Saudis consider nuclear bomb

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
41

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by sholay: *
^
Myvoice

Just like the Nuclear club was kept exclusive by the non Muslims for decades. The main reason for this was Religious belief.

[/QUOTE]

Pardon me for saying so but that's just plain crazy. The nuclear club didn't sit around in their comfy chairs saying we've got to keep out the Muslims. Those who had the bomb didn't want anyone else to get the bomb regardless of religion or nationality. They didn't want the Chinese to get it either. The US didn't welcome the Soviets to the club. No one welcomed India with open arms. North Korea's development of nuclear weapons isn't being opposed because of its huge Muslim population.

Fraudia: Missed your post before I replied. You are quite right regarding my point. Further, it seems to me that there are surely Muslim countries that Pakistan would prefer not obtaining nuclear weapons. It is not Muslimness that should be the determining factor in who we want to get nuclear bombs. It is national interests.

42

^ is it okay for Pakistan to have them then or maybe Iran?

Unless more emphasis is placed on sharing the policing and following through IAEA protocol no one can stop any country.

The US led war on Iraq discredited any geniuine attempts at curbing the spread if nuclear weapons.

Now it's 'get armed to the teeth before the oppresser comes a knocking' stratergy in full swing globally.

43

I don't recall the Saudis coming out on the streets in celebration when Pakistan tested it's first nuke. So far as I'm concerned whether they get one or don't is their lookout, but I don't see how it's in Pakistan's interests to help out there, it would be counter-productive IMO.

44

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Thap: *
^ is it okay for Pakistan to have them then or maybe Iran?
[/QUOTE]

As a citizern of a HAVE country, I don't particularly like ANY country moving from the HAVE NOT category to the HAVE category. Pakistan already has a pretty good arsenal so whether its "OK" or not is pretty much a moot point. I will say (without trying to get involved in internal Pakistani politics which I know very little about) that I feel more comfortable about Pakistan having bombs after seeing, hearing and learning about Mushareff (sp?). I am uncomfortable with Pakistan having bombs because of its history of political instability. If ever the ultra-nuts who appear to control parts of the border regions of Pak/Afghanistan take control of Pakistan's government and nuclear arsenal, heaven help us all.
[/QUOTE]

45

Globally most countries acquire the weapons as a means of counter-balancing a regional military threat. But with the US appearing as a global threat, I fear the spread of WMD's will increase exponentially.

46

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by myvoice: *
As a citizern of a HAVE country, I don't particularly like ANY country moving from the HAVE NOT category to the HAVE category. Pakistan already has a pretty good arsenal so whether its "OK" or not is pretty much a moot point. I will say (without trying to get involved in internal Pakistani politics which I know very little about) that I feel more comfortable about Pakistan having bombs after seeing, hearing and learning about Mushareff (sp?). I am uncomfortable with Pakistan having bombs because of its history of political instability. If ever the ultra-nuts who appear to control parts of the border regions of Pak/Afghanistan take control of Pakistan's government and nuclear arsenal, heaven help us all.
[/QUOTE]
I think instead of worrying about the Pakistani nuclear programme being hijacked by the radicals, **the citizens of the world need to worry about the Russian nuclear suit case bombs, which by the way, have been reported missing for a while now.
As far as the Pakistan's nuclear programme is concerned, the Pakistani government has already established a nuclear command authority which oversees our national jewel. We have had our nuclear bomb since the mid 1980's, without any hurdles, and let me assure you, we have seen many governments since then, meaning, **Musharraf or no Musharraf, our nuclear programme is safe*.

47

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Thap: *
Unless more emphasis is placed on sharing the policing and following through IAEA protocol no one can stop any country.

The US led war on Iraq discredited any geniuine attempts at curbing the spread if nuclear weapons.

Now it's 'get armed to the teeth before the oppresser comes a knocking' stratergy in full swing globally.
[/QUOTE]
This is what I'm concerned about. There will inevitably be a day when armed intervention is not possible (I think for most cases we're already there, eg KN). Because of this we will HAVE TO build a solid regimen of deterrance based on diplomacy and inspections, sooner than later.

