# Saudi Arabia looking for nuclear weapons



## Robert0288 (8 Nov 2013)

Via National Post (http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/11/07/saudi-arabia-has-nuclear-weapons-on-order-ready-to-deliver-from-pakistan-report/)



> Saudi Arabia has nuclear weapons ‘on order,’ ready to deliver from Pakistan: report
> 
> Saudi Arabia has reportedly invested in the Pakistan nuclear program and has atomic weapons “on order” ready to be delivered.
> 
> ...



Because we really need more countries in the M.E. to have WMDs.


----------



## blacktriangle (8 Nov 2013)

Great. My favourite country!


----------



## pbi (8 Nov 2013)

They're looking for nuclear weapons....?

Oh, no.  

Where did they put them?


----------



## CougarKing (8 Nov 2013)

Please note what was discussed about the Saudis in this other related, thread below in the International Security/Current Events section of this forum:

"US official says Saudi Arabia poised to make shift major shift in relations AWAY from US"


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Nov 2013)

It does mean the Saudi's will have to pay to keep them maintained in working order and it's anyone's guess that the people they pay will do that. The Saudi's won't mind as long as they have the ability to make people believe they have the threat. This is all to do with countering Iran's regional power threat. the chattering class will blame Israel, but you will note that Saudi never felt the need to go down this road over the last 20 years when they where quite aware of Israel abilities. The difference is that Israel is not interested in challenging directly anyone in the region unless they are stomping on Israel directly.


----------



## pbi (8 Nov 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> ...This is all to do with countering Iran's regional power threat. the chattering class will blame Israel, but you will note that Saudi never felt the need to go down this road over the last 20 years when they where quite aware of Israel abilities...



Interesting take, and one that many would miss. 

I wonder if the Shia/Sunni thing will be sufficient (if combined with regional power aspirations), to kick up a serious regional war (almost like an Arab Civil War). By this I mean an interstate war that will go beyond the proxy "factional" fighting we've seen in Syria.


----------



## Teflon (8 Nov 2013)

One would think they would do regular verifications on things like that, you know, just to keep a grip on them!  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Nov 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> Interesting take, and one that many would miss.
> 
> I wonder if the Shia/Sunni thing will be sufficient (if combined with regional power aspirations), to kick up a serious regional war (almost like an Arab Civil War). By this I mean an interstate war that will go beyond the proxy "factional" fighting we've seen in Syria.



The west I think completely underestimates the depth of the hatred that exists between the two beliefs. I have no doubt that there are nutbars on both sides that feel flinging nukes is the only way to cleanse the earth of the Kufrul-'Inaad. Thankfully there are pragmatics on both side that realize that nuclear war may interfere with enjoyment of their illgotten gains.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Nov 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> Interesting take, and one that many would miss.
> 
> I wonder if the Shia/Sunni thing will be sufficient (if combined with regional power aspirations), to kick up a serious regional war (almost like an Arab Civil War). By this I mean an interstate war that will go beyond the proxy "factional" fighting we've seen in Syria.




Just like 1618 ...  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (9 Nov 2013)

So now Iran may have to adjust its nuclear ambitions to deal with nuclear threats from Israel, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, as well as the United States...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Nov 2013)

I suspect Iran is better organized for the long term effect of a nuclear standoff. From what I see, nuke armed nations move to proxy wars to avoid direct conflict with their nuke armed enemy as direct conflict risks are to high. Iran having nukes of any type basically negates the invasion threat, which is the lesson they learned from the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Nukes at the tactical level are also a threat to domestic populations, Iran as I recall has only a 51% Persian population with Restive Kurds and Balach in the North and South respectively. If things went south quickly the threat of a small nuke on a town might be taken at face value by the locals.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Nov 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I suspect Iran is better organized for the long term effect of a nuclear standoff. From what I see, nuke armed nations move to proxy wars to avoid direct conflict with their nuke armed enemy as direct conflict risks are to high. Iran having nukes of any type basically negates the invasion threat, which is the lesson they learned from the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Nukes at the tactical level are also a threat to domestic populations, Iran as I recall has only a 51% Persian population with Restive Kurds and Balach in the North and South respectively. If things went south quickly the threat of a small nuke on a town might be taken at face value by the locals.




There is also an argument that widespread nuclear armaments would have a _civilizing_ effect ~ its the same as the argument for allowing everyone to carry concealed weapons. When Iran is a nuclear state then it will deal with its neighbours on a different basis, so the theory goes, a more _civil_ basis because the military stakes just got a lot higher. If Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel and a handful of other Middle Eastern states are all nuclear powers then tensions in the region _might_ arguably, lessen as they all have to act in a more responsible fashion.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Nov 2013)

I see more of a Indian-Pakistani situation forming. With Iraq and Syria filling in for the Kashmir.


----------

