Saudi Arabia: Will they ever be "allowed" Nuclear arms?

NVP

NVP

Soldato
Joined
6 Sep 2007
Posts
12,649
Earlier in the week I read an article regarding Saudi Arabia progressing with its intent to create their own arms industry as they begin accepting license applications in the military sector.

middleeastmonitor.com: saudi begins licensing to develop its own arms industry said:
Saudi news agencies reported that Riyadh has begun accepting license applications for firms in the military industrial sector, a major target under plans to diversify the kingdom’s economy away from oil exports. The General Authority for Military Industries (GAMI), will license companies to manufacture firearms, ammunition, military explosives, military equipment, individual military equipment and military electronics, state news agency SPA reported.

...

The issuance of licensing is a major step in Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Salman’s plan to diversify the kingdom’s economy. Last year he said he wanted Riyadh to produce or assemble half its defence equipment locally in order to create 40,000 jobs for Saudis by 2030. During the announcement of the launch of a state-owned military industrial company the crown prince said: “The company will seek to be a key catalyst … to localize 50 percent of total government military spending in the Kingdom by the year 2030,” up from just two per cent now.


Article


Today I read another article which publicised the announcement by the SA energy minister which said they wish to enrich uranium for atomic fuel.

uk.reuters.com: saudi arabia flags plan to enrich uranium as us seeks nuclear pact said:
ABU DHABI (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia wants to enrich uranium for its nuclear power program, its energy minister said on Monday, potentially complicating talks with Washington on an atomic pact and the role of U.S. companies.

Uranium enrichment has been a sticking point with the United States, especially after Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said in 2018 that the Sunni Muslim kingdom would develop nuclear arms if regional rival Shi’ite Muslim Iran did.


Article

Considering the Crown Prince statement above, it seems a likely pursuit and one which could be quietly and relatively quickly achievable with their "resources".


Is there anything the rest of the world could actually do to prevent them? Can they be hit hard with sanctions? Would it even go to covert sabotage levels?

Or do we sit back and just wait hoping the likely scenario is it's just another country with nukes that won't ever use them, or doesn't intend to rather as we cannot really talk in absolutes.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
90,816
On a similar note Turkey has also been talking about pursuing nuclear weapons:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...issiles-uae-saudi-arabia-russia-a9092711.html

It is always going to be a bit arbitrary who is and isn't allowed to pursue nuclear weapons - but we'd be absolutely mad to allow either of those two countries nuclear weapons - despite I have a general sympathy for countries who see the value in them in prevent other countries from bullying them around.

There is a fine balance I think in terms of proliferation between keeping the world a safer place and being common enough the chance of them actually being used starts to emerge.

Considering how much oil comes from them, I doubt the world would do anything

Not that I advocate it but I'm surprised the likes of the US hasn't just taken over the countries - maybe there is some deterrent there in potential conflict with the likes of Russia but it isn't like SA's army is really upto much without US backing - structurally they are largely inefficient, lack motivation for fighting and mostly equipped with export hardware which is reasonably high end but often not running the full spec of the top western stuff.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
6,657
Location
Leicestershire
How about everyone just says, **** it, we're not going to actually use them as it'd **** us up as a race, so we'll all get rid of them..

Guess that'll never happen...
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
90,816
How about everyone just says, **** it, we're not going to actually use them as it'd **** us up as a race, so we'll all get rid of them..

Guess that'll never happen...

Problem is it only takes one country not to uphold their end. Hence why we are unlikely to ever see that level of disarmament - at least not while the concept of countries (or factions) exists.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
29,509
Location
Surrey
Considering how much oil comes from them, I doubt the world would do anything
For a number of years I've come to think that a big push by Western countries to diversify from oil as an energy source is more related to reducing our dependence on certain ME countries, rather than just climate change.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
90,816
For a number of years I've come to think that a big push by Western countries to diversify from oil as an energy source is more related to reducing our dependence on certain ME countries, rather than just climate change.

Something I've found curious is that if you follow it back a large amount of climate change research, studies, projects and outreach, etc. is ultimately backed by Qatari money and not just incidental due to investments in banking or other funds - I don't really know what their motivation is.

EDIT: Though ultimately some of those countries are likely to be among the earliest hit and hard hit by significant climate change so it would make sense in that respect for a forward thinking country to get on top of that.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,741
If the GOP get their way, i'm sure they'd love give their overlords in Riyadh nukes if only to annoy Iran. Considering recent news about a particular family from the US going over and trying to deal in nuclear reactor/fuel, it's not much more of a stretch to go straight to arms.