48

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by spoon: *
This is what I'm concerned about. There will inevitably be a day when armed intervention is not possible (I think for most cases we're already there, eg KN). Because of this we will HAVE TO build a solid regimen of deterrance based on diplomacy and inspections, sooner than later.
[/QUOTE]

I'd change this a little to "There will inevitably be a day when armed intervention is not RATIONAL." And I would agree that for most cases we're already there.

The problem is that international relationships are not always governed by rationality. Hitler was largely effective in expanding his Third Reich because others did not view confronting him as a "rational" alternative. When rational people are confronted by irrational people, the first instinct from the rational person is to appease the irrational one in order to avoid the irrational/unthinkable consequence of opposing him. The MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) doctrine worked because the Soviets and the US, in the final analysis, acted rationally.

Once WMD fall under the control of irrational people, it's checkmate for a good portion of the world denizens.

49

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Judge^MentuLL: *

What was stopping the Wahabis doing all that before? Must have been the oil money bought their silence and now it's running out they're getting an itch. Well good luck to them but Pakis shouldn't give a toss about these scumbags, they should follow the Wahabi example and look out for themselves.
[/QUOTE]

Well not exactly, it's the same wahabi resources that supported resistance against the Russian invasion in Afghanistan. You can never deny the fact that thousands of Mujahideens (mostly wahabis) came from all over the arab world to fight with the Afghans, supported mostly by the Arab money.

It did serve Pakistan’s strategic goals; since the Russians didn’t ransack it, and the trouble remain confined within the borders of Afghanistan. But, since scumbags - who are no better than the Arab rulers - dominate the political hierarchy in Pakistan, they turned around and helped in the butchery of these very men, during the last war in Afghanistan. No matter, what excuse you have, you just cannot deny the cheap, peddler mentality of the Pakistanis.

And who are the ones fighting in Chechnea; Khattab is no Chechen, he is from Jordan, and there are many more whom we don’t know. Wahabi money from the Arab world has supported building mosques and charitable madrassahs in Vietnam, and Cambodia, where Islam was once at risk of being completely phased out. Your notion is well attributed to the majority of Arab leaders, but not the normal Arabs.

And don't talk about as you don't owe anything to Saudi, if it weren't for their massive and generous oil credits, Pakistanis would be using donkeys to pull their motors. Which country stood by Pakistan, with instant hundreds of millions of dollars of aid, and unlimited oil supply, when Pakistan detonated the nuclear bombs, and was placed under sanctions from all the financial intitutions. Yes, it was and it still is Saudi Arabia. Get your facts straigth.

50

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by outlaw: *
It did serve Pakistan’s strategic goals; since the Russians didn’t ransack it, and the trouble remain confined within the borders of Afghanistan. But, since scumbags - who are no better than the Arab rulers - dominate the political hierarchy in Pakistan, they turned around and helped in the butchery of these very men, during the last war in Afghanistan. No matter, what excuse you have, you just cannot deny the cheap, peddler mentality of the Pakistanis.
[/QUOTE]

Pakistanis tried to get the afghans to see straight, to back da hell up and to shut the hell up, but they were not listening..

There was no cheap peddler mentality, it was self preservation, which we practise in our own life on a daily basis. The responsibility of pak govt was to its people first, the very reason it had supported the taleban govt in the past, just to ensure that as bad of a govt that was i place, it did nto muck about with Pakistan or mess around with pakistanis..maybe we had a bit too much of their drugs and guns.

as far as saudis giving money to Pakistan, maybe some of that was altruistic, and some of it tied to their interests..as discussed before. however there is as a difference in giving monetary assistance..for which their is no backlash, vs providing nuclear arms which has a strong backlash..surely if i have a gun, u cant ask me for it just because you had given me $10 bucks last week. giving $10 is legal and has no issue..me providing u with a gun is quite different.

Whether we like saudis or not, its in Pakistan's interest to have KSA figure it out on their own or get it from somewhere else. former soviet republics may be a good source for them, which we cant stop, but we can not get involved in providing them with this technology just cuz they had thrown some pennies our way.

51

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Madhanee: *
Why go to Chechnya when they can go to the West bank? Yeah, sure they were in Kuwait too liberating run-aways who stayed in 5 star hotels in Riyadh while Saddam was munching on Kuwaiti dates.

