6 ms·

Want to Punish Saudi Arabia? Cut Off Its Weapons Supply

89 points by sys_64738 8y ago

onetimemanytime 8y ago
Personally I think that, as a package, US weapons are best. Meaning that Russia might have a better x weapon but that's it. Now the Saudi (Gov) is as bad as they can be. But let's suppose that we trigger things that makes the Saudi Royal family to go back to their desert roots (US TREAS can make their life miserable if ordered, no matter how many assets they have overseas)....will we be better with the replacement? What will true democracy be like in Saudi Arabia when it comes to human rights? As bad as it sounds, punishing, but not overthrowing them might be the best option. Of course tighten this screw and loosen this one is a game, but if played correctly they'll tow the line. Maybe show them a video of Muammar Gaddafi's last minutes?
- gaius 8y ago
  as a package, US weapons are best. Meaning that Russia might have a better x weapon but that's it There’s no such thing as “best” in this game, because the enemy won’t give you the fight you want, but the fight they want. Well, unless they as stupid like Saddam was, but that’s not something you can count on.
hamilyon2 8y ago
Russia is mentioned in article but is underestimated. The fact is they sure as hell can sell aircraft, missiles and tanks. Even a few $billion diverted to Russian military industrial complex would be huge loss for American foreign politics, not to mention 20 billion a year.
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  It's not just weapons...it's protection, alliances, orientation.
- IBM 8y ago
  The US can sanction anyone that buys Russian weapons, as they've done with China and threatened to do with India [1][2]. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-sanctions/u-s-sanctions-china-for-buying-russian-fighter-jets-missiles-idUSKCN1M02TP https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-sanctions/u-s-... [2] https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/05/asia/india-s400-deal-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/05/asia/india-s400-deal-intl/ind...
  - acd10j 8y ago
    And will lose one more Ally , Threatening and implementing a sanction to a country like India would surely ruin a growing relationship.
- brown9-2 8y ago
  can a military easily switch from US-made weapons to Russian?
product50 8y ago
#unrelatedtothetopic Maybe it is a signal of the current times we are in but I can't read a NYTimes article talking about Trump/current administration and not feel conflicted that it will biased against him/them. Indeed, one of the tragedies of the past couple of years for me is this realization that even centuries-old trusted press outlets like NYTimes are inherently biased (and doesn't represent the thoughts on all Americans).
- weliketocode 8y ago
  A lot of truth to this, but such is the role of the media. If Trump was threatening to cut off MBS's weapons supplies, the article would be written talking about all of the potential negative ramifications.
- natch 8y ago
  The media is definitely biased against liars and the different flavors of that: people who distort, spin, and misrepresent. And to be really direct about it, Trump is all of those things. The fact is, the media should be biased against such people.
  - product50 8y ago
    Well - there is your bias. While I am not saying Trump is always truthful, there are a small no. of things he is doing which are at least debatable (such as his stance against China or the new UCMCA pact or the Tax Bill) but NYTimes has never called those out in a thoughtful manner. All I get from NYTimes is "how" Trump/GOP was able to force things through via politics in Congress vs. the actual merits/demerits of the "thing" itself. I feel WSJ is at least more neutral (but it could be leaning right though I am not sure) and tries to analyze topics more principally vs. emotionally/morally.
    - leesalminen 8y ago
      I’d agree about WSJ trying to be neutral. Even my left leaning parents, both of whom are life long New York liberals, have ditched NYT almost entirely and now read WSJ daily.
IBM 8y ago
The US should also freeze MBS' personal assets. No doubt it's in banks all over the world.
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  And what....? Might as well support regime change in SA, because he'll ask for Russian protection /weapons (think of Iran, balance of power etc). Better to make him go into his pants a few times and remind him things like Saddam, Qaddafi etc etc and how fast his regime can go. Remind him what would happen to his power, money and family if USA stopped supporting them. USA can send a fax and have MBS replaced. And by the way, release another 1 million barrels of oil a day to lower the price.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    Yea Iraq and Libya sure turned out OK for everyone after those regimes were toppled. (Hint: they didn't) I'd rather the US and NATO address the thousands of civilians that Saudi is killing in Yemen. That's an excellent reason not to sell weapons to them, but I must be the only one that thinks so...
    - onetimemanytime 8y ago
      They buy Russian weapons and keep killing. Russia will veto anything in the UN for them. SA will in return do what Russia wants when it comes to OPEC. So, what did we win? Scare the crap out of them or have the King choose a new person to take over after he's dead.
- krn 8y ago
  I would argue, that MBS is the wealthiest person on Earth, and no foreign asset freezes can affect him. As a crown prince and a future king of Saudi Arabia, he has trillions at his disposition, and nobody above him. The body language of Vladimir Putin standing next to him says it all[1]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/13/saudi-arabia-khashoggi-chulov#img-1 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/13/saudi-arabia-k...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
iuwhagtr 8y ago
I find this post to be deeply antisemitic.
- alphabettsy 8y ago
  How so?
  - iuwhagtr 8y ago
    The greatest ally of our greatest ally must be our greatest ally as well. This post from the nytimes just underlines this new wave of antisemitism that is coming from the left (for example, Corbyn) that has to be stopped.
tomohawk 8y ago
The Turkish government is also acting recklessly and against human rights. If they are the source of the info pointing at the Saudis, you have to wonder if its a setup.
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  Which would just leave thousands of verifiable examples of Saudi Arabia's horrible human rights.
chriselles 8y ago
