1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by NVP, Sep 10, 2019.

  1. NVP

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 6, 2007

    Posts: 5,603

    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.


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

    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.
     
  2. Nikumba

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 4, 2002

    Posts: 3,586

    Location: Bourne, Lincs

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

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 63,853

    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.

    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: Sep 10, 2019
  4. Trig

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 3,581

    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...
     
  5. Diddums

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 24, 2012

    Posts: 18,503

    Location: London

    We need more Stuxnet.
     
  6. Efour

    Capodecina

    Joined: Sep 8, 2005

    Posts: 24,780

    Location: Norrbotten, Sweden.

    No one else should be allowed nuclear weapons. End of story.
     
  7. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 63,853

    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.
     
  8. Hades

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 19, 2002

    Posts: 22,710

    Location: Surrey and London

    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.
     
  9. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 63,853

    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: Sep 10, 2019
  10. stockhausen

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 30, 2006

    Posts: 9,714

    Yes, Siddhārtha Gautama could enforce your proposed ban on all countries except the USA, Russia, China and Israel, couldn't he :rolleyes:
     
  11. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 20,580

    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: Sep 10, 2019
  12. ianh

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 12, 2007

    Posts: 4,503

    Location: Saudi and occasionally Stoke.

    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.
     
  13. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 20,580

    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.
     
  14. Malevolence

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 21, 2011

    Posts: 12,795

    Location: Miercna rīce

     
  15. Nasher

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 22, 2006

    Posts: 13,258

    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).
     
  16. Diddums

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 24, 2012

    Posts: 18,503

    Location: London

    You really think these countries are led by some primitive monkeys huh? :D
     
  17. Efour

    Capodecina

    Joined: Sep 8, 2005

    Posts: 24,780

    Location: Norrbotten, Sweden.

    I dunno if Budda could but I'm sure the USA and Europe could stop it.. tbh the only places I really care about.
    I don't want more **** hole, religious fanatic countries with them.
     
  18. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 20,580

    Yeah the US and Russia is bad enough.
     
  19. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 63,853

    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.
     
  20. bsoltan

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 16, 2005

    Posts: 3,961

    Location: Milton Keynes

    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.