but when it really comes down to actions then those will be taken.
As i said either directly by US and Coalition forces or either by a proxy war but Iran will not enjoy their actions.
If you believe that this might be differend then you should readup on the net and see other topic's made on this forum that state similair things.
Right or left it really does not matter, if Iran's play time runs out then actions will be taken wich probably will result in a war.

Propaganda for public consumption. They should already have dozens of these studies on file as part of their normal contingency planning.

Propaganda for public consumption? well yes and no it does serve a public function, however for example wikileaks leaked documents state otherwise.
Planning is being done for some time now both as a teaser for the public but also for real.

Only if they believe that the NATO members are willing to go along. Will Turkey be willing to go along? They are getting awfully close with Iran these days.

Turkey is not really worried about Iran. With Iraq out of the equation, the main worry is Syria. Turkey actually threatned Syria with war if they kept harbouring terrorist. Syria shoved APO off to Greece (Yunanistan) and the greeks probably tipped the turks off. The most encouraging is the way Greece and Turkey seem to ease their mutual distrust.

Here a quote:
Both countries agreed Iran should not achieve "nuclear weapons capability," and needed to do everything to ensure such a situation. source

So it really does not matter mutch if turkey likes a war against Iran or not they already said that if Iran has a peacefull program then they will support Iran wich i understand, however the moment Iran gets a weapon or is in the proces of building one then the support from turkey to Iran will stop and Turkey will support NATO either by sanctions or either by military intervention.
However the NATO way is just one of the options, as the US could use a proxy war and this would make turkey's words useless.

How so? The US is a NATO member, it does not control NATO nor is it controlled by NATO. Though it is certainly possible politicians on both sides will pretend otherwise to pass the blame for inaction.

Naah Obama does not own NATO, but this does not change the fact that agreements have been made wich will force NATO to act this has been pointed out in a other topic on this forum.

China is their biggest trading partner and they are China’s biggest oil supplier. China will not permit greater trade sanctions and will veto any substantive UN resolution. Nothing has changed, and Iran will go for another propaganda victory lap while running out the clock.

This has been discussed a million times here on this forum, China can say whatever they like but eventually they will go along as has been pointed out by others at similair topic's.

And this is something NEW? This threat has been made regularly for what, 4 years? 6 years? I have lost track.

Nothing new here, but here in the netherlands we got a saying:
A warned person should count his/her blessings twice

Iran thinks that the world lacks the will to stop them, so that the world will accept an ascendant nuclear Iran which will then lead the global Jihad that will result in the Shia caliphate. They are wrong of course, but maybe not yet. We will pay for failure to act on this now in the future with compound interest.

Agree it all seems to good to be true for Iran, i mean they have alot of play room wich is also their downfall as at some point even their friends will put their fist on the the table and say enough is enough.

However i can agree to your comments and idea's about this so its not that i do not understand what you are trying to say, but the middle east is a very dangerous place to play around with nukes and army toys.

 

[NICO]

I just had a crazy thought here, I am not big on conspiracies theories but wouldn't this be a good time with all the unrest in Middle East for SA to acquire nukes? I don't believe they are but with all this tension in ME, it would be as good as any time in the foreseeable future for them to acquire them now. Especially with the news that Iranian ships are trying to go Suez canal and well, under UN sanctions, isn't legal for USN to inspect Iranian ships? This hasn't received a ton of coverage in the West so this could get ugly and surprise most average Westerners, it would be a good time for SA to buy nukes from China when no one is paying attention.

If SA is interested in acquiring nukes, wonder what China is asking for them?

I don't believe in any of this, just wanted to throw it out there.

 

[SABRE]

Look again at: Pak agrees to give Saudis nuclear bomb
Pakistan agreed to provide an atomic deterrent in the event of “a nuclear emergency”. The transfer of control would also occur in case Iran threatened the Persian Gulf Emirates, Egypt or Jordan.

I can assure you there is no such agreement. The chances of deploying Pakistani nuclear weapons on Saudi soil are virtually nil, let alone give them the control. Such an act will turn 'nuclear Iran' against Pakistan. With Afghanistan in turmoil, economy in downward spiral and India beyond doubt hell-bound to destabilize Pakistan, the last thing Pakistan would want is Iran to turn its nuclear arsenal on it.

Moreover, I don't think Saudis have the know how on how to launch Pakistan nuclear weapons. They are not on just"push-the-button-&-launch" mechanism. They comprise of local versions of Permissive Action Links (PALs). Plus, the Saudis forces have no training in launching nuclear strikes.

