Saudi Nuclear Weapons

[Turkeyslapper]

Saudi nuclear weapons from Pakistan..what could possibly go wrong??

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24823846 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24823846)

[Trim Stab]

Well if I lived in Saudi and had a belligerent near neighbour that is nuclear, chemical and bio-armed, ignores international law, refuses to accept any peace negotiations except on their own unreasonable terms, and has an established track record of pre-emptive attacks, I would also want nuclear weapons.

[jolihokistix]

Unfortunately for the world, such a transfer makes sense from so many points of view, not least because both are majority Sunni countries and upstart Iran is Shiite and increasingly threatening to destabilize the status quo in the region.

[flyhardmo]

Trim Stab Well if I lived in Saudi and had a belligerent near neighbour that is nuclear, chemical and bio-armed, ignores international law, refuses to accept any peace negotiations except on their own unreasonable terms, and has an established track record of pre-emptive attacks, I would also want nuclear weapons.

Yep Trim, sounds like Israel to me



For those of you who think that Saudi obtaining WMD's is reasonable just remember who sponsors Al Qaeda, spends billions on promoting Wahhabism which has produced extremists the world over.

[SASless]

So.....in time we shall have Sunni's and Shia Tribes with Nukes......how comforting knowing the glee they take in snuffing one another already using conventional arms, knives, car bombs, and poison gas and nerve gas!

Whatever could go wrong with this Situation?

[BillHicksRules]

Trim,

But the US is Saudi Arabia's pal?:E:ok:

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Well, I put a thread on this yesterday but it got 'modded'.
What I would like to ask the team is, is this it?
Is there just an SSM site (which a single air raid might significantly disable), or does the House of Saud have access to air-droppable bombs and nuke tips for cruise missiles on subs?
They are in the market for 5 German subs, which is where the Israelis got their conventional-only-absolutely-not-nuke-capable-no-no-no-....OK-yes subs.

[skydiver69]

I wonder what implications this will have for the talks with Iran to stop their nuclear programme? Iran and Saudi Arabia don't exactly get on and both vie for leadership of the Islamic world so I can see this going down like a lead balloon in Tehran. The timing is also interesting given that the news has become public at the same time as new negotiations with Iran. I wonder if the Saudis want the sanctions to remain in place on Iran as a way of keeping their oil away from most of the global market whilst also giving them an opportunity to sell more refined fuel back to them to make up for the shortfall in local production. Obtaining nuclear weapons would make the Iranians even more twitchy and therefore more likely to keep up with their nuclear programme leading to more sanctions.

[The Old Fat One]

Saudi is a signatory of the NPT and observes the NPT. (I'm assuming anyone with an interest in the subject knows what the NPT is).

One of the "sources" quoted is the former head of intelligence if Israel...one of a tiny handful of states that reject the NPT. Credibility? Hypocrisy?

Anybody who has studied the nuclear proliferation in past forty something years will know full well that there are many states that have what might be called "an immediate dormant nuclear capability". That is to say they can go nuclear at the flick of a switch, if they so desire. Japan is another good example of just such a country.

This is (and has been for a very long time) the price we pay for keeping nukes anywhere on the planet. It was the original long term primary goal of the NPT to seek the eventual removal of all nuclear weapons everywhere. The fact that we are one of the Big Five (US, Russia, France, China & UK) and that not one of the Big Five has ever unilaterally disarmed makes us part of the problem, not part of the solution.

As more and more countries enter the nuclear club outside the NPT (currently four: Israel, India, Pakistan & North Korea) the spread of uncontrolled nuclear weapons increases. If Iran does develop a nuclear weapons capability that will be ten total...which interestingly was seen as the tipping point for mass proliferation back in the seventies.

All of this is the reason I agree with many of the world's leading academics in the field of nuclear proliferation...it is only a matter of time before somebody drops the big one again.

I'm not prescribing here...merely stating facts.

[SASless]

that not one of the Big Five has ever unilaterally disarmed makes us part of the problem, not part of the solution.

If you believe one of the Five should ever disarm unilaterally .....you are barking mad!

That is never going to happen.....not even Welfare Man is that naive or stupid and he surely borders on the Barking Mindset.

Sadly, I see a Nuclear War of some sort in the future.....as when our Muslim friends all get geared up there shall be Hell to pay.....should their Leaders themselves glob onto the notion of their own martyrdom.....and not just their gullible followers.

[AtomKraft]

The UK may be the first to disarm.
Indeed, if Sctland wins its independence, the Trident boats will soon be homeless.
It's clear the English have nowhere they will be able to base them. Although perhaps they will tie them up outside Westminster?

I guess though, they might change to cruise missiles to remain in the club.

Could someone remind me who we are deterring again? Because AQ it certainly isn't!

[500N]

" Indeed, if Sctland wins its independence, the Trident boats
will soon be homeless."

You reckon GB won't be able to come to some sort of agreement with Scotland ?

I sometimes wonder if Scotland isn't cutting off it's nose to spite it's face.

[Eclectic]

Shia and Sunni hate each other far more than they hate anything else.

We in the West have chosen to be friends with the Sunnis, which makes us enemies of the Shias. There is no logic to our preference other than the Saudis having the most oil. In fact the Sunnis (our friends) tend to be nastier than the Shias (our enemies).

Peace (or what passes for peace amongst these nations) was maintained by the threat of an American big stick. This threat has gone:
1) Because Obama is a weak windbag, unfit for purpose.
2) The American's discovered shale oil/gas and no longer need the Arabs.
3) Several moslem countries followed the bucket of sunshine instruction manual and think this will frighten America.
4) The Arab spring proved that America just isn't interested any more.
5) Putin out smarts Obama at every turn.

We have several pending nuclear wars in the world. N & S Korea, India and Pakistan, Shia Vs Sunni. Of these the last is by far the most likely because it has the highest level of hate and because it is the most impossible to resolve.

So eventually expect glass car parks in the Middle East (especially with Israel acting as agent provocateur).
As for the UK, we should build the whole new fleet of boomers and stuff them with as many warheads as will fit. One thing the Arabs definitely understand is power. We want them to leave us alone.

[West Coast]

According to press reports, the MOD is considering basing the boats in the US or France till a long term solution is decided.

Those uppity Scott's, I swear...

Eclectic

I'm sure Israel wants its say and influences outcomes to the degree possible but it's not in their best interests to have neighbors lobbing nukes, even if it's not at them.

[SASless]

Must be the Scots want too much in the way of Moorage.....and the English are too Mean to cough up the money! After all.....a Yorkshireman is nothing but a Scot with all the generosity squeezed out of him!

[AtomKraft]

west coast
Sheesh, how ironic would it be if our UK deterrent had to based abroad because there is no where in England where the English will accept it being based?


500N
If Salmond was to go back on that promise- I suppose it would be a bit like the Lib Dems welching on their 'no tuition fees' pledge- but multiplied by ten. His credibility would go to zero.

[Always a Sapper]

If Salmond was to go back on that promise- I suppose it would be a bit like the Lib Dems welcoming on their 'no tuition fees' pledge- but multiplied but ten. His credibility would go to zero.

In which case, with the rise to zero Salmonds credibility would actually improve...

[AtomKraft]

Always a Sapper.

You funny!;)

[con-pilot]

But the US is Saudi Arabia's pal?

Not so much anymore and they know it. These types of things happen when it is suddenly figure out, that despite the nay sayers (Democrats), you have a hell of a lot more oil and natural gas than thought.

The only problem with natural gas is, if you are a lease holder as me, there is too much of the stuff now. We're not even receiving a month what we used to pay in taxes ten years ago. :(

[The Old Fat One]

If you believe one of the Five would ever disarm unilaterally .....you are barking mad!

First, I fixed your post.

Second, I don't...which I was why I footnoted thus...

I'm not prescribing here...merely stating facts.

Sadly, I see a Nuclear War of some sort in the future

...and I agree with this, but not with the sentiment, that it will all be down to the muslims. As we now know we got very close to a nuclear exchange when Uncle Sam and the Russian Bear were going toe to toe in the sixties, without including scores of "accidental" misfire close shaves. Add to the mix the Israeli's, who can be pretty quick on the trigger these days. The Indian and Pakistan's are none too keen, and only ten minutes flying time apart and of course, it's not to fanciful to suggest that the Taliban might get control of the Pakistani inventory one day.

So yeah...it's only a matter of time, isn't it.

[500N]

"it's not to fanciful to suggest that the Taliban might get control
of the Pakistani inventory one day."

The US would never let that happen.

[highflyer40]

500N

I think you give the US to much credit. the ONLY way they could stop it is if they have boots on the ground on site. which they don't, and increasingly never will. their policy is only driving Pakistan towards militant control.

as it stands now the radicals are starting to fight each other. the best thing the US could do right now is sit back and keep a VERY low profile in the Muslim world (ie. butt out) and let them get on with it.

[highflyer40]

and actually 500N, even if it was a slow transition, I can never see the US launching a preemptive strike on Pakistan even if for example a Taliban majority government was elected

[500N]

highfly

That is wishful thinking (keeping a low profile).

I believe the US had quite some influence in getting Pakistan to
sort out it's security of Nuclear Weapons which wasn't that good
from what was written.

[dead_pan]

Indeed, if Sctland wins its independence, the Trident boats will soon be homeless.

Pish - have you seen the opinion polls? The Yes vote may as well throw in the towel now and save us all another year of tedious media coverage.

Whats the betting this announcement is a bare-faced attempt by the Saudis to derail the negotiations between the US and Iran, knowing full well that the Israelis are just itching to strike at the latter if they ever look to be getting a nuke capability?

[highflyer40]

how is keeping a low profile wishful thinking? it's the easiest thing ever just act like the Middle East is South America. stay out of it

[AtomKraft]

Dead pan

At the considerable risk of stating the bloody obvious, did you not see the opinion polls before the SNPs 'landslide' victory in the Scottish Parliament?

At no point was the result correctly predicted.

You really ought not to believe everything you read in the papers.....;)

[The Old Fat One]

"it's not to fanciful to suggest that the Taliban might get control
of the Pakistani inventory one day."

The US would never let that happen.

Never. Really.

As in...the Soviets will never get the bomb [early fifties]

China will never get the bomb [early sixties]

Only the big 5 will ever have the bomb [when the NPT was signed]

OK, Israel can have it, but nobody else [seventies]

We'll never let North Korea get the bomb [nineties]

Therein lies part of the problem...how can any of the major nuclear powers expect to be taken seriously when close to fifty years ago they all agreed to work towards full, global nuclear disarmament....as Article 6 of the NPT requires:

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

Any sovereign state can see what a hollow sham that statement has become and therefore will act accordingly when its own interests prevail.

Nobody can guarantee squat when it comes to preventing nuclear proliferation, logic dictates it and history proves it.

And again, for those with grammatical limitations, I am not suggesting that we or anybody else does unilaterally disarm, nuclear wise. I'm merely pointing out that nuclear proliferation is, and always has been, inevitable. When somebody...whoever...finally lets loose with one is largely down to the whims of fortune.

[West Coast]

You can't compare turning a blind eye to a nation state possessing a nuke and a terrorist network having one. No comparisons what so ever will turn that into an apples to apples comparison you attempt to make. I would see the US and other allies and notso much allies doing everything in their capabilities to prevent a terrorist network from getting one. There's as much chance a rouge Islamic nuke ending up in Moscow or Beijing as NYC.

[DozyWannabe]

As in...the Soviets will never get the bomb [early fifties]

Anyone who honestly believed that was a moron. The US spirited the scientists from Nazi Germany, but human nature ensured that the papers would be left behind.

Only the big 5 will ever have the bomb [when the NPT was signed]

The best that could be done at that point was to set an example.

OK, Israel can have it, but nobody else [seventies]

Probably the stupidest move in the history of postwar intelligence, because it essentially gave credence to everything Egypt, Syria and Jordan were arguing.

We'll never let North Korea get the bomb [nineties]

Wasn't the last attempt just as likely to be the late Kim Jong Il scraping up every least gram of TNT he could find and detonating it underground?


Any sovereign state can see what a hollow sham that statement has become and therefore will act accordingly when its own interests prevail.

In a practical sense, once the stockpiles of the US and (former) USSR were reduced in the equation, there was and still is a significant drop-off before one got to the next nuke-capable state.

[West Coast]

And fat one, as you cast blame towards the US as letting Israel get the bomb, make sure you have the right nation in your sites.

[ORAC]

Anyone who honestly believed that was a moron. The US spirited the scientists from Nazi Germany, but human nature ensured that the papers would be left behind. Showing you have no ice what you are talking about.

Germany was nowhere near getting the bomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuclear_energy_project) and their scientists would have been of no value to the USSR. The technical knowledge they needed was leaked straight from the Manhattan Project - particularly Hall, Fuchs and the Rosenbergs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_spies).

[bcgallacher]

The thought of Saudi Arabia possessing nuclear weapons scares the hell out of me - anyone who ever worked with them in any kind of technical capacity can explain why.

[The Old Fat One]

And fat one, as you cast blame towards the US as letting Israel get the bomb, make sure you have the right nation in your sites.

Where on earth does that come from??????????

I've gone out of my way to make it clear I'm merely reporting facts (regarding nuclear proliferation 1945 to the present day and the wording of the NPT) and offering a view of the potential eventual consequences. Nowhere am I prescribing solutions or making judgements.

As I recall it was Canada shipping yellowcake round the globe, so maybe they had a hand in it...but I really couldn't give a toss.

I am making one single, solitary point. Possess all the nukes you want...the price you will pay will be inevitable proliferation, leading to an inevitable detonation, some day, somewhere, x years hence.

As the Chinese say...

Stay on a road long enough and you will reach your destination.

[wild goose]

Israel allegedly has nukes sinces 1962.
If that is the case, that country has proven itself a remarkably responsible possessor of those weapons, considering the various active threats it has endured since then.
Not to mention the fact that it is a parlaimentary democracy, with a decision making process as transparent as any other western country, that honors and protects all human rights, does not sponsor terrorism and doesn't threaten its neighbors with anhialation.
The same cannot be said for Iran.
It is only now that the Saudis, Jordanians and Gulf states are considering their own nuclear programs.
If Israel does indeed possess these weapons, it is fully justified, not just in light of the track record of the 700 million moslem neighbors, but also in light of the conduct of others (read Europe) in the last 2000 years.
Twice so far, the West has come hat in hand to thank Israel for removing nuclear threats from the region (imagine Iraq with nukes in 1991 or 2003, or Syria with them today) and it would appear ever so likely that this is going to happen a third time given the best efforts of team Obama.

[6000PIC]

Perhaps the West ( and Israel ) should encourage with all available means the growing hostility between the Shias and the Sunnis. Seems like a sensible way to go if you accept the proliferation of nukes , Islam , mistrust , hatred and demographics throughout the Middle East.
Do you EK , GF , QR , EY types have an exit plan ? You should. This is going to get nasty.
As the Gulf monarchies approach the sunset of their rule , desperation and unpredictable behavior will become more common. If you cannot rule as before , might as well wreck the whole damn neighbourhood. The key to this entire affair is the chess match between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
This whole region is a house of cards built on sand , I predict that by 2017 , the map of the Middle East will look rather different from today. Standby for the fireworks.

[Agaricus bisporus]

a rouge Islamic nuke ending up in Moscow or Beijing as NYC.

A brilliant piece of unintentional irony!

[GreenKnight121]

Quote West Coast:
And fat one, as you cast blame towards the US as letting Israel get the bomb, make sure you have the right nation in your sites.
Where on earth does that come from??????????

I've gone out of my way to make it clear I'm merely reporting facts (regarding nuclear proliferation 1945 to the present day and the wording of the NPT) and offering a view of the potential eventual consequences. Nowhere am I prescribing solutions or making judgements.

As I recall it was Canada shipping yellowcake round the globe, so maybe they had a hand in it...but I really couldn't give a toss.

I am making one single, solitary point. Possess all the nukes you want...the price you will pay will be inevitable proliferation, leading to an inevitable detonation, some day, somewhere, x years hence.

As the Chinese say...

Stay on a road long enough and you will reach your destination.

And most reports from the late 1970s on say that it was South Africa who provided the most assistance to Israel's nuclear weapons program in terms of scientists, refining of weapons-grade material, and technical know-how.

[ShotOne]

Surely the route by which Israel acquired its nuclear capability is less relevant to this debate than that over the past decades, no one has seriously proposed they be subjected to military assault to remove that capability? So why is every turn in the current debate accompanied with overt and direct threats of military attack if negotiations are not to her liking?

[Agaricus bisporus]

Israel allegedly has nukes sinces 1962.
If that is the case, that country has proven itself a remarkably responsible possessor of those weapons, considering the various active threats it has endured since then.

Amen to that.

So why is every turn in the current debate accompanied with overt and direct threats of military attack if negotiations are not to her liking?

Because of the deeply ingrained anti-semitism so prevalent amongst so many on this forum.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

The thought of Saudi Arabia possessing nuclear weapons scares the hell out of me - anyone who ever worked with them in any kind of technical capacity can explain why.

Indeed, a truly terrifying prospect.

[ShotOne]

"deeply engrained anti semitism?" even if this were true, which if it's directed at me I very strongly refute, this statement doesn't even begin to make sense since its the Israeli govt making the threats.

I don't want to see Iran or Saudi with nukes...but the continual barrage of threats of what Israel will do if things don't go their way isn't helping achieve that.

[Trim Stab]

Because of the deeply ingrained anti-semitism so prevalent amongst so many on this forum.

Ahh that old chestnut - anybody who dares to criticise Israel's numerous breaches of human rights, total disregard for international law, unilateral expropriation of land that does not belong to them, refusal to allow the return of Palestinian refugees to their homelands, refusal to accept any peace negotiations except on their own unreasonable terms is "anti-Semitic"!

[ORAC]

If Israel does indeed possess these weapons, it is fully justified, not just in light of the track record of the 700 million moslem neighbors, but also in light of the conduct of others (read Europe) in the last 2000 years.

Plight of Europe’s Jews revealed in new survey (http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4341/plight_of_europe_s_jews_revealed_in_new_survey)

Europe’s Agency for Fundamental Rights has just released a major new survey, perhaps the most extensive of its kind, documenting the realities of anti-Semitism across Europe. The picture is bleak. The findings of this survey reveal a continent in which racism against Jews is widespread, on the rise, practiced openly, underreported and seemingly unrelenting in scope........
-----------------------------------------


And Israel isn't the only country in the region to perceive an existentialist threat and to distrust Obama cutting a deal (http://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=7792)....

Thwarting Iran: the secret alliances (http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4343/thwarting_iran_the_secret_alliances)

......What is certain is that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have not been party to any backstairs discussions, and that they view the apparent success of Iran’s charm offensive with alarm. Their concern is for their regional interests. They fear that Obama may be tempted to strike a deal allowing Iranian allies to go on dominating Arab countries such as Lebanon, Syria and Iraq in return for Iran’s agreeing to inspections of its atomic sites. They are also desperately concerned about Iran’s ambition to achieve hegemony over the Gulf, and its continuing effort to orchestrate political foes across half a dozen Arab countries.

All this fear was revealed in the 250,000 confidential US documents that were published in November 2010 by WikiLeaks. They showed that, contrary to their public positions, Arab leaders strongly supported, and indeed campaigned for, a US attack on Iran’s growing nuclear programme.

According to the leaked documents, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah “frequently exhorted” the US to bomb Iran and “cut the head off the snake.” He warned Washington that if Iran acquired nuclear weapons, “everyone in the region would do the same, including Saudi Arabia.” Abu Dhabi’s crown prince said that Iran was seeking regional domination, and urged Americans to “take out” its nuclear capacity, or even send ground troops. Iran “is going to take us to war … it’s a matter of time.” The king of Bahrain said the US “must terminate” Iran’s nuclear programme, “by whatever means necessary”. Zeid Rifai, then president of Jordan’s senate, said: “Bomb Iran, or live with an Iranian bomb.” Hosni Mubarak, then President of Egypt, expressed a “visceral hatred” for the Islamic Republic.

In short, no Arab government accepted Iran’s claim that its nuclear programme was merely peaceful.

More to the point, perhaps, the WikiLeaks documents revealed that Iran loomed as the largest source of concern to the Arab world. As far back as summer 2010 Dubai's chief of police, Dahi Khalfan, one of the most outspoken security officials in the United Arab Emirates, warned of an "international plot" to overthrow the governments of Gulf Arab countries. Then United Arab Emirates officials announced that authorities were investigating a foreign-linked group planning "crimes against the security of the state."

