2013 November 07 Thursday
Saudi Arabia Can Get Nukes From Pakistan At Any Time
The Saudis are reminding the United States that it should prevent Iran from creating nuclear weapons.
Saudi Arabia has invested in Pakistani nuclear weapons projects, and believes it could obtain atomic bombs at will, a variety of sources have told BBC Newsnight.
One big problem with nuclear proliferation: If NYC or SF gets nuked one day with a bomb delivered by, say, a ship if a few dozen nations have nukes it will be much harder to know where that nuke came from.
Another big problem with nukes: Any time a regime gets overthrown national control over their nukes can be lost for some period of time. Imagine a revolution in Pakistan for example. Or once the oil production drops far enough in Saudi Arabia and living standards plummet it is really not hard to imagine a revolution there.
Will the Israelis attack Iran? Imagine the Saudis secretly saying they'll look the other way while Israel planes transit Saudi air space on the way to Iran.
By Randall Parker at 2013 November 07 10:18 AM
The KSA reportedly, already gave them the greenlight to usa KSA airspace. This was reported a few years ago. You are exactly right about prolifration making it harder to tell origin of attack, which is why Israel is so anti-Iranian nukes. With Iran and Pakistan both having nukes, Iran can help a terro org but plausibly deny origin. Really looking like the media shouldve let Bush bomb the Iranians in winter '08 before Obama took office.
Bandar was not lying about changing their stance in foreign relations.
In the long run it seems unlikely that nuclear proliferation can be stopped.
"One big problem with nuclear proliferation: If NYC or SF gets nuked one day with a bomb delivered by, say, a ship if a few dozen nations have nukes it will be much harder to know where that nuke came from."
Yeah, but let's not forget that the only country who has nuked people is the U.S. of A. Iran has never done such a thing, nor has Pakistan, nor has Russia, nor has France.
"Will the Israelis attack Iran? Imagine the Saudis secretly saying they'll look the other way while Israel planes transit Saudi air space on the way to Iran."
Yeah, but let's not forget that in that if Israel attacks Iran it would be acting against the democratic principles of International Law, and therefore there would be no reason to support Israel or to wish for Israel to win, now would there?
Not much has been done by the superpowers who "collect" nukes to denuke themselves and try to make this world safer for everybody, even themselves. And they have had decades. Decades. And people still remember the nuclear fears all peoples of the world had back in the Cold War days. And most people in the world believe that the problem with the American regime is precisely that it never gets overthrown, nor it changes. It continues to stagnate and thus rots the rest of the world.
The World knows that the U.S. has had its chance. Maybe if more and more countries arm themselves with nukes, that will create -sadly but necessarily- a new balance like the one back in the Cold War days.
But let's not forget that so far, the only country who has nuked innocent civilians is the U.S. of A. Therefore, if it now is inevitable that many other countries get nukes, that would probably be preferable than the U.S. of A. continues to have its nukes.
If you read past the main stream media there's no evidence that Iran is building nukes. They don't need them. With missiles they can easily threaten Israel if attacked.
The US can no longer afford to be the Hegemon of the planet. It would be nice if only we had nukes but it's not going to happen. It may be that with new processing techniques making nukes is going to be easier to do. Specifically laser processing. I haven't read how this is done but a simple guess is use a high power laser on a thin film of uranium or uranium compounds. Which ever molecules fly the farthest when vaporized are U235.
The USA has never nuked innocent civilians. The people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 were nationals of a declared enemy of the USA with which we were at war.
I'd forgotten something. I read this book a long time ago. "Japan's Secret War: Japan's Race Against Time to Build Its Own Atomic Bomb"
The author claims that Japan built nuclear weapons. He had interviews with Japanese that said they were part of the project and were there. There being in North Korea where the the uranium separation and the bomb was built at a large hydroelectric dam. He said that they only had enough material for one bomb which was tested a week or so before Hiroshima was bombed. If true could this tie into the kamikaze attacks? Also there was a show on a huge Japanese submarine that had bombers in it.
Lots of talk about how the submarine bomber made no sense economically due to the tremendous resources put into it to make it work. But with a nuke it suddenly changes into a valuable strategic weapon.
Do you dispute that there is a difference between military and civilian targets?
How would you characterize Islamic attacks on American civilians? They're generally characterized as terror attacks against innocent American civilians. Would you dispute this characterization?
Of course there are. Hiroshima and Nagasaki both had Japanese military installations or defense industry, and were military targets.
Since you recognize that there are such things as civilian targets, you would agree that there were civilian targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in addition to military targets, no?
Since you dispute that they were innocent civilian targets, you would agree that they were guilty civilian targets, no?
How many civilians did the Japanese murder (and rape, and starve) in the Rape of Nanking? How many in Korea, including the "comfort women" they kidnapped to be sex slaves back in Japan?
I'm not going to play your idiotic moral equivalency game. You're wrong, get over it.
Wrong about what?
You said that there are such things as civilian targets, but suggested that there are no such things as innocent civilian targets since civilians are nationals of an enemy at war.
This would mean that the civilian targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and civilian targets guilty civilian targets, no? This would suggest that civilian targets in general are guilty civilian targets in war, no?
What's your take on Islamic attacks on American civilians? American civilians are nationals of a declared enemy of the Islamics with which they are at war.
Would you classify Islamic terror attacks on innocent American civilians as attacks on guilty civilian targets?
I'd classify them as atrocities, the idea that the USA is a declared enemy of Islamics as delusional given the rock-hard support for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabist monarchy (not to mention the visa waiver program for Saudis, the free immigration and naturalization of Pakistanis including the Times Square Bomber, etc.), and people like you as nitwits who can't put two facts together straight.