As soon as Israel nukes Iran, which seems inevitable, Riyadh will be powering through to be able to survive, because they're next, the oil is only going to work for so long and tourism wont be occurring when the country is in the midst of 50 degrees heat.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
7,866
Location
Stoke/Norfolk
it isn't like SA's army is really upto much without US backing - structurally they are largely inefficient, lack motivation for fighting and mostly equipped with export hardware which is reasonably high end but often not running the full spec of the top western stuff.

They are the literal example of "all the gear - no idea" from my extensive experience. Culturally they are not yet able to understand why they, in amazing tank A, can be easily beaten in training by 1/2 the number of western culture opposition in meh tank B, because they don't understand that the man behind the weapon is more important than the weapon itself, hence their horrific equipment loses in Yemen.

It's these same cultural problems which make Israel so strong against all their ME foes.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,741
They are the literal example of "all the gear - no idea" from my extensive experience. Culturally they are not yet able to understand why they, in amazing tank A, can be easily beaten in training by 1/2 the number of western culture opposition in meh tank B, because they don't understand that the man behind the weapon is more important than the weapon itself, hence their horrific equipment loses in Yemen.

It's these same cultural problems which make Israel so strong against all their ME foes.

https://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars

Written 20 years ago, still correct. The US has plowed billions into them and they still suck.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Oct 2011
Posts
21,590
Location
ST4
They are the literal example of "all the gear - no idea" from my extensive experience. Culturally they are not yet able to understand why they, in amazing tank A, can be easily beaten in training by 1/2 the number of western culture opposition in meh tank B, because they don't understand that the man behind the weapon is more important than the weapon itself, hence their horrific equipment loses in Yemen.

It's these same cultural problems which make Israel so strong against all their ME foes.

 
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2006
Posts
23,304
TBH Just let all the Islamic countries have them and the West+Russia agree to just pull out and leave them all to it. Fallout might be an issue for a while I guess.

I don't think the US and Russia are ever really going to nuke each other, both know it's stupid. But India, Pakistan, Iran? These aren't civil countries with restrained leaders and they all have the same crazy idea that God will save them (even though he never has in the past).
 
Caporegime
Joined
24 Oct 2012
Posts
25,023
Location
Godalming
TBH Just let all the Islamic countries have them and the West+Russia agree to just pull out and leave them all to it. Fallout might be an issue for a while I guess.

I don't think the US and Russia are ever really going to nuke each other, both know it's stupid. But India, Pakistan, Iran? These aren't civil countries with restrained leaders and they all have the same crazy idea that God will save them (even though he never has in the past).

You really think these countries are led by some primitive monkeys huh? :D
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
90,816
TBH Just let all the Islamic countries have them and the West+Russia agree to just pull out and leave them all to it. Fallout might be an issue for a while I guess.

I don't think the US and Russia are ever really going to nuke each other, both know it's stupid. But India, Pakistan, Iran? These aren't civil countries with restrained leaders and they all have the same crazy idea that God will save them (even though he never has in the past).

Can't really see those countries using nuclear weapons - outside of last ditch vengeance if they were invaded by their mortal foes. A very small chance some kind of irreconcilable situation might arise but nuclear weapons generally tend to deter that happening in the first place.

The one that concerns me the most is North Korea because even the leadership have been mostly isolated since 1945 and the way much of the rest of the world thinks tempered by events at the end of WW2 and since isn't in their consciousness to the same degree - they are much much more likely to think for instance that the US would be cowered by their might if they used nuclear weapons against them rather than result in pre-emptive or retaliatory strikes.
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Oct 2005
Posts
4,046
Location
UK
Something I've found curious is that if you follow it back a large amount of climate change research, studies, projects and outreach, etc. is ultimately backed by Qatari money and not just incidental due to investments in banking or other funds - I don't really know what their motivation is.

EDIT: Though ultimately some of those countries are likely to be among the earliest hit and hard hit by significant climate change so it would make sense in that respect for a forward thinking country to get on top of that.

They also need to plan for life after oil. Not just enforced by climate change. They enjoy enormous income now which props up their entire country, most recently they're able to put loads of that income into tourism and buildings and infrastructure. While tourism is popular I don't see it ever being a big tourist destination. So it makes sense to get head of other countries while they can afford to to understand and invest into renewable energy and setting it up with companies in other countries through investments or takeovers. That way the energy generation done in X country can still bring revenue to Qatar etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom