The 1st Arab nation to go nuclear?

[Firehorse]

In the last two years, more than a dozen Arab states have announced plans to pursue nuclear power programs. (http://www.forbes.com/business/2008/03/25/nuclear-iran-npt-biz-cx_0326oxford.html) This has raised concerns that such countries are interested in developing nuclear weapons. ..
UAE sets out to become first Arab nuclear state (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b17da690-f9f8-11dc-9b7c-000077b07658,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=htt p%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Fb17da690-f9f8-11dc-9b7c-000077b07658.html%3Fnclick_check%3D1&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.1913intel.com%2F&nclick_check=1)
The UAE, despite having some of the most abundant hydrocarbon resources, says it needs to develop nuclear power to sate strong demand for electricity and water by the fast-growing populations of Dubai and Abu Dhabi.

So, which of them is better positioned to be the 1st to operate a nuclear powerplant and/or develop nukes? Or, will there be several states going nuclear at roughly the same time?

[militaryman3121]

i personaly don't think they will even attemed producing them, all talk.

[crobato]

These countries may be rich in oil, but are they rich in other mineral resource? You would need to find ways to get Uranium if you want to build a bomb. Countries like Iran and N. Korea are able to pursue nuclear programs even in isolation because they have natural deposits.

[militaryman3121]

yeah i agree uranium is not something you can easily buy, the natural deposits are low in some countrys.

[SABRE]

So, which of them is better positioned to be the 1st to operate a nuclear powerplant and/or develop nukes? Or, will there be several states going nuclear at roughly the same time?

UAE is not pursuing nuclear weapons & no Arab state is in position to pursue nukes right now. Its not just the uranium or plutonium & facility to enrich or reprocess them you need - you need scientists & technicians who expertise in nuclear energy & have thorough knowledge of the bomb making. & at this moment & perhaps for long time to come there are no such people in Arab states, especially UAE.

[Pro'forma]

Unilateral relations between Arab lands and "almost" Arab lands have
seen how useless the nuclear power issue is.

Middle concern lie, where after long deliberation their old hegemony
to supply and demand peace universally is at stake.

[masijames]

yeah i agree uranium is not something you can easily buy, the natural deposits are low in some countrys.


they can buy easily from isreal

Masijames; one liners are not allowed as they do not generate productive discussion. Next time please avoid giving one line replies.

- SABRE

[eaf-f16]

they can buy easily from isreal

Masijames; one liners are not allowed as they do not generate productive discussion. Next time please avoid giving one line replies.

- SABRE

Yes, I am positive that Israel wouldn't mind providing Egypt and Saudi Arabia with uranium. :rolleyes:

Egypt and the GCC countries are not going to enrich uranium on their soil like Iran. This is why it has been acceptable for the "International Community" (US, Israel and friends) for those countries to pursue nuclear energy.

For Egypt, this has more to do with the economy than anything else. I don't think it has anything to do with Iran's nuclear program. Egypt is a very poor country at the end of the day and we get power outages sometimes. Nuclear energy would probably do a world of good for Egypt.

[SaudiArabian]

several Arab countries has nuclear reactors to produce energy and a variety of nuclear programs for scientific research. neither has nuclear weapons since it is seen unnecessary and expensive.

the only Arab state close to produce nuclear bombs was Iraq in 1990. it was only few months away from producing the 1st nuclear bomb before invading Kuwait according to an interview with one of the responsible Iraqi nuclear scientists with Riyadh newspaper.

[SABRE]

several Arab countries has nuclear reactors to produce energy and a variety of nuclear programs for scientific research. neither has nuclear weapons since it is seen unnecessary and expensive.

the only Arab state close to produce nuclear bombs was Iraq in 1990. it was only few months away from producing the 1st nuclear bomb before invading Kuwait according to an interview with one of the responsible Iraqi nuclear scientists with Riyadh newspaper.

There are several accounts of Iraqi nuclear program. Most believe they had the clandestine program but majority out of that most believe that the program was destroyed by the Israelis & was never pursued again. So if you go with the majority than the statement of Iraq having nuclear weapons program just before Kuwaiti invasion would be flawed.

Another account to Iraqi nuclear weapons, many say, that they never had any such program & did not have know how for the bomb. All they knew how to make was chemical & biological weapons.

On the subjective basis; if Iraq was few days away from making the 1st bomb than they could have waited few days before invading Kuwait. In fact just a test of the nuclear weapons would have removed the necessity for Iraq to invade Kuwait - it could have just dictated its policy to it.

If you ask me I walk between both the above accounts. Iraq may not have the bomb but whatever they could possibly could have used to make the bomb was destroyed by Israelis.

[Firehorse]

I've read that the Saudis financed the Pakistani nuclear program- if that's true than the Pakistanis will return the favor if asked. Or maybe the Saudi bomb is already stored in Pakistan? IMO, and I'm not alone, the Iraqi nuclear Wepaons program was spurned by Israeli raid on Osirak, and driven underground.
As for others, how far was Libya in this business?

[Aliph Ahmed]

As for others, how far was Libya in this business?

Libya was quite ahead. US for the record showed surprise when recieved the nuclear equipment from Libya. I remember reading Libya was twice as ahead as US or other intelligences antcipated.

Libya only decided to abandon its program when the shipment it purchased from black market was caught and seized. Military strikes were simply inevitable and the only way to come around of them was to come clean.

[Firehorse]

If you think of it, Israel is "the Jewish state", but the breakdown is Jewish 76.4% (of which Israel-born 67.1%, Europe/America-born 22.6%, Africa-born 5.9%, Asia-born 4.2%), non-Jewish 23.6% (mostly Arab) (2004) - so, it's almost a 1/4 Arab!
IMO, Saudi Arabia will be (if not already) the 1st to get nukes. The holiest shrines & the largest oil reserves are there, and also they won't allow GCC states to get there 1st.

[SaudiArabian]

There are several accounts of Iraqi nuclear program. Most believe they had the clandestine program but majority out of that most believe that the program was destroyed by the Israelis & was never pursued again. So if you go with the majority than the statement of Iraq having nuclear weapons program just before Kuwaiti invasion would be flawed.

Another account to Iraqi nuclear weapons, many say, that they never had any such program & did not have know how for the bomb. All they knew how to make was chemical & biological weapons.

On the subjective basis; if Iraq was few days away from making the 1st bomb than they could have waited few days before invading Kuwait. In fact just a test of the nuclear weapons would have removed the necessity for Iraq to invade Kuwait - it could have just dictated its policy to it.

If you ask me I walk between both the above accounts. Iraq may not have the bomb but whatever they could possibly could have used to make the bomb was destroyed by Israelis.

well what i said is all from a very long interview with an Iraqi nuclear scientist who was involved in the two Iraqi nuclear programs.

the Iraqi nuclear reactor which was bombed in 1981 by israel is Osirak reactor, built by support of France. its completely for scientific research and wasn't a threat for israel. however , the reactor was an excellent opurtunity for Iraqi nuclear scientists to gain the know-how and suffecient training in the nuclear field.

in ~1986 , the nuclear project was revived again but this time not for scientific research , it was entended entirely to produce nuclear bombs. this time the project was Iraqi 100% and was very confidential they even had specific policy when importing some pieces from outside to avoid any intelligence attraction. their plans worked and they were about to produce the 1st bomb after the invasion of Kuwait by few months. the Iraqi scientist criticized Saddam's decision of invasion and said he should've waited till the production of the nuclear bomb.

Saddam probably never thought he face such a global coalition. the Iraqi nuclear program is one of the reasons to force KSA to avoid a long term war with Iraq and instead to establish the coalition mainly with the US forces to ensure quick air strikes to destroy the Iraqi nuclear program before its too late.

this nuclear project was one of the main targets for the coalition air forces during Kuwait liberation war. it was completely destroyed in air strikes.

[SABRE]

I've read that the Saudis financed the Pakistani nuclear program- if that's true than the Pakistanis will return the favor if asked. Or maybe the Saudi bomb is already stored in Pakistan? IMO, and I'm not alone, the Iraqi nuclear Wepaons program was spurned by Israeli raid on Osirak, and driven underground.
As for others, how far was Libya in this business?

The did provide funds for nuclear research but not for the bomb - although they knew what this research was all about. As for returning favor it has already been turned down by Pakistan. A nuclear umbrella can perhaps be provided to the KSA. However, no chance of proliferation by either side - especially with the Pakistan's nuclear watchman, the Strategic Plans Division (SPD) in place.

It is said Libya would have been ready to make the bomb within few years time (estimated 5 years according to some) had the American invasion of Iraq not made them think otherwise. They were getting everything almost ready made according to reports, all they had to do was put them in place.

well what i said is all from a very long interview with an Iraqi nuclear scientist who was involved in the two Iraqi nuclear programs.

the Iraqi nuclear reactor which was bombed in 1981 by israel is Osirak reactor, built by support of France. its completely for scientific research and wasn't a threat for israel. however , the reactor was an excellent opurtunity for Iraqi nuclear scientists to gain the know-how and suffecient training in the nuclear field.

in ~1986 , the nuclear project was revived again but this time not for scientific research , it was entended entirely to produce nuclear bombs. this time the project was Iraqi 100% and was very confidential they even had specific policy when importing some pieces from outside to avoid any intelligence attraction. their plans worked and they were about to produce the 1st bomb after the invasion of Kuwait by few months. the Iraqi scientist criticized Saddam's decision of invasion and said he should've waited till the production of the nuclear bomb.

Saddam probably never thought he face such a global coalition. the Iraqi nuclear program is one of the reasons to force KSA to avoid a long term war with Iraq and instead to establish the coalition mainly with the US forces to ensure quick air strikes to destroy the Iraqi nuclear program before its too late.

this nuclear project was one of the main targets for the coalition air forces during Kuwait liberation war. it was completely destroyed in air strikes.

Hmm. I am not challenging you. You could be right or lets say the person who gave the interview could be correct but given the recent trend of adventure-journalism I don't trust many of the newspaper reports & interviews.

The information above brings more question to mind. I.e. Did Iraq had enough funds to re-divert to nuclear program when war was ongoing with Iran? They had already diverted much of their funds to conventional weapons from USSR, UK, France & even USA along with their R&D of Chemical & Biological weapons?

[SaudiArabian]

Hmm. I am not challenging you. You could be right or lets say the person who gave the interview could be correct but given the recent trend of adventure-journalism I don't trust many of the newspaper reports & interviews.

The information above brings more question to mind. I.e. Did Iraq had enough funds to re-divert to nuclear program when war was ongoing with Iran? They had already diverted much of their funds to conventional weapons from USSR, UK, France & even USA along with their R&D of Chemical & Biological weapons?

the interview included the scientist's , Dr.Nu'aiman Al Nueimi , photos doing the interview (available mainly in the original paper not internet version thats why i didn't consider it a journalist adventure). according to him , he insisted that the cost of the 2nd Iraqi nuclear program was no more than 750 million $ not 10 Billion $ as it was claimed by the US nor it was 100 Billion $ as Chalaby claimed in London.

these are the links to the interview but unfortunately in Arabic only even thought its a dungeon of information about Iraq's nuclear programs

http://www.alriyadh.com/2006/01/21/article124408.html
http://www.alriyadh.com/2006/01/22/article124648.html
http://www.alriyadh.com/2006/01/23/article124976.html
http://www.alriyadh.com/2006/01/24/article125215.html

[SABRE]

the interview included the scientist's , Dr.Nu'aiman Al Nueimi , photos doing the interview (available mainly in the original paper not internet version thats why i didn't consider it a journalist adventure). according to him , he insisted that the cost of the 2nd Iraqi nuclear program was no more than 750 million $ not 10 Billion $ as it was claimed by the US nor it was 100 Billion $ as Chalaby claimed in London.

these are the links to the interview but unfortunately in Arabic only even thought its a dungeon of information about Iraq's nuclear programs

http://www.alriyadh.com/2006/01/21/article124408.html
http://www.alriyadh.com/2006/01/22/article124648.html
http://www.alriyadh.com/2006/01/23/article124976.html
http://www.alriyadh.com/2006/01/24/article125215.html

Actually I "can" read Arabic but "can't" understand it :D

I'll try to get it translated (May be you can do that).

[Firehorse]

My intuition is as good as ever- Saudi Arabia most likely would develop nuclear weapons if Iran acquires them (http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=112079), according to a report to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
And they already have IRBMs, as been discussed on this forum!

Could Iraqi technicians & scientists be employed by other states? I presume many of them left the country since 2003!

Between 1972 and 1974, Pakistan had persuaded Libya, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, to fund its nuclear weapons programme. ..The funding from Libya, Iraq and Saudi Arabia was rooted in the significant political orientations of Pakistan’s nuclear weapon policies. Pakistan was not acquiring nuclear weapons capacity only to counter India’s conventional military superiority. Bhutto had told leaders of the OIC in 1974 that Pakistan’s bomb would be an ‘Islamic bomb’ and could be the foundation for Islamic countries acquiring strategic military capacities to counter other nuclear weapons powers. http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=51a87b3b-7d01-4a1e-983b-c762865fc315&ParentID=288bf5c5-cce4-4eaf-8701-66b1f1d07ffb&&Headline=Radioactive+nation%3a+Opinion

[T-Rex]

It is not only the question of funding, natural resource and intellectual resource. The biggest determinant is a backbone. the Arab regimes don't have a backbone, they are simply too weak to resist the US pressure.

[T-Rex]

UAE is not pursuing nuclear weapons & no Arab state is in position to pursue nukes right now. Its not just the uranium or plutonium & facility to enrich or reprocess them you need - you need scientists & technicians who expertise in nuclear energy & have thorough knowledge of the bomb making. & at this moment & perhaps for long time to come there are no such people in Arab states, especially UAE.
----------------------------------------------------------------

It is not only the question of funding, natural resource and intellectual resource. The biggest determinant is a backbone. the Arab regimes don't have a backbone, they are simply too weak to resist the US pressure.


[Mod edit]
There is a quote button you can use for quoting someone or manually quote in this format [quote]text[/quote ]

[swerve]

...
The information above brings more question to mind. I.e. Did Iraq had enough funds to re-divert to nuclear program when war was ongoing with Iran? ..

Saddam found the money from somewhere. I don't know how far from producing a bomb they were, but they certainly had the programme. You don't install thousands of calutrons ("electromagnetic isotope separation" or EMIS process) in clandestine plants for fun: you do it to produce enriched uranium surreptitiously, and there's only one reason for anyone to do that. Same for cascades of centrifuges.

This bloke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Albright) has written up a lot of what the IAEA found, in considerable detail. References here (http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/). He & his collaborators thought Iraq was several years from a bomb.

Here's what the IAEA said in 1992 - http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Iraq/iraqindex.html

No doubt there was a large-scale clandestine programme. How advanced it was is debatable.

[SABRE]

Saddam found the money from somewhere. I don't know how far from producing a bomb they were, but they certainly had the programme. You don't install thousands of calutrons ("electromagnetic isotope separation" or EMIS process) in clandestine plants for fun: you do it to produce enriched uranium surreptitiously, and there's only one reason for anyone to do that. Same for cascades of centrifuges.

This bloke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Albright) has written up a lot of what the IAEA found, in considerable detail. References here (http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/). He & his collaborators thought Iraq was several years from a bomb.

Here's what the IAEA said in 1992 - http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Iraq/iraqindex.html

No doubt there was a large-scale clandestine programme. How advanced it was is debatable.

Well I did some digging & realized funds were really no problem as west made sure money kept flowing into the Iraq as war was going on. Perhaps we can agree on that Iraq had clandestine program but still the time period (by which they could have the bomb) would remain questionable.