This perhaps explains reports that Israel has recently been holding a series of meetings with prominent figures from a number of Gulf and other Arab states, supervised directly by PM Netanyahu. The Arab and Gulf states involved in the talks have no diplomatic ties with Jerusalem, the report noted. What they share with Israel is the concern that Iran’s President Rouhani’s new diplomatic approach will fool the US and lead to a US-Iran diplomatic agreement which provides for “less than the dismantling of the Iranian nuclear program.”

Which, as it now appears, and with Russia’s blessing, is indeed the most likely outcome.

[Pontius Navigator]

west coast
Sheesh, how ironic would it be if our UK deterrent had to based abroad

USA perhaps, after all they based their subs over here.

[Pontius Navigator]

The technical knowledge they needed was leaked straight from the Manhattan Project - particularly Hall, Fuchs and the Rosenbergs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_spies).

And Bruno Pontecorvo. The Pontecorvo Affair: A Cold War Defection and Nuclear Physics
By Simone Turchetti

[Pontius Navigator]

will know full well that there are many states that have what might be called "an immediate dormant nuclear capability". That is to say they can go nuclear at the flick of a switch, if they so desire.

I would imagine that all that is needed is possession of a viable bomb body including explosives component and the capability to produce and engineer a weapons grade fissile package.

You can say 'hand on heart' that you don't have THE bomb even when you have a suitable ballistic shape.

I suspect 1962 for an Israeli capability would have been too early. We were still playing catch up and needed atmospheric testing. Had they had a viable device in 1973 you could be pretty sure they would have used its deterrent value rather than be as hard pressed as they were.

[dead_pan]

According to the leaked documents, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah “frequently exhorted” the US to bomb Iran and “cut the head off the snake.” He warned Washington that if Iran acquired nuclear weapons, “everyone in the region would do the same, including Saudi Arabia.” Abu Dhabi’s crown prince said that Iran was seeking regional domination, and urged Americans to “take out” its nuclear capacity, or even send ground troops. Iran “is going to take us to war … it’s a matter of time.” The king of Bahrain said the US “must terminate” Iran’s nuclear programme, “by whatever means necessary”. Zeid Rifai, then president of Jordan’s senate, said: “Bomb Iran, or live with an Iranian bomb.” Hosni Mubarak, then President of Egypt, expressed a “visceral hatred” for the Islamic Republic.

Sheesh, between them they have more than enough hardware and cash to do the job themselves. Why do they insist on going bleating to the US to do their dirty work? What a bunch of spineless, useless cowards.

[AtomKraft]

Because, as ne fule no.....they canny fight.

Yep, it's that simple. Our oil rich pals are pussies!

[Rosevidney1]

" Why do they insist on going bleating to the US to do their dirty work? What a bunch of spineless, useless cowards".
I would like to add 'duplicitous and devious' to that.

[West Coast]

I wonder how of those qualities describe your government as well?

[Pontius Navigator]

I wonder how of those qualities describe your government as well?

Pot - Kettle

Boot - Foot

[DozyWannabe]

Showing you have no ice what you are talking about.

Germany was nowhere near getting the bomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuclear_energy_project) and their scientists would have been of no value to the USSR. The technical knowledge they needed was leaked straight from the Manhattan Project - particularly Hall, Fuchs and the Rosenbergs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_spies).

It might be worth reading the first Wiki link. The Nazis may have been trailing the Manhattan Project in practical terms, but the research existed and was valid.

Russian Alsos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Alsos)

Soviet scientists, aided greatly by Soviet espionage within the Manhattan Project, would have been able to eventually build their first atomic bomb without exploitation of German technology and scientists. However, the contributions of the German scientists is borne out by the many USSR State Prizes and other awards given in the wake of the second Soviet atomic bomb test, a uranium-based atomic bomb; awards for uranium production and isotope separation were prevalent. Also significant in both the first Soviet atomic bomb test – a plutonium-based atomic bomb which required a uranium reactor for plutonium generation – and the second test, was the Soviet acquisition of a significant amount of uranium immediately before and shortly after the close of World War II. This saved them a year by their own admission.

(emphasis mine)

Additionally, while Operation Paperclip was successful in spiriting the German rocket scientists away, leaving the research papers behind meant that the Soviet Union was able to constitute an ICBM delivery programme with few problems.

In short, once Pandora's Box is open, it is impossible to close again no matter how desirable that would be.