I’m awaiting the public disclosure of evidence of Khoshoggi’s murder. At the macro human level this is simply disgusting what the Saudis have done. At the macro geopolitical level this is a truly cringeworthy embarrassment for the Saudis. However, this is what happens when control of trillions of dollars of essential natural resources is at stake. I would remind Hacker News readers that millions were slaughtered in the 70’s by the Khmer Rouge for control with none of the massive cashflow and geopolitical influence stemming from it. In other words, the blood will flow to ensure continuity of control & flow of oil. Period. Just look at Saudi actions in Yemen slaughtering everyone with reckless abandon(mostly via proxy) as it represents a possible beachhead at bringing down the Saudi regime. Kind of like the Saudis in the role of the Germans at D-Day. Military sales to Saudi serve 2 purposes: 1) Saudi/GCC military contracts are padded heavily to act as platforms for massive kickbacks to GCC royal families and connected insiders. Military sales are cashflow for corrupt GCC royals and insiders. 2) Military sales to the GCC represent petro-dollar recycling to balance trade between GCC countries and their petro customers. Check out the Al Yamamah arms deal between UK/Saudi that started in the 1980’s. Journalists found proof of corruption but further publication was halted as a matter of national security due to pressure from the Saudis that would have cancelled deals and led to the layoffs of tens of thousands of high paying jobs. Realpolitik is not an easy issue. Selling military equipment to Saudi/GCC is a bad idea, but may be a less bad idea as they do have options waiting in the wings(Russia/China). Ultimately, I think Saudi Arabia will attempt to avoid becoming like the Shah/Iran post 1979 much as China has avoided becoming like Russia post 1991. Regardless of the volume of bloodletting, The Mossad/Israel was publicly embarrassed with an assassination it conducted in Dubai in 2010. I doubt the Saudis care as much about their international reputation as the Israelis.
- Mediterraneo10 8y ago
  > The Mossad/Israel was publicly embarrassed with an assassination it conducted in Dubai in 2010. Was it? So much of the news coverage of the Dubai assassination seemed to focus on how intricate the operation was and how it worked like clockwork, all very impressive. A team of spies spread out across Dubai, wearing disguises and even successfully dealing with unforeseen obstacles, seemed pretty romantic somehow, definitely more than a dissident just walking into his own country’s embassy and being killed there. And Israel was probably well aware of its agents being caught on CCTV, so the revelation of the operation was no embarrassment for the Mossad. On the other hand, I’m sure the Saudis wish that this whole episode could have passed unnoticed and that people would just believe Khashoggi left the embassy of his own accord.
jayalpha 8y ago
"Russia cannot produce next-generation fighter aircraft" Russia may not have the money to build it in numbers, but for sure they have the technology. The fighter aircrafts are very capable and the F-35 may well be a one trick pony (can't fly fast, can't dog fight, can't carry a huge load, needs tons of maintenance, is invisible to 3rd world countries and may or may not be visible to China or Russia). https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/stealth-killer-russias-sixth-generation-fighter-might-have-radio-photonic-radar-25361 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/stealth-killer-russia... https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-russian-su-35-pilot-f-22-dogfight-2018-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-russian-su-35-pilot-f... This military blog says the US may not be able to match the Russians in missile technology: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/ http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/
- crdoconnor 8y ago
  I did a double take at this. The "next generation of fighter aircraft" is, in all likelihood, fleet of cheap autonomous drones that can withstand high gee maneuvers that will make a fighter pilot black out. It's probably not very polite to say that sort of thing in military-industrial complex circles though (too much money riding on the F-35).
relyio 8y ago
It's funny how this article views weapons and equipment deals with Saudi Arabia as a service the West is making for SA when in fact, that's just: 1. Securing the supply lines of the West and the stability of the world economy. 2. SA playing nice with Western powers and thanking them for their support. Not the other way around. The regional enemies of SA are Iran and Yemen. They have a strong behind-the-scenes intelligence relationship with Israel. They would do fine with Russian or Chinese weapons. Hell, they have enough money to kick-off their own military industrial complex. I don't think the details of the arms deal are public but I suspect a lot of the money goes into "maintenance" from the weapons suppliers, not in technology transfer. They remain a vassal state to the US. Their domestic human rights situation is despicable and disgusting, and I hate to find myself defending SA but the fake outrage over their foreign policy is highly irritating. They are no worse in that respect than any other country in the world, in fact the scale of their direct malfeasance is mostly regional. Countries with global reach have done worse in my eyes.
- deleteme12345 8y ago
  > Hell, they have enough money to kick-off their own military industrial complex. Wishful thinking.
  - relyio 8y ago
    >Wishful thinking. Maybe! Hard to know if that's the extent of your comment. Care to explain why you think so?
- flyinglizard 8y ago
  That’s pretty much it. Cutting off weapon supplies never made countries less belligerent - on the contrary, it lets them loose as they no longer have any reigns. The fastest way to lose global political influence is to send your allies to buy weapons from your adversaries. How did it work with North Korea, Iran and Syria? When France cut off Israel’s weapon supplies in the late 1960s, all it did was to accelerate the development of the Israeli defense industry and replacement of all French hardware with US one. During this process, France lost any political influence it might have had on Israel - and arguably, the region - and irreversibly hurt its defense industry going forward. That aside, Western ideals are just that in the Middle East - ideals. The reality is somewhat more complicated. So let them have weapons. Western weapons are at least more precise and less crude than the alternatives. The worst wars were waged with teens wielding AK47s, not with F15s dropping precision munitions. Taking away weapons will not eliminate the underlying hostilities. Finally, Saudi Arabia never pursued a nuclear program as it felt shielded by the West. Taking away its means to defend itself would make it an immensely more dangerous, rich and capable North Korea.
intopieces 8y ago
And tie both hands behind the back of our strongest ally in the upcoming war against Iran? Unwise and unlikely.