[Firehorse]

In the second scenario, which Heisbourg dubs "Compromise," Iran successfully launches a Shahab rocket and orbiting satellite, proving it has a functioning delivery vehicle, then announces it has produced sufficient fissionable material at its Natanz facility to build two nuclear bombs in 2009 and begins work on underground test facilities in the basalt formations beneath the great salt desert of Dacht-e-Kavir. (Another nod to the database of the IISS.) Heisbourg calls even this option one with "disastrous consequences from every angle." Non-proliferation is all but totally discredited, North Korea resumes its nuclear program and Japan reopens its nuclear debate, Saudi Arabia decides it needs a bomb and buys a dozen or so from Pakistan, which desperately needs the oil. (http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/vehicles/2008/04/03/book-review-iran-oped-cx_daa_0403heisbourg.html)


I don't read French, but hope it will be translated & published in English soon! Perhaps someone here who's fluent in French can share their impression of that book?

[SABRE]

Just to make few points here:

1. Pakistan would not proliferate nuclear weapons to any Arab state or for that matter any Muslim state, especially since the inception of the Strategic Plans Division (under the National Command Authority) & its export control regime. - This I can assure since I have been around some of people from SPD & they take their jobs seriously.

Secondly; Pakistan already has a ghost of proliferation lurking around. It wont do any marketing of the bomb in anyways.

2. Don't forget the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Any state can withdraw from it but the outcome that might follow may be so tough that may be an oil rich state might not be able to sustain it.

[Firehorse]

Pakistan never signed the NPT: a treaty in crisis (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jid/jid030918_1_n.shtml)! The Saudis did, but IMO their regional and energy clout will keep the fallout to a minimum.
As a whole, Arab states can get uranium from FSU, Kazakhstan, Niger and/or SA (http://www.cameco.com/common/images/u101/worldmap_uranium.gif).

As I wrote earlier, the Saudis probably already posess warheads designated for them.

[Feanor]

Do you have any sources with evidence that the Saudi's have nuclear weapons, or access to nuclear weapons or the techonology to produce them? Or are these just your personal mental (I really want to say "astral" :rolleyes: ) projections?

[Firehorse]

I have no sources, but looking at the bigger picture, it would be foolish of them not to make arrangements with the Pakistanis. There are also some missing Russian "suitcase nukes" that, even if no longer operational, could be exploited for technology. I bet some of them found their way to the ME!
But even without them, their oil wealth could be used with no less devastating effect: just reducing the output would send the crude prices through the roof worlwide, and if anyone tries to capture those oil fields, there is probably a system in place to blow them all up! .. planners must operate on the assumption the sabotage system is in place and prepare for the consequences. If this single-button self-destruct system does exist and were used, what would be its impact? The U.S. and other governments hold about 1.3 billion barrels of oil and gas in strategic reserves, a stock that would last about six months. Disaster would follow, Posner posits. "Once the strategic reserves proved inadequate, a nuclear environment in Saudi Arabia would create crippling oil price increases, political instability, and economic recessions unrivaled since the 1930s."If such a system is in place, two implications leap to mind. Should the Saudi monarchy retain its grip on power (which I consider likely), it has created for itself a unique deterrence against invasion. http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2601


Back to that book, suppose the Arabs get nukes in a tit-for tat with Iran. Then there will be reduced risk of an all-out war with either Iran or Israel, as MAD doctrine among states will keep everyone in their places.:D

[Aliph Ahmed]

Pakistan never signed the NPT: a treaty in crisis (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jid/jid030918_1_n.shtml)! The Saudis did, but IMO their regional and energy clout will keep the fallout to a minimum.
As a whole, Arab states can get uranium from FSU, Kazakhstan, Niger and/or SA (http://www.cameco.com/common/images/u101/worldmap_uranium.gif).

As I wrote earlier, the Saudis probably already posess warheads designated for them.


Pakistan for the recrord proposed India on several occasions signing the NPT together but India always refused for " unknown " reasons.

but that was all before the tests. Now it is simply logical to sign NPT as a declared nuclear weopon state. Something the west are refusing to accept and therefore, the doom of NPT is inevitable.

