A Saudi Nuclear Option?

[My2Cents]

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

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.

Pakistani government sources have unofficially confirmed claims of 100 nuclear bombs, except for those claiming up to double the amount. But then everyone concedes that they have reasons to exaggerate given the Indian superiority in conventional forces.

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.

Let me get this straight, you are saying that if Iran attacks Pakistan with nuclear weapons that the Pakistan government will not strike back, and the Pakistani people will support this decision? Just how big does credible minimum deterrence (CMD) have to be that you cannot defend your people from some other attacker? Pakistan got by for years with less.

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.

In response to a nuclear attack from Iran it is unlikely that Pakistan would counter attack with less than 1/3 of the Pakistani arsenal, say 30 to 35 warheads. Probably more as the population demands revenge. :flame

 

[SABRE]

Pakistani government sources have unofficially confirmed claims of 100 nuclear bombs, except for those claiming up to double the amount. But then everyone concedes that they have reasons to exaggerate given the Indian superiority in conventional forces.

The government sources have confirmed nothing. Not everyone knows to true extent of the program. Only a handful of people know of it and they are not allowed to talk on the issue.

Let me get this straight, you are saying that if Iran attacks Pakistan with nuclear weapons that the Pakistan government will not strike back, and the Pakistani people will support this decision? Just how big does credible minimum deterrence (CMD) have to be that you cannot defend your people from some other attacker? Pakistan got by for years with less.

Let me put it straight to you. Pakistan does not want to create a situation where a nuclear Iran would point its missiles on it.

Iran will not point nuclear weapons on Saudi Arabia due to presence of Holy Cities there. Plus, it will be isolated in the Muslim world as well as international. Even shia regimes else where will turn their back. Iran's target is and will remain Israel.

 

[Ananda]

Iran will not point nuclear weapons on Saudi Arabia due to presence of Holy Cities there. Plus, it will be isolated in the Muslim world as well as international. Even shia regimes else where will turn their back. Iran's target is and will remain Israel.

As a Moeslem and come from Largest moeslem populated nation, I can say that any thinking saying Iran will aim WMD to Saudi's does not understand moeslem pyschology. For all Moeslem whether Shia or Sunni, the holliest place in the earth for them still Mecca and Madina.

If Iranian mullah or politician dare to think aiming WMD to Saudi's (thus risking the integrity of those two cities) then their own people will chop their head off, before they can do that. Invading Saudi's or replacing their monarchy is one thing. Launching WMD to Saudi is another different thing that no moeslem society willing to do due to the risk to Mecca and Madina. Argument once I heard about Iran launcing attack only to the Saudi's Gulf cities and teritory (thus reduccing the risk to Mecca and Madina), but even that is questionable since large part of Iran society think that Saudi's soil is part of Mecca and Madina thus considered 'Haram' or forbidden to be violated.

If there is one thing that can united 1.5 billion Moeslem in the world, then a attack to Mecca or Madina is very close to be that thing.

 

[STURM]

Iran's target is and will remain Israel.

If military strikes were to be undertaken against Iran over the nuclear issue, whether by the U.S. and it's allies or by Israel alone, Iran without a doubt would strike at Israel. And also at a number of U.S. allied gulf states.

With regards to it's main target or agenda, I would think that Iran is more concerned with regime survival and watching out for it's vital interests. Like other countries in the region the Iranians have their own security concerns and this is something we often forget when discussing Iran.

 

[SABRE]

If military strikes were to be undertaken against Iran over the nuclear issue, whether by the U.S. and it's allies or by Israel alone, Iran without a doubt would strike at Israel. And also at a number of U.S. allied gulf states.

With regards to it's main target or agenda, I would think that Iran is more concerned with regime survival and watching out for it's vital interests. Like other countries in the region the Iranians have their own security concerns and this is something we often forget when discussing Iran.

Rightly said.

 

[H Nelson]

Balance of Power

I do not know if the Saudis have a nuke, or a credible delivery system, but I can guess why they would need one. Despite our best efforts, an unfriendly Arab nation will get a bomb, and they will find a way to use it. And by 'way' I mean they will find a religious justification to use it.

for Ananda to say that because: "For all Moeslem whether Shia or Sunni, the holliest place in the earth for them still Mecca and Madina." that no arab nation will ever nuke Saudi is absurd. And I am sure that Saudis themselves would not rely solely on the placement of holy relics to protect themselves.