As for the commentary on Middle East geopolitics, I have no words. Talk of antisemitism is nowt but window-dressing - let's not forget that the Stern Gang, many of whom ended up being the first generation of Israeli statesmen, made Hamas and Hezbollah look like frickin' Greenpeace (and I say that as a card-carrying member of the UK Anti-Nazi League). This is not about sectarianism (for one thing, the Palestininan Arabs are also a semitic populace), it's about control of the oil fields.

How does that work, you say? Dead simple. A nuclear-capable Israel, allied to the cause of the west, resulted in an unspoken but present threat during any political negotiation in the area. The whole reason Iran is a problem is because the CIA screwed up and assumed that they could use the same tactics there that they used against the nascent left-wing movements in South America. In 1953 Iran was a democratic, secular democracy - 26 years of MI6/CIA-engendered dictatorship later, the only remaining power bloc capable of taking power was the church, with Ayatollah Khomenei at its head. Ironically, Western intelligence took this on board and used the fundamentalist Mujahideen to evict the ailing Soviet military from Afghanistan, and amongst their numbers was one Osama Bin Laden.

All of this was a complete waste of time, effort and lives. An independent Saudi nuclear capability is as pointless as an independent British or French nuclear capability was in 1946. A political "me-too" that nevertheless has the ability to end thousands of lives.

[TheChitterneFlyer]

I'd like to think that we're not so naïve to believe that the UK Gov will appease Jockistan's wishes and move our nuclear deterrent from their shores. Faslane will simply become a UK Military outpost not unlike Akrotiri. How many Jocks are employed at Faslane? Do you really believe that they're going to give up their jobs in support of Salmond? I think NOT!

TCF

[Squirrel 41]

An independent Saudi nuclear capability is as pointless as an independent British or French nuclear capability was in 1946. A political "me-too" that nevertheless has the ability to end thousands of lives.

Sorry, I don't agree on independent British or French capability in the Cold War. The rationale was that whilst there was a credible conventional threat to Western Europe (and GSFG (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_Soviet_Forces_in_Germany) was certainly that), independent British and French capability to inflict unacceptable damage (aka the Moscow Criterion) ensured that the Soviet Union would not be able to engage in a conventional war in Europe and nuclear blackmail the US (ie, would the US really trade its' cities for West Berlin, Hamburg, Frankfurt, Paris, London, etc.) This was known as "strategic decoupling".

However, in the absence of such a conventional threat, I don't see the strategic point of the British or French nuclear forces, and would much prefer to spend the £30bn or so we're going to spend replacing the V-boats on the UK's conventional forces.

S41

[highflyer40]

I'll get shot for this, but I would rather see the 30Bn go towards economic recovery. for the forseeable future the military is as big as it needs to be. what exactly have we gained from Afghanistan and Iraq. but have or are about to revert to exactly the same state they were in, or worse.

[Lonewolf_50]

If the Pakistanis have nukes, why not the Saudis? Nitwits with bombs are entertaining.

[brickhistory]

I wonder how of those qualities describe your government as well?


No, that's "in the national interest."

It's only reprehensible when the other guy does it.

[awblain]

The charming von Braun wasn't especially valuable to the US. The whole mass of US ballistic missiles and the US's current launchers flow from the heritage of the USAF ballistic missile program. The Army with its Nazi friends didn't really get very far in a useful direction, and they ultimately wandered off to go to the Moon. I believe that the USAF didn't want suspect foreign slave-labor supporters involved in its gigantically expensive Atlas, Titan or Minuteman programs.

Korolyev was more than capable of doing his rocket thing without the help of German "emigrees".

Sakharov was also quite capable of reading and appreciating Fuch's stolen papers from Los Alamos without help from bumblers who'd been working in Berlin and Haigerloch. For a guide to the lack of progress and vision in the German nuclear program, you can read the "Farm Hall Transcripts", and note that the bulk of the German nuclear scientists were taken into Western hands as a matter of great urgency by Alsos. Even with more resources, it seems unlikely that the key elements of atomic weapons were going to be developed by Heisenberg and his team of non-Jewish trusties. If only Bohr had revealed the content of the meeting on which the play "Copenhagen" was based, then we might have known much more about what was happening in the core of the project.

