Israel: Iran slowing nuclear program, won’t have bomb before 2015

RandomName2

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

So tyrannical dictatorships are the only states which are capable of using the atom bomb for bad?

Hmmm...*gets out history book*

...I wonder who was the first and only nation so far to actually use them in war?

You talking about the firebombing of Tokyo?

Oh no, you were talking about the much smaller bombings that weren't through conventional weapons.

Anachronistic metaphors aren't particularly helpful in discussion.

Germany invaded France in 1939, but that has to be seen separately from the Third Reich being an expansionist, totalitarian dictatorship looking for revenge. I mean *cracks open history book* didn't France invade the Ruhr valley in 1923?

c_man

cyberhog wrote: »

So once again the Israelis are pushing the date back just before the time arrives that Netanyahu predicted Iran would have a bomb.

Well with the recent targetting of Iranian scientists, and Obama's warmongering care of the likes of Stuxnet is it any wonder that any supposed date would be pushed back?

Eggy Baby!

RandomName2 wrote: »

You talking about the firebombing of Tokyo?

Oh no, you were talking about the much smaller bombings that weren't through conventional weapons.

Anachronistic metaphors aren't particularly helpful in discussion.

Germany invaded France in 1939, but that has to been separately from the Third Reich being an expansionist, totalitarian dictatorship looking for revenge. I mean *cracks open history book* didn't France invade the Ruhr valley in 1923?

What the hell are you talking about?

Jaafa

Surely the USA started the race when they installed nuclear ballistic missiles in Turkey over half a century ago.

No?

That started it between the world superpowers, we are talking about the middle east specifically here.

Sorry your post just comes across as 'Well Israel is crap... sorry, what was it you were saying?".

Wow that's a massive assumption to make from my 2 lines.
I stated the fact that Israel started the nuclear arms race in the region.
I didn't say they were scumbags for doing it, I didn't say they were crap. They were perfectly within their rights to start a nuclear program.

Israel, if it has nukes, hasn't used them - despite any numbers of opportunities. It has been invaded - almost destroyed - on a couple of occasions; yet no nukes were dropped;

Israel has only once come even close to being defeated or destroyed (in the yom kippur war), in every other major war against Arab nations, it has resoundingly defeated the opposing armies.

indeed not even a warning from Israel against its enemies that they may resort to WMDs.

You clearly know very little of Israel's history. Again In the Yom Kippur war, the only war were there was a decent chance of Israel losing, during the night of October 8–9, Golda Meir the then prime minister of Israel did ready 13 nuclear warheads in case it's forces were overwhelmed. Furthermore have you ever heard of the Samson Option?

Moshe Dayan: 'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.' I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under

So if you will, please brush up on your history and facts before you comment again.

Jaafa

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Israel has had nuclear weapons for 45 years. It was a pretty bloody slow race until Iran started its weapons program.

I didn't say it was a fast race. But it is undeniably that Israel started it. And you can be certain that if Israel gave up its weapons tomorrow, no other country in the region would have any reason to seek the weapons any longer.

In fact Iran and Egypt have tried to promote a nuclear free zone in the middle east since the 1960's. Israel of course has refused such talk at least until the Palestine issue is resolved, and a regional peace agreement settled on.

RandomName2

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

What the hell are you talking about?

While I have some sympathy with the devil advocacy of "Isn't this a really hypocritical position on the part of the West? Do you remember the time that America ..." it has grown tired through repeated iteration, and the USA as an abuser of WMDs was never a very accurate portrayal in the first place.

First of all the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima have absolutely nothing, nada, zip to do with Iran possessing nuclear weapons.

Second, Hiroshima and Nagasaki had relatively moderate death-tolls in the Second World War compared to sieges or even conventional bombing. The firebombing of Tokyo would be a good case in point. Does this mean that countries should be banned from having conventional weapons? This is a nonsense digression.

Moreover, the most important failing of the analogy is that it is comparing the possibility of unprovoked attack by a totalitarian dictatorship with two stratetgic bombings at the end of the Second World War. That's pretty much a world of difference, really. The fact that the nuclear bombings probably saved the lives of countless Japanese, not to mention Allied, by its likely prevention of a protracted invasion which had been planned for by both sides further highlights this point.