89 points by sys_64738 8y ago

Personally I think that, as a package, US weapons are best. Meaning that Russia might have a better x weapon but that's it. Now the Saudi (Gov) is as bad as they can be. But let's suppose that we trigger things that makes the Saudi Royal family to go back to their desert roots (US TREAS can make their life miserable if ordered, no matter how many assets they have overseas)....will we be better with the replacement? What will true democracy be like in Saudi Arabia when it comes to human rights? As bad as it sounds, punishing, but not overthrowing them might be the best option. Of course tighten this screw and loosen this one is a game, but if played correctly they'll tow the line. Maybe show them a video of Muammar Gaddafi's last minutes?

gaius 8y ago
as a package, US weapons are best. Meaning that Russia might have a better x weapon but that's it There’s no such thing as “best” in this game, because the enemy won’t give you the fight you want, but the fight they want. Well, unless they as stupid like Saddam was, but that’s not something you can count on.

hamilyon2 8y ago

Russia is mentioned in article but is underestimated. The fact is they sure as hell can sell aircraft, missiles and tanks. Even a few $billion diverted to Russian military industrial complex would be huge loss for American foreign politics, not to mention 20 billion a year.

onetimemanytime 8y ago
It's not just weapons...it's protection, alliances, orientation.
IBM 8y ago
The US can sanction anyone that buys Russian weapons, as they've done with China and threatened to do with India [1][2]. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-sanctions/u-s-sanctions-china-for-buying-russian-fighter-jets-missiles-idUSKCN1M02TP https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-sanctions/u-s-... [2] https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/05/asia/india-s400-deal-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/05/asia/india-s400-deal-intl/ind...
- acd10j 8y ago
  And will lose one more Ally , Threatening and implementing a sanction to a country like India would surely ruin a growing relationship.
brown9-2 8y ago
can a military easily switch from US-made weapons to Russian?

product50 8y ago

#unrelatedtothetopic Maybe it is a signal of the current times we are in but I can't read a NYTimes article talking about Trump/current administration and not feel conflicted that it will biased against him/them. Indeed, one of the tragedies of the past couple of years for me is this realization that even centuries-old trusted press outlets like NYTimes are inherently biased (and doesn't represent the thoughts on all Americans).