I believe that German WWII science was seriously hamstrung by the early departure of a good fraction of its capable people, on the grounds of ethnicity or nationality.

[DozyWannabe]

I believe that the USAF didn't want suspect foreign slave-labor supporters involved in its gigantically expensive Atlas, Titan or Minuteman programs.

Er, you are aware that the Mercury and Gemini projects used converted ICBM rocketry from the Atlas, Jupiter, Redstone and Titan programmes - all of which were developed with the assistance of von Braun and his team, right? They just strapped a module that could carry humans in place of the usual warhead.

The reason the Soviet programme was (eventually) capable of developing rockets that were more efficient than the US equivalent was because they took the research papers and worked forward from there. Not to mention that Stalin was able to throw both people and money at the project in a way that would have been unacceptable in the West (in peacetime, at any rate). You've got to remember that Nazi Germany threw everything at R&D as their hold on territory and resources diminished - A hypothetical example would be the Tiger tank, which was far more advanced than any design the Allies could throw at it - but if fielding a Tiger was worth the equivalent of fielding three or four Shermans or T-34s, then all the Allies had to do was field five or six of their tanks for each Tiger the opposition could field, and that would give them the upper hand. What the US and USSR brought to the Second World War was not better technology, but significantly greater resources and manufacturing capability, and for a time the US held the greatest trump card - capabilities that were too geographically distant for the Axis territories to disrupt.

One of the biggest mistakes one can make in wartime is underestimating the enemy, which is why an intelligence apparatus with a degree of transparency is a very good thing to have. Don't assume that the victors were superior in all aspects just because they were the victors!

That said, and @Squirrel 41 - 20/20 hindsight shows us that the supposed "threat" from the Soviet Bloc was routinely overstated, though I'm not going to get tangled in a political argument on that idea. Stalin was never an expansionist - in fact his treatise on "Socialism In One Country" was diametrically opposed to Trotsky's idea of "International Communism", and it can be very reasonably argued that Soviet expansionism died with Trotsky. I'd go so far as to argue that the main reason it was politically expedient to push the idea of a Soviet military threat was because the arms industries of the West quickly cottoned on to the fact that "ploughshares" aren't capable of generating million- or billion-dollar contracts.

Making a 90 degree handbrake turn back to the subject - geopolitics in the Middle East has - at least for the last century or so - always been about the oil fields. The sectarian tensions between Israel and the predominantly Muslim states that make up the area are mere window-dressing to the fact that a nuclear-capable Israel has been an unspoken bargaining chip for the West for several decades. Saudi Arabia has been largely friendly to the West throughout, as has Kuwait - in fact it has long been understood that the impetus for Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait was the alleged use of "slant-drilling" equipment by the Kuwaitis to extract oil from under Iraq's borders.

So if the Saudis are after a nuclear deterrent from a supposed threat from Iran, it's not like they don't have the money spare to pursue it - not that it'll do them much good. The Iranians aren't stupid - they know full well that to openly threaten nuclear conflict would invite annihilation, but if the situation as it stands - i.e. their status as a nuclear power is unconfirmed - is enough to put the wind up the Saudis, then it's no sweat off their backs if the Saudis empty their treasuries to build a capability of their own.

[Lyneham Lad]

My enemy's enemy is my friend...

Today's Sunday Times:-

ONCE they were sworn enemies. Now Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency is working with Saudi officials on contingency plans for a possible attack on Iran if its nuclear programme is not significantly curbed in a deal that could be signed in Geneva this week.

Both the Israeli and Saudi governments are convinced that the international talks to place limits on Tehran’s military nuclear development amount to appeasement and will do little to slow its development of a nuclear warhead.

As part of the growing co-operation, Riyadh is understood already to have given the go-ahead for Israeli planes to use its airspace in the event of an attack on Iran.

Both sides are now prepared to go much further. The Sunni kingdom is as alarmed as Israel by the nuclear ambitions of the Shi’ite-dominated Iran.

“Once the Geneva agreement is signed, the military option will be back on the table. The Saudis are furious and are willing to give Israel all the help it needs,” said a diplomatic source.

The source added that Saudi co-operation over the use of rescue helicopters, tanker planes and drones would greatly assist an Israeli raid.

[500N]

Interesting.

Would also give them somewhere to land without being seen if needed.