Six Arab States Join Rush to Go Nuclear

Looks like everybody wants to be in the club. Should make life interesting for my children (and yours).

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Six Arab states join rush to go nuclear

By Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor

Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, UAE and Saudi Arabia seek atom technology

THE SPECTRE of a nuclear race in the Middle East was raised yesterday when six Arab states announced that they were embarking on programmes to master atomic technology.

The move, which follows the failure by the West to curb Iran’s controversial nuclear programme, could see a rapid spread of nuclear reactors in one of the world’s most unstable regions, stretching from the Gulf to the Levant and into North Africa.

The countries involved were named by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Saudi Arabia. Tunisia and the UAE have also shown interest.

All want to build civilian nuclear energy programmes, as they are permitted to under international law. But the sudden rush to nuclear power has raised suspicions that the real intention is to acquire nuclear technology which could be used for the first Arab atomic bomb.

“Some Middle East states, including Egypt, Morocco, Algeria and Saudi Arabia, have shown initial interest [in using] nuclear power primarily for desalination purposes,” Tomihiro Taniguch, the deputy director-general of the IAEA, told the business weekly Middle East Economic Digest. He said that they had held preliminary discussions with the governments and that the IAEA’s technical advisory programme would be offered to them to help with studies into creating power plants.

Mark Fitzpatrick, an expert on nuclear proliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said that it was clear that the sudden drive for nuclear expertise was to provide the Arabs with a “security hedge”.

“If Iran was not on the path to a nuclear weapons capability you would probably not see this sudden rush [in the Arab world],” he said.

The announcement by the six nations is a stunning reversal of policy in the Arab world, which had until recently been pressing for a nuclear free Middle East, where only Israel has nuclear weapons.

Egypt and other North African states can argue with some justification that they need cheap, safe energy for their expanding economies and growing populations at a time of high oil prices.

The case will be much harder for Saudi Arabia, which sits on the world’s largest oil reserves. Earlier this year Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Foreign Minister, told The Times that his country opposed the spread of nuclear power and weapons in the Arab world.

Since then, however, the Iranians have accelerated their nuclear power and enrichment programmes.

It will be interesting to see if they are all now included in the "Axis of Evil".

If one country has nuclear weapons, they all have to have nuclear weapons - why noone should be allowed them,

they've certainly become candidates for the "axis of evil" :2thumbsup:

Saudi Arabia seems to be the worst amongst that list.

And some people were like "Why shouldn't Iran have nukes?" Well, here you go. :book:

I take it Middle Easterners shouldn’t be allowed nuclear power. I guess they’ll just have to go back to the Stone Age when the West has sucked up every last drop of oil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

And some people were like "Why shouldn't Iran have nukes?" Well, here you go. :book:

---

And some people were like "why shouldnt America have nukes/" Well, here you go :book:

I'm with Dariush on this one

:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

I take it Middle Easterners shouldn’t be allowed nuclear power. I guess they’ll just have to go back to the Stone Age when the West has sucked up every last drop of oil.

---

No one should have nuclear power. The US has it, but the US is a stable democracy, where the middle east is a hotbed of instability and they could use nukes irresponsbly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

No one should have nuclear power. The US has it, but the US is a stable democracy, where the middle east is a hotbed of instability and they could use nukes irresponsbly.

---

The US should stop having it, the problem with nuclear power in any country, its that if one country has it, then every other country feels they need to have it for self protection, by having nulcear weapons a country gains huge plitical leverage - even if they never intend to use nukes. The only option is for noone to have nuclear weapons, although i dont like countries in the Middle East having nukes, as long as other countries in the Western world do, i find it hard to find fault with their nuclear ambitions. :2thumbsup:

This might explain why Faisal has been busy lately...
Hmm, Germany also has nuclear power but no nuclear weaponry.
Once everybody has nukes, we're all completely safe anyway since until then all our WLANs and cellphones have killed us with their waves.~;)

It's very, very hard to repress scientific knowledge. So I think we're going to be living in a world where just about every nation that wants nukes can have 'em. Should be interesting. What sorts of politics will make sense in a world where every little nation under the sun can cause mass damage? Will this require more conflict (put the mad dogs down early) or less (back off, man, he's got nukes)?

It seems to me that the U.S.A.'s policy has been to slow the process down, keep nukes from showing up everywhere for a while. But it's a temporary policy, with a good-by date that is soon to be past. I wonder what the eggheads in Washinton have on their plates for how to deal with an Everybody Can Nuke Everybody world? Actually, I wonder if they have any policies in mind at all.

It's just a little unneverving that they all want it at the same time. Sure, now they have the leveraging power to go through it, but I'm not exactly thrilled w/ how suceptible their governments are to radical elements... Pakistan has managed so far, I suppose.


Anyway, If there's going to be nuclear war, it may as well be on a grand scale. At least we'd be able to say we were smart enough to be able to start our own mass extinction, it is pretty hard to do. Start making the space probes now so that we can load the videos on when the time comes: "look at us, we used to freaking rule.":clown:

Lemur: We've still got the Cold War "under our belt" (that's a shady allusion isn't it, who came up w/ that?). More nuclear Submarines.~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

...but I'm not exactly thrilled w/ how suceptible their governments are to radical elements... Pakistan has managed so far, I suppose.

---

Most of them pretty specifically try to sit on their religious elements you know. Which, as most of the regimes in question are rather undemocratic, totalitarian and not terribly popular among their subjects, has duly resulted in said religious elements being rather popular among the populace.