Finally, the relative scale of nuclear armaments in 1945 compared to those of today, is like comparing the blast radius of a T34 shell with that of Fat Man during WW2. Have a look here: http://www.fastcodesign.com/1669575/ingeniously-charting-the-horrifying-power-of-todays-nuclear-bombs

What is more, we aren't even talking about hypothetically preventing the US from obtaining nuclear weapons. Even if you believe that the Allies were wrong by using non-conventional weaponry, that still doesn't negate the argument for present day non-proliferation!

RandomName2

Jaafa wrote: »

I didn't say it was a fast race. But it is undeniably that Israel started it. And you can be certain that if Israel gave up its weapons tomorrow, no other country in the region would have any reason to seek the weapons any longer.

In fact Iran and Egypt have tried to promote a nuclear free zone in the middle east since the 1960's. Israel of course has refused such talk at least until the Palestine issue is resolved, and a regional peace agreement settled on.

Well, okay, Israel may seek a Gotterdamerung resolution in the unlikely event of it being overrun (surely planning for victory or deterrence would be better? Anyway...); but what has Iran to fear from that? If Israel has had nuclear capability for decades, what does Iran have to gain from itself being nuclear, that it does not at present possess? The only way I can see to rationalise this is if one conjectures that Israel has sparked an arms race, which will inevitably lead to its neigbours possessing such weapons. I could actually see why Iran would be actively concerned by a nuclear Iraq or even Saudi Arabia. Although Iran and Israel really... don't like one another... where, really, do their strategic interests collide at the moment?

Eggy Baby!

Second, Hiroshima and Nagasaki had relatively moderate death-tolls in the Second World War compared to sieges or even conventional bombing. The firebombing of Tokyo would be a good case in point. Does this mean that countries should be banned from having conventional weapons? This is a nonsense digression.

Your comparison here is fallacious. The bombings of Hiro and Naga were the result of two bombs, one each. The firebombing of Tokyo was the result of many bombs being dropped, and the fiery aftereffects of these bombs spreading throughout the city. To say that the Tokyo firebombing was so bad that the bombings of Hiro and Naga should be ignored is idiotic. Death tolls don't matter here.

And yes, the US was the first and only nation to ever use these bombs. And it stockpiles thousands of them. And it allows its allies (Israel particularly) to develop these bombs in order to cultivate an exclusive nuclear club and thus use the threat of these nuclear weapons to ensure geo-strategic dominance. I did not see the United States impose sanctions or warnings on India or Pakistan when they developed their nuclear programs and tested their first bombs: in an arguably more combustible region than the Middle East.

The fact that the nuclear bombings probably saved the lives of countless Japanese, not to mention Allied, by its likely prevention of a protracted invasion which had been planned for by both sides further highlights this point.

I know this thread isn't a historical discussion, but the Japanese attempted to surrender to the Americans before the bombings. The Americans bombed Japan because they wanted unconditional surrender. Secondly, the Soviets invaded Manchuria after the bombings and annihilated the Japanese there, wiping out over a million troops in a few weeks. This arguably contributed to the surrender of the Japanese as much as the bombings of Hiro and Naga did. Truman didn't want a Soviet invasion of Japan to take place for fear of Communist influence spreading there. So the bombings were essentially one of the first acts of the Cold War.

Anyway, I digress.

It doesn't matter whether nuclear weapons are in the hands of dictatorships or democracies....human beings are human beings and human beings make mistakes and are subject to making bad judgements from time to time. I was simply trying to prove, by stating that the US has been the only country to use nukes, that your argument that "totalitarian governments are more likely to use nukes" is wrong. Has a totalitarian government ever used nukes? How do you know? There is simply not enough evidence to support your claims. The Soviets had thousands of nuclear bombs for decades and never used even one, even though it was involved in numerous wars and crackdowns.

Do you think that Israel should be allowed to keep its nuclear weapons? If so, why? Because it is a democracy? That is absolutely absurd.

Jonny7

Jaafa wrote: »

Lets get one thing very straight here, Israel started the nuclear arms race in the region, not Iran. Iran isn't the first country in the region to start a nuclear program and it won't be the last.

"Someone else started it first"
"It's not fair"

Retroactive blame and playground partisan politics aside. Most countries recognise Iran's right to have nuclear power.

It's the way the current regime is going about that is the problem. Even Moscow, a close ally, helped pass 7 resolutions sanctioning Iran over it's nuclear programme.

Surely the benefits of cooperating fully with the international community and providing full transparency far outweigh the currently reality of being economically strangled and cast out as a regional pariah.. just for the sake of nationalistic pride and residual bitterness from past incidents.