WW2 and Islamic militants have nothing in common.
1. Japan initiated a "total war," a war in which "anything goes." They were 1. trying to conquer other peoples, 2. were deliberately violating the human rights of civilians and POWs on a large scale, and 3. could develop their own nuclear weapons at any time.
"It may be pointless to try to establish which World War Two Axis aggressor, Germany or Japan, was the more brutal to the peoples it victimised. The Germans killed six million Jews and 20 million Russians (i.e. Soviet citizens); the Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese. Both nations looted the countries they conquered on a monumental scale, though Japan plundered more, over a longer period, than the Nazis. Both conquerors enslaved millions and exploited them as forced labourers—and, in the case of the Japanese, as (forced) prostitutes for front-line troops. If you were a Nazi prisoner of war from Britain, America, Australia, New Zealand or Canada (but not the Soviet Union) you faced a 4% chance of not surviving the war; (by comparison) the death rate for Allied POWs held by the Japanese was nearly 30%."
2. That's nothing like Al Qaeda's justifications for 9/11. (Wikipedia: "Al-Qaeda and bin Laden cited U.S. support of Israel, the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, and sanctions against Iraq as motives for the attacks.")
The U.S. isn't 1. trying to conquer other peoples, 2. starting a total war, or 3. deliberately violating human rights on a mass-scale.
3. If the U.S. was trying to do any of those things, if it had any interest in targeting civilians the way Al Qaeda does or Rome did, all its wars would be over pretty quickly, and the world would be a completely different place.
This is consistent with the West's general eusocial restraint. Immigrants in the Middle East are often treated like slaves, whereas in the West, they're treated so well that they replace the population as the new majority. And the West's rate of genital mutilation for women is much lower than e.g. Egypt's rate of 95%.
By Islamics I meant groups like Al-Qaeda. The US is a declared enemy of such groups. Since American civilians are nationals of a declared enemy of such groups with which they are at war, wouldn't you classify terror attacks on innocent American civilians by such groups as attacks on guilty civilian targets?
Engineer-Poet said that while there are such things as civilian targets, he suggested that there are no such things as innocent civilian targets since civilians are nationals of an enemy at war.
This would mean that the civilian targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were guilty civilian targets, no? And this would suggest that civilian targets in general are guilty civilian targets in war, no?
I think this is the argument in it's ideal form: The threshold for acceptable civilian deaths increases when an enemy 1. has initiated total war to conquer the world, and 2. might have nuclear weapons under its sleeve to accomplish that goal.
And Hiroshima and Nagasaki were valuable military targets, so "civilian targets" doesn't itself seem accurate.
So no, we don't believe civilians are legitimate targets in more normal circumstances.
I was discussing Engineer-Poet's argument.
Engineer-Poet suggested that there are no such things as innocent civilian targets. This would imply that civilian targets are guilty civilian targets in a war. For example, Hiroshima and Nagasaki had both military and civilian targets. The civilian targets there would then be guilty civilian targets according to Engineer-Poet. Would you agree that the civilian targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were guilty civilian targets? And would you agree that civilian targets in general are guilty civilian targets in war?
Lark makes excuses for Al Qaeda's unprovoked attacks (2001 and 1993) on the WTC.
Lark is a moral idiot. I refuse to dignify his nonsense with a response, and I encourage everyone else to do likewise.
I'm not excusing anyone's attacks. I'm talking about your views.
You said that while there are such things as civilian targets, there are no such things as innocent civilian targets. This would imply that civilian targets are guilty civilian targets.
Wouldn't this mean that you would consider terror attacks on innocent American civilians by Islamics as attacks on guilty civilian targets?
I'm not sure if you're making excuses for Islamics. You just seem to be implying that their attacks on innocent American civilians are attacks on guilty civilian targets.
"Engineer Poet" wrote.... "The USA has never nuked innocent civilians. The people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 were nationals of a declared enemy of the USA with which we were at war."
It's amazing to me how people can so easily twist morality like this. Engineer Poet really has no idea what he's talking about.
What about the Japanese children who were nuked? Were they "nationals of a declared enemy of the USA"? What a bunch of crap. What about the sons and daughters of those japanese adults you call enemy of the USA? What about their grandchildren who were born lately still under the effects of long-term radiation?
Engineer Poet is a moral idiot, a double morals idiot. He can continue poking his nose, because he doesn't seem to be the kind of person who would even listen to a "gimme a fucken break man."
I have to agree that America is the only country that has nuked civilians, regardless of how shameful it is for us. No matter how much this idiot that calls himself Engineer Poet tries to legitimize an obvious atrocity, one needs to be as evil as Hiroito, Hitler or Bush to justify such an action.
At Not Japanese:
Take it easy on Engineer Poet. Remember that people like him add so much spice and folklore to our dull and tasteless society. Sometimes I wake up in the mornings and thank God for people like E.P. If it weren't for them, who would we laugh at?
Engineer Poet's tragedy lies not so much in being foolish or dumb or uncultured, but being a fool with initiative.
The problem with E.P. is that he tries so hard to produce an original thought he could call his own, that he thinks that by saying something nobody would dare to say, he would become different and smart. Don't mind him. We all know what happens when somebody tries to justify in the killing of innocents against historical evidence, human sensibility and objective morality: he immediately pays the price. I wonder if he says things like that openly.
Don't get angry at EP. Enjoy him:
How would you like your Engineer Poet, here or to go?
Would you like to take your Engineer Poet as it comes or would you like me to Christmas wrap him for you?
Enjoy your Engineer Poet!