That the regimes can't stomp on such movements too hard - so as to avoid looking like they're actually attacking the religion itself - the rads are also often about the main opposition groups around.

Quote:

---

Six Arab States Join Rush to Go Nuclear

---

Now that is shocking , for a start I never envisioned him joining with arab states , and secondly I thought with all the gas and hot air he has in abundance I didn't think Rush would need to go nuclear .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

It's very, very hard to repress scientific knowledge. So I think we're going to be living in a world where just about every nation that wants nukes can have 'em. Should be interesting. What sorts of politics will make sense in a world where every little nation under the sun can cause mass damage? Will this require more conflict (put the mad dogs down early) or less (back off, man, he's got nukes)?

It seems to me that the U.S.A.'s policy has been to slow the process down, keep nukes from showing up everywhere for a while. But it's a temporary policy, with a good-by date that is soon to be past. I wonder what the eggheads in Washinton have on their plates for how to deal with an Everybody Can Nuke Everybody world? Actually, I wonder if they have any policies in mind at all.

---

It's been discussed in IR/government circles for some time (1960s on). Look up the "Unit Veto" concept and you'll see what I mean. The two points of view that crop up most are:

1. the chance of a nuclear exchange approaches unity under such circumstances since too many unstable governments would have access to an "ultimate" weapon during time of crisis.

2. with everyone armed equally, comparative peace will break out through mutual deterrence (the analogy of the American West, where gun violence was comparatively rare despite virtually every male packing heat, is brought up in this context).

Which view is closer to the truth.....?

Well, I'd be the world's worst hypocrite if I abandoned my sovereignty philosophy now, just because it's inconveniant. While I'd like to see these countries limit their nuclear technology to energy production, not weaponry, I cannot honestly make an argument against any of them that aren't threatening to use them for offensive purposes (as opposed to North Korea, which has threatened Japan and South Korea on more than one occassion).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Now that is shocking , for a start I never envisioned him joining with arab states , and secondly I thought with all the gas and hot air he has in abundance I didn't think Rush would need to go nuclear .

---

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Now that is shocking , for a start I never envisioned him joining with arab states , and secondly I thought with all the gas and hot air he has in abundance I didn't think Rush would need to go nuclear .

---

Those were my first thoughts too.:laugh4:

Tunisia shouldnt count:thumbsdown:

It would all be much easier if every nation was granted nuclear weapons. In such a situation, every country would be equally heard and represented in the world community.

Quote:

---

Tunisia shouldnt count

---

Any particular reason for that statement Strike ?

I wonder if Israel will consider a "Kennedy-esque" view of the situation?

"We will consider any nuclear attack upon Israel from any Arab country as an attack by them all, and in retaliation, Israel will destroy all Arab countries who possess nuclear weapons."

Wouldn't surprise me a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Tunisia shouldnt count:thumbsdown:

---

?

Quote:

---

It would all be much easier if every nation was granted nuclear weapons. In such a situation, every country would be equally heard and represented in the world community.

---

Surely it would be much better if no country had nuclear weapons.... :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

I wonder if Israel will consider a "Kennedy-esque" view of the situation?

"We will consider any nuclear attack upon Israel from any Arab country as an attack by them all, and in retaliation, Israel will destroy all Arab countries who possess nuclear weapons."

Wouldn't surprise me a bit.

---

It would be hard for Isreal to retaliate after being nuked considering its surface area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

It would be hard for Israel to retaliate after being nuked considering its surface area.

---

Well, I'm sure some "genius" will then realise that a policy of "pre emptive defence" is required: anything that looks as though any country might soon start a nuclear war is the trigger for Israel to nuke the lot.

We really need to invest more in renewable energy...

~:smoking:

If America can have nuclear weapon, why others can't?
If so bloody regime like Soviet Union and Russia can have nuclear weapon, why others can't?
If great death camps like China and North Korea have nuclear weaponm, why other can't?

I can't tell that Iran government commited bigger crimes that Russian or Chinese. So these countries can't ban nuclear weapon for others.

Iraq - no WMD: invaded
NK - WMD and awkward: safe
Iran - potential WMD & awkward too: safe

So logically, be awkward, have a big army and nukes, and no one will invade you.

Bit of a waste of money though (not that some oil-rich places will even notice).

Tangent... is this a hint that the oil fields aren't quite as well stocked as they say?

If so are they hoping to get cheap Uranium so that they can use it for internal energy needs and sell the oil for external use.

Fission plants have their uses. Not just military...there are medical, research and energy production. While oil on the other hand really shines in mobile uses such as cars, uranium is a far better choice for a static energy grid.

As long as the countries sign the nuclear weapon non-proliferation treaty (unlike India) then I see no harm in them going down the nuclear power path.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

If America can have nuclear weapon, why others can't?
If so bloody regime like Soviet Union and Russia can have nuclear weapon, why others can't?
If great death camps like China and North Korea have nuclear weaponm, why other can't?

I can't tell that Iran government commited bigger crimes that Russian or Chinese. So these countries can't ban nuclear weapon for others.

---

Self Interest, Krook, that's why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Looks like everybody wants to be in the club. Should make life interesting for my children (and yours).

---

It'll be a hell of a lot more interesting for their children than mine I can tell ye.

Quote:

---

It would all be much easier if every nation was granted nuclear weapons. In such a situation, every country would be equally heard and represented in the world community.

---

What the hell is the UN for??

How difficult would it be for a “coalition” of countries that do not support more nuclear powered countries to buy up or secure all the available uranium or other critical components needed for a nuclear program?