The current policy is ridiculous and we all know it.

RandomName2

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Do you think that Israel should be allowed to keep its nuclear weapons? If so, why? Because it is a democracy? That is absolutely absurd.

Most of the countries with nuclear weapons are a hang-over from the second world war: France, UK, America of the western Allies were in the cool kids club. The USSR, despite being counted among the Allies was an obvious opponent in the environment which followed the second world war, and was thus excluded; but found it straight-forward enough to develop its own programme (largely due to close proximity, take over of German scientific material, and in particular, espionage and collaboration within the United States).

After that, the nations with nuclear weaponry largely attempted to prevent others from obtaining such arms (the Soviet Union initially helped China get its own programme off the ground, but abruptly ceased any assistance following the 1960 split). This is a reasonable position for the nuclear powers to take. It was bad enough for there to be a binary opposition of NATO and Warsaw Pact, without potential rouge states being thrown into the mix.

Was either Russia or the West happy about Inda/Pakistan developing nuclear weaponry? I couldn't imagine how they could be, unless some Strangelove strategy naively hoped that the two powers would wipe each other out for whatever, misguided reason.

The US tacitly supporting Israel having nuclear capabilities is, in my view, absolutely crazy. What's worse is the secrecy of it. There isn't even the rational of the Cold War to support the extension of a nuclear curtain into the Middle East as some measure in Containment. It does nothing other than raise tensions. Conventional arms are best suited to defence; particularly in an area as geographically contained as Israel. I cannot even parse an ulterior motive that could lend it a reasonable rationale. Israel is clearly not the United States' lapdog - and from a purely Machiavellian, hell just pragmatic view, it would not seem sensible to allow a group of people known for being... somewhat trigger happy and fiercely independent the greatest weapon known to man...

BlaasForRafa

RandomName2 wrote: »

The US tacitly supporting Israel having nuclear capabilities is, in my view, absolutely crazy. What's worse is the secrecy of it. There isn't even the rational of the Cold War to support the extension of a nuclear curtain into the Middle East as some measure in Containment. It does nothing other than raise tensions. Conventional arms are best suited to defence; particularly in an area as geographically contained as Israel. I cannot even parse an ulterior motive that could lend it a reasonable rationale. Israel is clearly not the United States' lapdog - and from a purely Machiavellian, hell just pragmatic view, it would not seem sensible to allow a group of people known for being... somewhat trigger happy and fiercely independent the greatest weapon known to man...

I think you show not only a misunderstanding of how Israel obtained nuclear power and nuclear weapons but a misunderstanding of why they have them.

Israel got French and British assistance in 1956/57 in exchange for its help in the Suez incident. By the time those countries had ceased assisting Israel in the mid-60's they had gone far enough along the path to completing things by themselves.

Given the fact that jews had only in the recent past suffered the holocaust, then had 6 arab nations attack it on its foundation, then had several of those arab nations threaten it continuously in the 50's and 60's while those nations were being supplied to the gills with Soviet weaponry then I think its completely understandable why the Israelis would want nuclear weapons.

Israel developed nuclear weapons as a last resort in case the country was invaded and was close to falling to the arabs. In the event, during the Yom Kippur war, the Israeli conventional forces were good enough to defeat the Egyptians and Syrians (and Iraqis and Jordanians) but if the massed Syrian forces had broken through into Northern Israel and threatened Tel Aviv then they may have been needed. If you don't know how desperate the fighting in the Golan was in 1973 then books like The War of Atonement by Chaim Herzog or Duel for the Golan Jeremy Asher could be informative.

Israel has never threatened anyone with nuclear attack, but the mere fact that the Syrians know that Israel has them means they have never tried invading Israel again since 1973.

Its baffling why people would consider Israel is too "trigger happy" to have nuclear weapons when it has had the bomb for over 40 years and never mentioned it publicly let alone threatened anyone with it. The facts are clearly on the side of the Israelis but I guess the anti-Israeli propaganda out there is pretty strong.

If Iran got the bomb do you think it was be as circumspect? Do you think the Islamic fanatics that run Iran wouldn't be explicitly threatening various targets with retribution for whatever perceived slights and injustices they see from their Sunni neighbours, the "west", Israel if they had the bomb?

Jaafa

Jonny7 wrote: »

"Someone else started it first"
"It's not fair"

Retroactive blame and playground partisan politics aside. Most countries recognise Iran's right to have nuclear power.