[Feanor]

Firehorse it sounds like generalized speculations to me. Unless we can get info, I recommend you consider the Saudi's as not being anywhere near possessing nuclear capabilities.

[T-Rex]

Pakistan for the recrord proposed India on several occasions signing the NPT together but India always refused for " unknown " reasons.

but that was all before the tests. Now it is simply logical to sign NPT as a declared nuclear weopon state. Something the west are refusing to accept and therefore, the doom of NPT is inevitable.

The PNT is a tool of the super powers to maintain their nuclear supremacy by preventing other states from acquiring nuclear weapons. Before any other state, the nuclear weapons of the US, Britain and Israel should be dismantled or taken into the custody of the UN, for these states pose the greatest threat to world peace and stability.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The PNT is a tool of the super powers to maintain their nuclear supremacy by preventing other states from acquiring nuclear weapons. Before any other state, the nuclear weapons of the US, Britain and Israel should be dismantled or taken into the custody of the UN, for these states pose the greatest threat to world peace and stability.

And not China, India, Russia or North Korea? Hmmm..... You know only time two nuclear states were in direct conflict was during the kargil conflict between India and Pakistan and during several border clashes between the USSR and PROC including a vicious conflict over Damansky Island. It seems these states are more likely to start a nuclear war than Britain or isreal.

[robsta83]

The PNT is a tool of the super powers to maintain their nuclear supremacy by preventing other states from acquiring nuclear weapons. Before any other state, the nuclear weapons of the US, Britain and Israel should be dismantled or taken into the custody of the UN, for these states pose the greatest threat to world peace and stability.

1st it's NPT, 2nd Wow being around forums for a couple of years has allowed me to read alot but thats about the biggest load of BS ever. Why not France or Russia as well, you don't think a nuclear armed North Korea is a greater threat to world stability?

Even without the NPT, which countries current signatories of the NPT
(that don't currently have nuclear weapons) would have a chance of challenging the US in a nuclear arms race?

Seriously:loony

[SABRE]

There is pinned thread on NPT. It contains the complete text. If you have to talk about NPT take it there & lets keep this thread to limited to the what the topic heading says.

In addition I think this thread will lead into trouble sometimes soon, therefore it is now under observation.

[Firehorse]

Firehorse it sounds like generalized speculations to me. Unless we can get info, I recommend you consider the Saudi's as not being anywhere near possessing nuclear capabilities.

I agree that those are my speculations, but I noticed that more often than not, and not only on this forum, but in my personal life, I've guessed things right. And here is something that can raise many eyebrows:

Israel, while supposedly observing an ironclad boycott of all things Iranian, is happily buying Iranian oil http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/richard_silverstein/2008/04/israels_tehran_connection.html
What does it have to do with the Arabs? Diring the Iran-Iraq war, only Syria was on Iran's side, given their animosity with Iraq, while the Gulf states supported Iraq. Now, with Israel in the West and Iran in the East, they are facing 2 nuclear states (not to mention US, UK, & France that had been periodically invading/colonizing them), that may or may not directly fight each other. What would you do if you were the Saudi King?

[Feanor]

What would you do if you were the Saudi King?

Let me rephrase your question to say "What could you do if you were the Saudi King?"

That way it's more accurate of the situation. Again I highly doubt they have nukes simply because they're antagonistic with both Iran and Israel. Pakistan isn't likely to be involved in any real nuclear proliferation because the international problems as a result would be likely to bring down the already unstable regime. Finally their capabilities and actual production of nuclear weapons has been highly limited. As a result they don't have very many warheads themselves.

If I was the Saudi King I'd get an effective strat-SAM network and large numbers of modern interceptors to cover all the major population centers. I'd also modernize and unify equipment for my Armed forces, and restructure them into coherent formations.

[SABRE]

Pakistan isn't likely to be involved in any real nuclear proliferation because the international problems as a result would be likely to bring down the already unstable regime. Finally their capabilities and actual production of nuclear weapons has been highly limited. As a result they don't have very many warheads themselves.

1st you have to upgrade your knowledge because regime already changed in Pakistan. This one has popular support plus the military backing.