weliketocode 8y ago
A lot of truth to this, but such is the role of the media. If Trump was threatening to cut off MBS's weapons supplies, the article would be written talking about all of the potential negative ramifications.
natch 8y ago
The media is definitely biased against liars and the different flavors of that: people who distort, spin, and misrepresent. And to be really direct about it, Trump is all of those things. The fact is, the media should be biased against such people.
- product50 8y ago
  Well - there is your bias. While I am not saying Trump is always truthful, there are a small no. of things he is doing which are at least debatable (such as his stance against China or the new UCMCA pact or the Tax Bill) but NYTimes has never called those out in a thoughtful manner. All I get from NYTimes is "how" Trump/GOP was able to force things through via politics in Congress vs. the actual merits/demerits of the "thing" itself. I feel WSJ is at least more neutral (but it could be leaning right though I am not sure) and tries to analyze topics more principally vs. emotionally/morally.
  - leesalminen 8y ago
    I’d agree about WSJ trying to be neutral. Even my left leaning parents, both of whom are life long New York liberals, have ditched NYT almost entirely and now read WSJ daily.

IBM 8y ago

The US should also freeze MBS' personal assets. No doubt it's in banks all over the world.

onetimemanytime 8y ago
And what....? Might as well support regime change in SA, because he'll ask for Russian protection /weapons (think of Iran, balance of power etc). Better to make him go into his pants a few times and remind him things like Saddam, Qaddafi etc etc and how fast his regime can go. Remind him what would happen to his power, money and family if USA stopped supporting them. USA can send a fax and have MBS replaced. And by the way, release another 1 million barrels of oil a day to lower the price.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  Yea Iraq and Libya sure turned out OK for everyone after those regimes were toppled. (Hint: they didn't) I'd rather the US and NATO address the thousands of civilians that Saudi is killing in Yemen. That's an excellent reason not to sell weapons to them, but I must be the only one that thinks so...
  - onetimemanytime 8y ago
    They buy Russian weapons and keep killing. Russia will veto anything in the UN for them. SA will in return do what Russia wants when it comes to OPEC. So, what did we win? Scare the crap out of them or have the King choose a new person to take over after he's dead.
krn 8y ago
I would argue, that MBS is the wealthiest person on Earth, and no foreign asset freezes can affect him. As a crown prince and a future king of Saudi Arabia, he has trillions at his disposition, and nobody above him. The body language of Vladimir Putin standing next to him says it all[1]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/13/saudi-arabia-khashoggi-chulov#img-1 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/13/saudi-arabia-k...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

iuwhagtr 8y ago

I find this post to be deeply antisemitic.

alphabettsy 8y ago
How so?
- iuwhagtr 8y ago
  The greatest ally of our greatest ally must be our greatest ally as well. This post from the nytimes just underlines this new wave of antisemitism that is coming from the left (for example, Corbyn) that has to be stopped.

tomohawk 8y ago

The Turkish government is also acting recklessly and against human rights. If they are the source of the info pointing at the Saudis, you have to wonder if its a setup.

boomboomsubban 8y ago
Which would just leave thousands of verifiable examples of Saudi Arabia's horrible human rights.

chriselles 8y ago

I’m awaiting the public disclosure of evidence of Khoshoggi’s murder. At the macro human level this is simply disgusting what the Saudis have done. At the macro geopolitical level this is a truly cringeworthy embarrassment for the Saudis. However, this is what happens when control of trillions of dollars of essential natural resources is at stake. I would remind Hacker News readers that millions were slaughtered in the 70’s by the Khmer Rouge for control with none of the massive cashflow and geopolitical influence stemming from it. In other words, the blood will flow to ensure continuity of control & flow of oil. Period. Just look at Saudi actions in Yemen slaughtering everyone with reckless abandon(mostly via proxy) as it represents a possible beachhead at bringing down the Saudi regime. Kind of like the Saudis in the role of the Germans at D-Day. Military sales to Saudi serve 2 purposes: 1) Saudi/GCC military contracts are padded heavily to act as platforms for massive kickbacks to GCC royal families and connected insiders. Military sales are cashflow for corrupt GCC royals and insiders. 2) Military sales to the GCC represent petro-dollar recycling to balance trade between GCC countries and their petro customers. Check out the Al Yamamah arms deal between UK/Saudi that started in the 1980’s. Journalists found proof of corruption but further publication was halted as a matter of national security due to pressure from the Saudis that would have cancelled deals and led to the layoffs of tens of thousands of high paying jobs. Realpolitik is not an easy issue. Selling military equipment to Saudi/GCC is a bad idea, but may be a less bad idea as they do have options waiting in the wings(Russia/China). Ultimately, I think Saudi Arabia will attempt to avoid becoming like the Shah/Iran post 1979 much as China has avoided becoming like Russia post 1991. Regardless of the volume of bloodletting, The Mossad/Israel was publicly embarrassed with an assassination it conducted in Dubai in 2010. I doubt the Saudis care as much about their international reputation as the Israelis.