It's the way the current regime is going about that is the problem. Even Moscow, a close ally, helped pass 7 resolutions sanctioning Iran over it's nuclear programme.

Surely the benefits of cooperating fully with the international community and providing full transparency far outweigh the currently reality of being economically strangled and cast out as a regional pariah.. just for the sake of nationalistic pride and residual bitterness from past incidents.

The current policy is ridiculous and we all know it.

You've gone and changed what were talking about here. You said that Iran acquiring a nuke would kick start an arms race. I countered that Israel started the arms race not Iran, and your saying 'actually it doesn't matter who started it'?

Again I will state what is being demanded by the IAEA and others is beyond their jurisdiction. Iran has cooperated on almost every aspect with the IAEA, it has every right to refuse the few sticking points such as inspecting Parchin. This is regardless if Russia or anyone else says otherwise.

Jonny7

Jaafa wrote: »

You said that Iran acquiring a nuke would kick start an arms race. I countered that Israel started the arms race not Iran, and your saying 'actually it doesn't matter who started it'?

If Iran develops nuclear weapons, the Saudis will almost instantly follow. In fact, they have stated so.

Israel developed nuclear weapons approx 40 years ago, the Iranians have said they are explicitly not developing nuclear weapons, what nuclear arms race are you referring to?

Brian Shanahan

jmayo wrote: »

BTW back on topic.
I don't know why so many people see no problem with a state like Iran getting nuclear capability.
It is bad enough that Pakistan and even some of the former Soviet states may have them without adding Iran to that list.

Or are people so blinded by hatred towards Israel and the US that they would like those who would probably like to see their heads chopped off get the power to wage nuclear war.

Well to answer your question on Iran and nuclear weapons:

1) It not evident that they have any or are trying to get any. All we have is US propoganda on the level of their "Iraq buying uranium from Niger" lies.

2) Israel has nuclear weapons in direct contravention to international law (google Mordechai Vanunu if you don't believe me, he spilled all the dirt ages ago). If you're living in the blast radius of an agressive and paranoid nation, it is not irrational to up your defences.

Those two alone are enough.

jmayo wrote: »

I just don't want a country getting their hands on nuclear weapons when it backs jihadist terrorists, has such a poor record in dealing with others of differeing beliefs, has such a poor record on female rights and homosexual rights, and whose leadership generally espouses a backwards belief system that probably detests people like me (white western secular non believer).

So why aren't you out boycotting Israel on its possession of nuclear weapons? Or the US for that matter.

Support "Jihadist" Terrorists.
The Mossad was instrumental in setting up Hamas, without their support and money it wouldn't have happened. They did this to weaken the PLO, don't want a national organisation with the following of all the people in a country you're subjugating now do you?
The US funded and trained Al-Qaeda, amongst others it is now "fighting". bin Laden was a paid asset of the CIA until at least 1994. Hell, it is now financially and materially supporting Al-Qaeda in Syria.

Bad record against those of differing beliefs.
Israel is an openly religious nation, which actively discriminates against non-Jews (and even Jews of the wrong colour).
The US is not so open, but try being a US citizen and Muslim some time.

Female & Homosexual rights
In large parts of Israel women are subject to traditional Jewish superstitions, which in some cases are worse than in Afghanistan. Homosexuals suffer the same problems. The unspoken elephant of the Jewish nature of Israel is that a tiny ultra-Orthodox minority gets to lord it over large swathes of the population.
In the US, you just have to look at Republican politicians to see the every day problems faced by many women and homosexuals. Again it is not open, but a hidden sore.

Backwards belief system
Israel is exclusively and openly Jewish. The last US president who didn't have to advertise his "christianity" was Teddy Rosevelt.

Brian Shanahan

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The world (not just the US) demands that Iran and North Korea stop development of nuclear weapons.

No, it's just the US, and Israel in the case of Iran. I wonder why?

Brian Shanahan

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

I know this thread isn't a historical discussion, but the Japanese attempted to surrender to the Americans before the bombings. The Americans bombed Japan because they wanted unconditional surrender.

And to top it all, the US after the unconditional surrender, gave the Japanese the exact same terms they were offering surrender under, in the first place.

It's almost like the US's only goal in not taking the original surrender was to encourage the attempted putsch by far-right IJA officers.