 

[My2Cents]

I can assure you there is no such agreement.

I hope you are right, but I am just debating what the article said.

The chances of deploying Pakistani nuclear weapons on Saudi soil are virtually nil, let alone give them the control. Such an act will turn 'nuclear Iran' against Pakistan. With Afghanistan in turmoil, economy in downward spiral and India beyond doubt hell-bound to destabilize Pakistan, the last thing Pakistan would want is Iran to turn its nuclear arsenal on it.

Moreover, I don't think Saudis have the know how on how to launch Pakistan nuclear weapons. They are not on just"push-the-button-&-launch" mechanism. They comprise of local versions of Permissive Action Links (PALs). Plus, the Saudis forces have no training in launching nuclear strikes.

The agreement outlined in the article indicated that the Saudi’s underwrote the Pakistani development in return for a promise to supply them with a nuclear deterrent capability if and when they needed it. In chronological order they would have been worried by nuclear programs run by the Shah, Egypt, Saddam, and Iran. All of the reasons you gave for Saudi Arabia not having nuclear launch capabilities are probably correct, and what’s more the Saudi government probably agrees with you, and does not want to have that capability if there is any other alternative.

But given the world’s refusal to take decisive action to stop the Iranian nuclear leaking this agreement, even if imaginary, could be an attempt to prod the world into action or face the specter of a nuclear arms race in the arab world. It is what I would do in their position.:

As for Iran threatening Pakistan with their nuclear weapons, Get Real. Pakistan has over 100 nuclear weapons already and is producing more. If Iran were stupid enough launches a couple of nuclear tipped missiles against Pakistan, Pakistan could easily afford to respond with 50 or 60 and still have a more than credible deterrent against India. Iran would be devastated, and then the infidels (Chistians, communists, and animists) and apostates (Sunni) show up with aid to help the surviving population rebuild and put the remaining radical clergy on trial for starting the exchange. Between the casualties and the conversions the Shia religion would cease to be a factor on the world stage.:daz

 

[SABRE]

I hope you are right, but I am just debating what the article said.

I have come across numerous such articles, all of their sources are ridiculed by people of their own countries.

The agreement outlined in the article indicated that the Saudi’s underwrote the Pakistani development in return for a promise to supply them with a nuclear deterrent capability if and when they needed it. In chronological order they would have been worried by nuclear programs run by the Shah, Egypt, Saddam, and Iran. All of the reasons you gave for Saudi Arabia not having nuclear launch capabilities are probably correct, and what’s more the Saudi government probably agrees with you, and does not want to have that capability if there is any other alternative.

But given the world’s refusal to take decisive action to stop the Iranian nuclear leaking this agreement, even if imaginary, could be an attempt to prod the world into action or face the specter of a nuclear arms race in the arab world. It is what I would do in their position.:

As for Iran threatening Pakistan with their nuclear weapons, Get Real. Pakistan has over 100 nuclear weapons already and is producing more. If Iran were stupid enough launches a couple of nuclear tipped missiles against Pakistan, Pakistan could easily afford to respond with 50 or 60 and still have a more than credible deterrent against India. Iran would be devastated, and then the infidels (Chistians, communists, and animists) and apostates (Sunni) show up with aid to help the surviving population rebuild and put the remaining radical clergy on trial for starting the exchange. Between the casualties and the conversions the Shia religion would cease to be a factor on the world stage.:daz

There is no credible information on how many nuclear weapons Pakistan has. So far we only know that plutonium route is quite recent to Pakistan with only one reactor in operations - which means fissile material (Pu-239) for one or two bombs per year. Right now Pakistan has uranium based weapons which means not too many bombs. 100+ is just guesstimations by some western alarmist think tanks, nothing more then that.

Even if Pakistan has 100, it cannot afford to divert them. Pakistan has credible minimum deterrence (CMD), meaning acquiring minimum number of nukes which can ensure credible deterrence. Any reduction would undermine the CMD.

Iran is a big country. Two, three bombs will neither be be able to credibly deter nor destroy it (assuming Iran would also have number of nukes itself). Hence if Pakistan is to divert weapons it would be in large number, around 25 to 20. I don't think Pakistan can afford to do that diversion.

 

[Air Defense]

I think they are more interested in ABMS procurement at moment?

saudis will look at some of the best options for them but you can find what they are looking for by meeting them in person!

I heard there is a missile and air defence conference they are holding this year to discuss procurement, and some american company is most likely to get a big deal out of that.