Wahabis should keep their money where their mouth is. These scumbags who won’t allow other worship places to be built in Saudi Arabia have the audacity to finance mosques in Cambodia. Their heads are stuck in camel’s ass.
[/QUOTE]

well obviously fault lies on the cambodian side. their government and public should have refused the financing and building of mosques in their country. but apparently they too were after money and so they let the plans to go forward :)

52

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
Whether we like saudis or not, its in Pakistan's interest to have KSA figure it out on their own or get it from somewhere else. former soviet republics may be a good source for them, which we cant stop, but we can not get involved in providing them with this technology just cuz they had thrown some pennies our way.
[/QUOTE]
I am just curious, as to why you say that. Pakistan is not a signatory of the Non-proliferation treaty, so it will not be something illegal, right?

Although the risk is that US will get fed up with us standing on the cross-walk with our food-for-nuke placard and may decide to take out our nuclear assets, one way or the other, to get rid of the nuisance and the uncertainty. Or more realistically, will again put financial pressure by way of sanctions and all that. So, its a matter of deciding which way the bread is buttered.

53

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Madhanee: *
Why go to Chechnya when they can go to the West bank? Yeah, sure they were in Kuwait too liberating run-aways who stayed in 5 star hotels in Riyadh while Saddam was munching on Kuwaiti dates.

[/QUOTE]

Answer that first outlaw. Why don't these guys wage jihads on their own turf? Is there no kafir soldiers on Saudi Land? Why don't they go march on Tel Aviv right now with their kaleshnikovs? Or kick the American loving royal family out of Kuwait?

They can kiss my nuclear-tipped ass.

54

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *

Pakistanis tried to get the afghans to see straight, to back da hell up and to shut the hell up, but they were not listening..

There was no cheap peddler mentality, it was self preservation, which we practise in our own life on a daily basis. The responsibility of pak govt was to its people first, the very reason it had supported the taleban govt in the past, just to ensure that as bad of a govt that was i place, it did nto muck about with Pakistan or mess around with pakistanis..maybe we had a bit too much of their drugs and guns.

[/QUOTE]

Well, the government which dances on the orders from the FBI, and nabs its very own citizens from their own homes to be sent to Guantanamo, or to be executed in the US, is surely looking out for the interest of its own people.

Dare to bring the Pakistanis citizens back from Guantanamo, who are being held-up against all the legal conventions, back to Pakistan. The answer is NO!.

Also, during the Taliban's era, the poppy cultivation was almost completely phased out from Afghanistan. The drugs culture flourished before the Talibans were incharge, and it's happening again now.

[QUOTE]
*
as far as saudis giving money to Pakistan, maybe some of that was altruistic, and some of it tied to their interests..as discussed before. however there is as a difference in giving monetary assistance..for which their is no backlash, vs providing nuclear arms which has a strong backlash..surely if i have a gun, u cant ask me for it just because you had given me $10 bucks last week. giving $10 is legal and has no issue..me providing u with a gun is quite different.

Whether we like saudis or not, its in Pakistan's interest to have KSA figure it out on their own or get it from somewhere else. former soviet republics may be a good source for them, which we cant stop, but we can not get involved in providing them with this technology just cuz they had thrown some pennies our way. *
[/QUOTE]

Well, the sale of nuclear arms is hypothetical. But, the fact remains, that Pakistan is probably the only country well trusted by the inner royal Saudi circle for its security. In case you have missed it, there was a lot of talk of Pakistani troops replacing the departed Americans ones, before and during the war in Iraq. Monetarily, and politically, I think they are one of our closest allies in the region for various reasons. I don’t see anything wrong with it. It’s simply a brotherly Muslim country. That’s all.

55

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Faisal: *
**I am just curious, as to why you say that. Pakistan is not a signatory of the Non-proliferation treaty, so it will not be something illegal, right? *

It may not be illegal but it may get Pakistan in trouble. You answered your own question in your post

56

*Originally posted by outlaw: *

**Well, the government which dances on the orders from the FBI, and nabs its very own citizens from their own homes to be sent to Guantanamo, or to be executed in the US, is surely looking out for the interest of its own people.