 

[T.C.P]

I do not know if the Saudis have a nuke, or a credible delivery system, but I can guess why they would need one. Despite our best efforts, an unfriendly Arab nation will get a bomb, and they will find a way to use it. And by 'way' I mean they will find a religious justification to use it.

for Ananda to say that because: "For all Moeslem whether Shia or Sunni, the holliest place in the earth for them still Mecca and Madina." that no arab nation will ever nuke Saudi is absurd. And I am sure that Saudis themselves would not rely solely on the placement of holy relics to protect themselves.

Trust me, what @Anand says is no way absurd, any attack on either Medina or Mecca will start a war, so huge and so full of hate, that you can barely imagine.

 

[My2Cents]

Trust me, what @Anand says is no way absurd, any attack on either Medina or Mecca will start a war, so huge and so full of hate, that you can barely imagine.

But the rest of the country is fair game . . . right?

Medina and Mecca hold only 1/8th of the total population. Riyadh alone has twice as many people, is 500 miles closer to Iran, and is the capital. That would be a much better target, even is Mecca and Medina were not holy sites.

 

[H Nelson]

Trust me, what @Anand says is no way absurd, any attack on either Medina or Mecca will start a war, so huge and so full of hate, that you can barely imagine.

Let me be clear, I never said that those places were not holy, or that a terrorist attack against them wouldn't incite violence. I said that those facts alone would not prevent a terror group from attacking them.

It should be clear by now that religion can be perverted (or perhaps always is perverted enough) to be used to convince people of crazy things. Let's not assume there are any places that are off limits to our enemies.

 

[amirhessam]

According to some speculation that the Saudis a few missiles with nuclear warheads in the early 90s to Pakistan and China have Thyyh course in Pakistan is due to close ties with China is more likely.

 

[SABRE]

According to some speculation that the Saudis a few missiles with nuclear warheads in the early 90s to Pakistan and China have Thyyh course in Pakistan is due to close ties with China is more likely.

What!?

 

[Deterrence Wonk]

According to some speculation that the Saudis a few missiles with nuclear warheads in the early 90s to Pakistan and China have Thyyh course in Pakistan is due to close ties with China is more likely.

Do you mean to say that Saudi gave Pakistan and China? I don't think that's accurate, the Chinese had the bomb In the 70s

 

[My2Cents]

Saudi Nukes

BBC News - Saudi nuclear weapons 'on order' from Pakistan

Officials seem to think Saudi Arabia has nukes available on demand from Pakistan.

And they already have the missiles to deliver them in place.

 

[ngatimozart]

BBC News - Saudi nuclear weapons 'on order' from Pakistan

Officials seem to think Saudi Arabia has nukes available on demand from Pakistan.

And they already have the missiles to deliver them in place.

Different view with what is a rebuttal to the BBC story. Analysts: Pakistan Unlikely To Transfer Nuclear Weapons, Know-how to Saudis | Defense News | defensenews.com. Basically Pakistan couldn't weather the international storm and sanctions that it would suffer if it was deemed to have sold or supplied nukes to another country. Secondly, the article claims that Pakistan has avoided becoming involved in the Saudi - Iranian rivalry. Thirdly, Saudi Arabia is a signatory to the NPT and if this went ahead it would suffer diplomatic and possibly economic sanctioning. I don't necessarilly agree with the articles statement that Saudi Arabia doesn't have the technological know how. The Saudis have very deep pockets and I would suggest that it is possible that such knowledge can be bought.

 

[My2Cents]

Different view with what is a rebuttal to the BBC story. Analysts: Pakistan Unlikely To Transfer Nuclear Weapons, Know-how to Saudis | Defense News | defensenews.com. Basically Pakistan couldn't weather the international storm and sanctions that it would suffer if it was deemed to have sold or supplied nukes to another country. Secondly, the article claims that Pakistan has avoided becoming involved in the Saudi - Iranian rivalry. Thirdly, Saudi Arabia is a signatory to the NPT and if this went ahead it would suffer diplomatic and possibly economic sanctioning. I don't necessarilly agree with the articles statement that Saudi Arabia doesn't have the technological know how. The Saudis have very deep pockets and I would suggest that it is possible that such knowledge can be bought.

If the article is accurate the Saudi's bankrolled the Pakistani nuclear weapon program so the Pakisani’s may feel they are under an overriding obligation. The Saudi’s could have had them anytime over the last 15 years. Why don't they already have them? Probably most to avoid upsetting the western powers that were their security guarantee up until now. Their participation in the NPT was on the condition that the Persian Gulf must remain nuclear weapons free.