Mediterraneo10 8y ago
> The Mossad/Israel was publicly embarrassed with an assassination it conducted in Dubai in 2010. Was it? So much of the news coverage of the Dubai assassination seemed to focus on how intricate the operation was and how it worked like clockwork, all very impressive. A team of spies spread out across Dubai, wearing disguises and even successfully dealing with unforeseen obstacles, seemed pretty romantic somehow, definitely more than a dissident just walking into his own country’s embassy and being killed there. And Israel was probably well aware of its agents being caught on CCTV, so the revelation of the operation was no embarrassment for the Mossad. On the other hand, I’m sure the Saudis wish that this whole episode could have passed unnoticed and that people would just believe Khashoggi left the embassy of his own accord.

jayalpha 8y ago

"Russia cannot produce next-generation fighter aircraft" Russia may not have the money to build it in numbers, but for sure they have the technology. The fighter aircrafts are very capable and the F-35 may well be a one trick pony (can't fly fast, can't dog fight, can't carry a huge load, needs tons of maintenance, is invisible to 3rd world countries and may or may not be visible to China or Russia). https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/stealth-killer-russias-sixth-generation-fighter-might-have-radio-photonic-radar-25361 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/stealth-killer-russia... https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-russian-su-35-pilot-f-22-dogfight-2018-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-russian-su-35-pilot-f... This military blog says the US may not be able to match the Russians in missile technology: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/ http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/

crdoconnor 8y ago
I did a double take at this. The "next generation of fighter aircraft" is, in all likelihood, fleet of cheap autonomous drones that can withstand high gee maneuvers that will make a fighter pilot black out. It's probably not very polite to say that sort of thing in military-industrial complex circles though (too much money riding on the F-35).

relyio 8y ago

It's funny how this article views weapons and equipment deals with Saudi Arabia as a service the West is making for SA when in fact, that's just: 1. Securing the supply lines of the West and the stability of the world economy. 2. SA playing nice with Western powers and thanking them for their support. Not the other way around. The regional enemies of SA are Iran and Yemen. They have a strong behind-the-scenes intelligence relationship with Israel. They would do fine with Russian or Chinese weapons. Hell, they have enough money to kick-off their own military industrial complex. I don't think the details of the arms deal are public but I suspect a lot of the money goes into "maintenance" from the weapons suppliers, not in technology transfer. They remain a vassal state to the US. Their domestic human rights situation is despicable and disgusting, and I hate to find myself defending SA but the fake outrage over their foreign policy is highly irritating. They are no worse in that respect than any other country in the world, in fact the scale of their direct malfeasance is mostly regional. Countries with global reach have done worse in my eyes.

deleteme12345 8y ago
> Hell, they have enough money to kick-off their own military industrial complex. Wishful thinking.
- relyio 8y ago
  >Wishful thinking. Maybe! Hard to know if that's the extent of your comment. Care to explain why you think so?
flyinglizard 8y ago
That’s pretty much it. Cutting off weapon supplies never made countries less belligerent - on the contrary, it lets them loose as they no longer have any reigns. The fastest way to lose global political influence is to send your allies to buy weapons from your adversaries. How did it work with North Korea, Iran and Syria? When France cut off Israel’s weapon supplies in the late 1960s, all it did was to accelerate the development of the Israeli defense industry and replacement of all French hardware with US one. During this process, France lost any political influence it might have had on Israel - and arguably, the region - and irreversibly hurt its defense industry going forward. That aside, Western ideals are just that in the Middle East - ideals. The reality is somewhat more complicated. So let them have weapons. Western weapons are at least more precise and less crude than the alternatives. The worst wars were waged with teens wielding AK47s, not with F15s dropping precision munitions. Taking away weapons will not eliminate the underlying hostilities. Finally, Saudi Arabia never pursued a nuclear program as it felt shielded by the West. Taking away its means to defend itself would make it an immensely more dangerous, rich and capable North Korea.

intopieces 8y ago

And tie both hands behind the back of our strongest ally in the upcoming war against Iran? Unwise and unlikely.