Dare to bring the Pakistanis citizens back from Guantanamo, who are being held-up against all the legal conventions, back to Pakistan. The answer is NO!.**

Chanda..by doing that it is avoiding its own jackass ppl like those running NWFP getting teh rest of the population in a situation by getting pimp slapped by Uncle Sam like the way Uncle Sam just pimp slapped Iraq.

so a few people who were either on the wrong side and did not think about backing off for teh months that talk of war was going on, or peopel who were there for some other mission and just did not have the sense to get the hell out are in trouble..yet the nation as a whole is better off than it would be had the daisy cutters fallen in peshawar..
Also, during the Taliban's era, the poppy cultivation was almost completely phased out from Afghanistan. The drugs culture flourished befor the Talibans were incharged, and it's happening again now.

*Pakistan is probably the only country well trusted by the inner royal Saudi circle for its security. In case you have missed it, there was a lot of talk of Pakistani troops replacing the departed Americans ones, before and during the war in Iraq. Monetarily, and politically, I think they are one of our closest allies in the region for various reasons. I don’t see anything wrong with it. It’s simply a brotherly Muslim country. That’s all. *

and that may well be true, however monetary aid vs. nuclear proliferation are 2 entirely diff things. we can not justify that just because they gave us money..which they had excess of anyway..and did not suffer due to it. now had they just paid of Pakistan's debt and faced some economic challenges of their own in doing so, it may have been a little different.

they were able to do a lot more than they did..and following that example we should teach them how to make slingshots..

57

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
It may not be illegal but it may get Pakistan in trouble.
[/QUOTE]
Actually that brings us to the next question, as to how much can Pakistan 'milk' the nuclear card? Hand to heart, we are a poor country, who has a very sought-after asset in our home. If we are not allowed to sell it, we'd just be moving to more clandestine ways of getting some value for it (Qadeer's "vacations" in North Korea). How long can the world close its eyes?

I think, for every muslim country going for the nuclear option, their best bet is to first check with Pakistan, instead of re-creating the whole friggin' wheel. First Iran, then Saudia. (With NK, I think it was more a barter, you give us the LR missiles, we give you the nuke tech).

Point being, this is just the start. I am not convinced at this point, whether Pakistan will not continue to get maximum value for its nuclear technology. And if Saudia is willing to pay top-dollar, then why should Pakistan let this sale go to a black market dealer in Ukraine? As long as we can "manage" the US on this issue, no one else will be able to do much.

58

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Judge^MentuLL: *

Answer that first outlaw. Why don't these guys wage jihads on their own turf? Is there no kafir soldiers on Saudi Land? Why don't they go march on Tel Aviv right now with their kaleshnikovs? Or kick the American loving royal family out of Kuwait?

They can kiss my nuclear-tipped ass.
[/QUOTE]

Why are you ducking now, Judge. Ran out of arguments or something.

When was the last time any Pakistani made news about sending any kind of aid to the Palestinians? Contrary to that, there may not be enough political backing for the Palestinian, but privately, large sums of Arab money goes into running the Palestinian social and welfare organizations. Whether, it’s reconstruction of Jenin by some unknown millionaire from UAE, or local dispensaries running with the Saudi money, there’s at least some hope given to the Palestinians. Just don’t neglect the facts, and give credit where it’s due. It’s not entirely all about waging wars.

59

Run out of arguments? You still haven't answered the basic question that was put to you. If Saudis are so dedicated to their jihad mentality, why is Osama running around in places like Afghanistan or Khattab in Chechnya? Why don't they march into Tel Aviv or overthrow the Saudi monarchy whch you called a bunch of pimps (you won't get any arguments from me on that score). I'll tell you why, cause the people of Saudi have been living like fatcats enjoying the wealth of the black gold, so talk of Pakistanis having a peddlar mentality...loks like the Saudis got one too. Yeah, and one more thing, the pals of the Saudis Kuwait, weren't they chucking out all the Palestinians after the first Gulf war? Saudis are lucky that the Americans are buying their oil otherwise they'd be sitting on camels not private jets scratching their butts wondering how the peddlar Pakis built their own nukes.

60

Saudi Arabia Says It Does Not Want an Atomic Bomb

Saudi Arabia said Thursday it had no intention of developing a nuclear weapon. Citing a “strategy paper” of unclear origin, London’s Guardian newspaper reported Thursday that oil-rich Saudi Arabia was mulling the option of acquiring a nuclear weapon.