3 ms·

Saudi Arabia should absolutely not have access to nuclear technologies.

charlesdm 9y ago
The west also shouldn't be exporting billions of dollars worth of weapons to SA, and yet, we do. If someone can make a buck, someone will do it. And Trump isn't exactly the person to stand up against them.
- sunir 9y ago
  Or Trudeau. Or anyone.
arethuza 9y ago
A bit late for that - they are believed to have provided the finance for the Pakistan nuclear program and the Royal Saudi Strategic Missile Force bought some Chinese missiles with very low accuracy originally designed as a a platform for nukes (being 1km out probably doesn't matter too much if your target is lobbing a nuke at Tehran). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Saudi_Arabia#Pakistan%27s_involvement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Saudi_Arabi...
cooper12 9y ago
You hear this train of thought a lot: "X country shouldn't have nukes". So why do people say a specific country "deserves" nukes while others don't? Why does the U.S. get nukes while it got to invade Iraq under the pretense of it having nukes? You might say everyone who is ideologically aligned with the policeman of the world (the West) deserves it. But in actuality not every country that has gained that capability fits the definition. The simple answer is that it's all about power balance. If you're an ally of the West, you can have all the nukes you want, but if you're not, you must put yourself at their mercy. Note I'm not commenting on SA here, but the whole "we should be able to decide who gets nukes or not". It's very interesting when you consider how U.S. foreign policy has affected the world and the fact that SA is considered an ally.
- ams6110 9y ago
  Yeah pretty much boils down to "good guys" and "bad guys." THe USA and allies are the good guys. From their perspective (and objectively, for the most part, in comparison to the others).
- fnord123 9y ago
  Ideally, no one should have nuclear weapons but they exist so we're left with asking how to deal with proliferation. In my opinion, a state run by a Wahhabi theocracy should prevented from getting its hands on nuclear technology. They are an ally only in the sense that they have the deepest oil reserves and use their economic clout to get their way. They are also an ally to the US because they bring some semblance of stability to the ME region. But KSA funds insurgents intent on destabilising Europe and it's not behaviour of an ally imo.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
notyourday 9y ago
That train has left the station loooong time ago. Now any country that can fund educations of grad students in the west and has enough money to buy/extract materials needed to enrich nuclear fuel and has enough money to build such industrial operation is given to have access to nuclear technologies. The fact that NK managed to do it pretty much makes "not have access to nuclear technologies" a non-starter argument

The west also shouldn't be exporting billions of dollars worth of weapons to SA, and yet, we do. If someone can make a buck, someone will do it. And Trump isn't exactly the person to stand up against them.

sunir 9y ago
Or Trudeau. Or anyone.

arethuza 9y ago

A bit late for that - they are believed to have provided the finance for the Pakistan nuclear program and the Royal Saudi Strategic Missile Force bought some Chinese missiles with very low accuracy originally designed as a a platform for nukes (being 1km out probably doesn't matter too much if your target is lobbing a nuke at Tehran). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Saudi_Arabia#Pakistan%27s_involvement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Saudi_Arabi...

cooper12 9y ago

You hear this train of thought a lot: "X country shouldn't have nukes". So why do people say a specific country "deserves" nukes while others don't? Why does the U.S. get nukes while it got to invade Iraq under the pretense of it having nukes? You might say everyone who is ideologically aligned with the policeman of the world (the West) deserves it. But in actuality not every country that has gained that capability fits the definition. The simple answer is that it's all about power balance. If you're an ally of the West, you can have all the nukes you want, but if you're not, you must put yourself at their mercy. Note I'm not commenting on SA here, but the whole "we should be able to decide who gets nukes or not". It's very interesting when you consider how U.S. foreign policy has affected the world and the fact that SA is considered an ally.

ams6110 9y ago
Yeah pretty much boils down to "good guys" and "bad guys." THe USA and allies are the good guys. From their perspective (and objectively, for the most part, in comparison to the others).
fnord123 9y ago
Ideally, no one should have nuclear weapons but they exist so we're left with asking how to deal with proliferation. In my opinion, a state run by a Wahhabi theocracy should prevented from getting its hands on nuclear technology. They are an ally only in the sense that they have the deepest oil reserves and use their economic clout to get their way. They are also an ally to the US because they bring some semblance of stability to the ME region. But KSA funds insurgents intent on destabilising Europe and it's not behaviour of an ally imo.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

notyourday 9y ago

That train has left the station loooong time ago. Now any country that can fund educations of grad students in the west and has enough money to buy/extract materials needed to enrich nuclear fuel and has enough money to build such industrial operation is given to have access to nuclear technologies. The fact that NK managed to do it pretty much makes "not have access to nuclear technologies" a non-starter argument