Oh, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nothing to do with forcing surrender quicker or more painlessly to US Marines, it was simply a two fingered salute to Uncle Joe in Moscow, "nyer, nyer, nyer, we've a weapon that can kill you and you've no defence" style of thing.

Jaafa

If Iran develops nuclear weapons, the Saudis will almost instantly follow. In fact, they have stated so.

They're bluffing. They can't start a weapons program without US backing and that's something the US isn't willing to give. See here

Israel developed nuclear weapons approx 40 years ago, the Iranians have said they are explicitly not developing nuclear weapons, what nuclear arms race are you referring to?

You mentioned the arms race, I was merely responding to your hypothetical situation of one. Because that's all it is for now, Iran doesn't have and isn't seeking to acquire a bomb IMO.

jmayo

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Well to answer your question on Iran and nuclear weapons:

1) It not evident that they have any or are trying to get any. All we have is US propoganda on the level of their "Iraq buying uranium from Niger" lies.

2) Israel has nuclear weapons in direct contravention to international law (google Mordechai Vanunu if you don't believe me, he spilled all the dirt ages ago). If you're living in the blast radius of an agressive and paranoid nation, it is not irrational to up your defences.

Those two alone are enough.

Let me see Israel by all accounts they have had nukes since probably the 60s yet they fought two major wars on numerous fronts in which on some occassions they were in severe trouble, yet they never threatened to retaliate with those nukes.
As far as I know they have never threatened offically to wipe any of their neighbouring states off the map ?

And on the other hand you have the leader of Iran threatening to wipe Israel and the Israelies off the map.

Spot the difference ?
Of course not since it is patently obvious form your psots that Israel and the US are inherently bad and thus their enemies or detractors must be right. :rolleyes:

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So why aren't you out boycotting Israel on its possession of nuclear weapons? Or the US for that matter.

The world has never boycotted Israel on anything or haven't you noticed any of the UN resolutions that they have flaunted over the years.
And yes it is because they have the backing of the US at security council level.
Is that right ?
No it is not.
Does that then make it right to not boycott Iran ?
No.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Support "Jihadist" Terrorists.
The Mossad was instrumental in setting up Hamas, without their support and money it wouldn't have happened. They did this to weaken the PLO, don't want a national organisation with the following of all the people in a country you're subjugating now do you?

The US funded and trained Al-Qaeda, amongst others it is now "fighting". bin Laden was a paid asset of the CIA until at least 1994. Hell, it is now financially and materially supporting Al-Qaeda in Syria.

Ehh AFAIK they never funded Al-Qaeda.
They funded Mujahideen, supposeldy including the Arabs like Osama bin Laden, in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets in a proxy war.

There is even some debate as to whether they recruited or gave money directly to foreign Mujahideen during the war with some claiming the foreign Mujahideen were not supported because they were peeing off the locals with their holier than thou muslim attitudes.
BTW that was in the 1980s.

And during the civil war that followed the Taliban (great friends and supporters of Al-Qaeda) were supported by the Pakistani intelligence service and the military.
That was where the Taliban started after all.
The Taliban were recognised by only three states, Pakistan, UAE and Saudi Arabia and that is where they were getting support.

That is not saying the US did not have dealings with them, since they tried to do a deal on a Central Asian pipeline and it is claimed they did encourage initial support for the Taliban from Saudi and Pakistan but they changed their minds after the Taliban gained power.

There is also now claims that they and Nato have supported Al-Qaeda affiliates/supporters in Libya and currently in Syria.
This is where it gets murky because if Nato bombed Gaddafi's forces is that seen as supporting Al-Qaeda as they are part of the rebel forces fighting against him ?

So in all that can you please tell me where the US have actually supported Al-Qaeda ?

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Bad record against those of differing beliefs.
Israel is an openly religious nation, which actively discriminates against non-Jews (and even Jews of the wrong colour).
The US is not so open, but try being a US citizen and Muslim some time.

Female & Homosexual rights
In large parts of Israel women are subject to traditional Jewish superstitions, which in some cases are worse than in Afghanistan. Homosexuals suffer the same problems. The unspoken elephant of the Jewish nature of Israel is that a tiny ultra-Orthodox minority gets to lord it over large swathes of the population.
In the US, you just have to look at Republican politicians to see the every day problems faced by many women and homosexuals. Again it is not open, but a hidden sore.

Backwards belief system
Israel is exclusively and openly Jewish. The last US president who didn't have to advertise his "christianity" was Teddy Rosevelt.