According to the article Saudi Arabia apparently hasn’t asked for them yet. At some point Iran has to test its new nuclear weapon to make sure it works, that will probably be the trigger with Pakistan delivering the warheads a day or two later, and Saudi Arabia becoming a full up nuclear power with a few nuclear tipped IRBMs within a week.

But it is unlikely that the fun will stop there, because Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates will all want their own as well, probably only a couple each, but that’s another dozen or so. Once the first weapon sale is made more are inevitable.

This announcement is likely aimed at multiple players. The primary targets would be the USA, EU, and China that if Iran is permitted to go nuclear, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Persian Gulf will follow shatter the NPT and putting Middle East oil supplies at risk, so do something about it NOW! Iran is only secondary with the message that nuclear weapons will not buy them ascendancy in the Gulf.

 

[SABRE]

Pakistan giving Saudis nukes ain't happening. This is something the Western Non-Thinkers & media (such as the FOX News) have pulled out of their @$$3$. First they say Pakistan gave nuke know how to Iran & now intact weapon(s) to Saudis to deter the very nukes it provided (to Iran) in the first place. Pakistan is neither stupid enough nor smart enough to pull of such a blunder.

You need to keep following on your minds:

1. Pakistan only has enough nukes to maintain its own Credible Minimum Deterrence or CMD. Subtracting anything from that could reduce Pakistan deterrent credibility against India. Pakistan's plutonium production activities are fairly recent & it would still take a long time for it to produce spare nukes. For Pakistan deterring India is the priority, not the Saudi-Iran conflict which is not even going to happen anyway.

2. Handing over nukes to Saudis on a short notice would not yield any deterrent value as Saudis do not have a nuclear command & control system. They have no know-how of Pakistan launch system.

3. Iran acquiring nukes & threatening Saudis with it & vice-avers is unimaginable. They would not only invite wrath of internationally community but also risk their standing in the Muslim world. Saudis do house the holly land of Muslims & Iran wont fathom dropping nukes there.

4. Pakistan has improved its relationship with Iran to a significant level. Why risk having another enemy at your borders.

5. Pakistan is in no position to take Western sanctions. Hence it would prefer to stay out.

6. Pakistan is trying to improve its image with regards to nuke proliferation & aspires to become member of NSG & MTCR. If this happens it would have to kiss its international aspirations goodbye.

* Pakistan would probably only meddle militarily - including with nukes - when there is a threat to Hijaz area of KSA by any state, & even that would purely be out of zealousness to protect holly land & not the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

* Saudis never bankrolled Pakistan's nuclear program. There are no proves of it. This is again a guess work by the West.

 

[USAF77]

They did bankroll Saddams nuclear program. From a high level defector. Mohammed Al Khilewi: "Saudi Arabia Is Trying to Kill Me" :: Middle East Quarterly

MEQ: You revealed documents showing that from 1975 until 1990, the Saudi Arabian government provided some $5 billion to help fund Saddam Husayn's efforts to build an atomic bomb; in addition, that it tried to acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan and the Soviet Union.10 Does this lead you to the conclusion that it is determined at all costs to acquire a nuclear capability?

Khilewi: Yes, it will pay anything to acquire a nuclear capability as long as the cost is just money.

Its long been known the Saudis have wanted nukes and IRBMs. I suspect Obama's nuclear deal with Iran will only accelerate the efforts of the Saudi's. Once Iran tests a bomb it will only be a matter of time.

 

[Twain]

]If the article is accurate the Saudi's bankrolled the Pakistani nuclear weapon program so the Pakisani’s may feel they are under an overriding obligation. [/B] The Saudi’s could have had them anytime over the last 15 years. Why don't they already have them? Probably most to avoid upsetting the western powers that were their security guarantee up until now. Their participation in the NPT was on the condition that the Persian Gulf must remain nuclear weapons free.

.

That particular rumor has been floating around for a few years (5-6?)now and I don't mean on anonymous defense forums. It's usually been hinted rather than an outright claim and it always revolves around funding for the earlier stages of Pakistan's nuclear program. I don't know if it is true but I don't put it outside of the realm of being possible.

 

[Jeneral2885]

Who is Saudi Arabia going to address via nuclear weapons?

Iran? Israel? Definitely not Israel because Israel will respond--not necessarily militarily.