2nd; AFAIK Pakistan's weapons production has been fairly moderate not limited, especially since Uranium is locally available. & the number of warheads are not easy to determine since they are never made public. --- But I'll only add that Pakistan does not maintain large number stockpile, enough to distribute it to any country.

Few years back Saudi Crown Prince (now King) Abduallah did ask for nuclear assistance in terms of weapons capability but was refused outright by Pakistan.

[Pro'forma]

I wouldn't like to see any progress less with delight the Arabian
Eurasia and Mediterranean neighbourhood with cooperation OSCE (the organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe).

No matter the location, nuclear is not to left out of its own luck.

Anti nuclear epitome is understood as long as state of disunity lacks
any morality.

[Firehorse]

Let me rephrase your question to say "What could you do if you were the Saudi King?" Well, in addition to BMD, they could get 2 fleets of SSKs, one in the Gulf and the other in the Red Sea, armed with ASh/SLCMs, that could be used for 2nd strike & blockade of the straits & SLOCs around the Arabian peninsula (http://www.sitesatlas.com/Maps/Maps/604.gif).
The last post is hard to make sense of. Could you rephrase it?
The Libyans probably copied the technical documents they had before turning them over to the US; and they have exchanged ratification documents of the treaty for economic, commercial, investment, technical (http://www.saudinf.com/main/y6611.htm), cultural and sports cooperation.. with Saudi Arabia 3.5 years ago!

[Feanor]

So? Knowing how to make nuclear weapons (and that itself is uncertain, you're simply speculating) is very different from possesing warheads at your disposal.

[Firehorse]

Japan is considered a de-facto nuclear state, having big plutonium stockpile & necessary know-how, besides American security guarantees. If those guarantees weren't there, it wouldn't make much of difference now anyway- they can get nukes in about 1 year from today if need be. But Japan has to import most of her oil from the Iran & GCC states, including Saudi Arabia! So, even without any warheads, they hold more cards!

[kmtina]

Well, now we know the next Arab country to go nuclear. http://samsonblinded.org/news/ahmadinejad-admitted-military-nuclear-9215 It appears like Iran has S 300's although they are old models.

[swerve]

Iran isn't an Arab country.

[kmtina]

Sorry, Persian, or Middle Eastern

[Templario]

Iran is a serious problem for world's peace.
They have said several times they would destroy Israel...

[Josef]

Unilateral relations between Arab lands and "almost" Arab lands have
seen how useless the nuclear power issue is.

Middle concern lie, where after long deliberation their old hegemony
to supply and demand peace universally is at stake.

Arabs hate Israel the U.S. must not allow the Arabs to have nuclear technology.

[The_Zergling]

Iran is a serious problem for world's peace.
They have said several times they would destroy Israel...

Where? I've heard this repeated over and over again, but never any concrete proof.

[SABRE]

Arabs hate Israel the U.S. must not allow the Arabs to have nuclear technology.

And so has Israel which actually does have the capability to do so - unlike Iran.

[A.Mookerjee]

We are not here to discuss religion.

- SABRE

[Blue Streak]

I'm surprised not to see either Egypt or Algeria suggested yet.

Both of these countries, unlike those on the Arabian Peninsular, have the infrastructure and knowledge base to initiate fuel cycle development.

And just going a little further beyond the Arab world, let us not rule out Turkey.

[dragonfire]

I'm surprised not to see either Egypt or Algeria suggested yet.

Both of these countries, unlike those on the Arabian Peninsular, have the infrastructure and knowledge base to initiate fuel cycle development.

And just going a little further beyond the Arab world, let us not rule out Turkey.

Doesnt Turkey already have nuclear weapons as part of NATO strategy of allocating nuclear weapons to member states primarily from US and UK stocks, however with the launch code clearance to be secured from the orgin state

[turin]

They do not have any control over those weapons. All they do is provide pilots and planes to enable delivery. So unless the Third World War breaks out and those planes are on the runway ready for take-off, Turkey does not "have" anything.

Its very different to having not only your own nukes, but also all the facilities to develop and produce them, really.