BTW did I say Israel or the US are perfect.
Are they fook.
Just look at the recent revelations about the forced sterilisation of Ethopian Jews or look at the far right numpties in the US.
But they are nowhere near as fooked up as Iran.

And I also haven't come across instances where Israel political leaders have issued death threats to writers, cartoonists, etc because they are preceived to have insulted some guy who supposedly lived a thousand odd years ago in the middle of the desert.
They have moved on a little.

And as for discrimination of homosexuals or women in Israel or the US, I think an openly homosexual person has a better chance of survival in the US and Israel than in Iran.
Is homosexuality illegal in Israel or the US ?
It is in Iran and can be punishable by even death.
So go ahead knock tyourself out convincing me, and for that matter most human rights activists that Israel/US are as bad as Iran. :rolleyes:

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

And to top it all, the US after the unconditional surrender, gave the Japanese the exact same terms they were offering surrender under, in the first place.

It's almost like the US's only goal in not taking the original surrender was to encourage the attempted putsch by far-right IJA officers.

What are you on about?
The Japanese rejected the Potsdam declaration of July 26th and thus rejected surrender.
The Japanese made overtures to the Soviets, but they never offered surrender.

Why shouldn't they offer the same terms after the bombs were dropped ?

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Oh, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nothing to do with forcing surrender quicker or more painlessly to US Marines, it was simply a two fingered salute to Uncle Joe in Moscow, "nyer, nyer, nyer, we've a weapon that can kill you and you've no defence" style of thing.

everything US = bad ehhh ??

If you bothered studying the losses endured by both the US forces and indeed the indigeneous Japanese civilian population of the Japanese islands conquered by the US upto to 1945, you would see that the believed figure of 500,000 to 1,000,000 casulties for the Americans in an invasion of the Japanese home islands was not beyond the bounds of possibility.

And that is not even counting the casulties of the Japanese.
The Emperors command, given to the Japanese people during the Battle for Saipan (no not the one between roy keane and mick mccarthy), to committ suicide rather than be captured would have probably added to that death toll.

Of course I guess people like you think the Americans should have carried on and endured another couple of years of war and over half a million casulties. :rolleyes:

And if you are looking for ulterior motives, the next presidential election would have been in 1948 and I guess Truman might not have wanted to be on the campaign trail discussing with the mothers of dead servicemen why their sons had died a couple of years after Hitler was defeated. :rolleyes:

Jonny7

Jaafa wrote: »

They're bluffing. They can't start a weapons program without US backing and that's something the US isn't willing to give. See here

First of all, the Saud's don't need the US, they allegedly financed Pakistan's entry into the nuclear club as well as having an extremely close relationship with them, they can acquire weapons if they wish.

Secondly the Saud's have repeated many times that they will weaponise in response to Iran doing the same.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/29/saudi-build-nuclear-weapons-iran
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/02/10/10369793-report-saudi-arabia-to-buy-nukes-if-iran-tests-a-bomb?lite
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/10/saudi-arabia-nuclear-bomb_n_1267571.html

You mentioned the arms race, I was merely responding to your hypothetical situation of one. Because that's all it is for now, Iran doesn't have and isn't seeking to acquire a bomb IMO.

That's your opinion. The opinion of the Chinese and Russians and other voting UN nations is different. They'd rather have full transparency, that run the risk of exactly what happened with Pakistan, who made all the same claims of victimisation that Iran did.. and one day, bang, weapons developed.

Jaafa

Jonny7 wrote: »

First of all, the Saud's don't need the US, they allegedly financed Pakistan's entry into the nuclear club as well as having an extremely close relationship with them, they can acquire weapons if they wish.

You clearly didn't read the article then. Yes Saudi can easily acquire nukes if they so wished, but this would be against US interests, and the US would be very likely to cut off arms sales to Saudi.
Please read the article and the study it references and is based on.

Jonny7

Jaafa wrote: »

You clearly didn't read the article then. Yes Saudi can easily acquire nukes if they so wished, but this would be against US interests, and the US would be very likely to cut off arms sales to Saudi.
Please read the article and the study it references and is based on.

I read it, it's one point of view, all hypothetical of course.

Another view is that the Saudi's financed up to 70% of Pakistan programme.. with a special agreement. They have themselves covered.

Of course it will never get that far, Iran won't have any nuclear weapons programme, however they will have their peaceful nuclear programme, whatever the cost to the country it appears.