It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Six Arab Countries To Go Nuclear

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 06:49 AM
link   
Six Arab countries have reversed their previous policy of a nuclear free Middle East. They have now announced they will join the rush to go nuclear. Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, UAE and Saudi Arabia wants to start their own nuclear programmes. They are all in a hurry now, since the world apparently failed to stop Iran's nuclear programme.


Times Online: Six Arab states join rush to go nuclear

November 04, 2006



Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, UAE and Saudi Arabia seek atom technology

All want to build civilian nuclear energy programmes, as they are permitted to under international law. But the sudden rush to nuclear power has raised suspicions that the real intention is to acquire nuclear technology which could be used for the first Arab atomic bomb.

The announcement by the six nations is a stunning reversal of policy in the Arab world, which had until recently been pressing for a nuclear free Middle East, where only Israel has nuclear weapons.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

They say this is only peaceful nuclear programmes. I assume they want the bomb in the end. Imagine Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, UAE and Saudi Arabia with nuclear weapons!




posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 06:56 AM
link   
This isn't good at all. The more countries that have nukes - the higher risk of nuclear war.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Actually, I think this is for the best. The region will be more stable this way than it would be with just Iran having a capability that could place other countries in the region in a stronghold. Not only that but maybe nosey western countries will think twice about messing in the region's business if everybody over there has nuclear capabilities.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Now,theres a surprise.
What on earth could have prompted these countries to pursue nuclear programs?
Surely not the "war on terror."
Surely not the west trying to control the middle east,through war.

Well done Blair and Bush-your plan for nuclear proliferation and chaos in the middle east is coming along nicely.And no doubt your energy companies will be selling all this nuclear equipment to them,as usual.
Just like Iran and North Korea.
Maybe you`ll get another few wars out of those pesky arabs yet.

What lovely people we have in charge...



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 07:05 AM
link   
Silicone,

You may not be too far from the truth. I started a little series of threads going over the PNAC goals in the middle east. I've never finished it, but there's five parts starting here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now that the battle to keep Iran from going nuclear has been lost, according to what the PNAC states their goals are - i.e. to keep any one nation in the middle east from becoming the leader in that region - they are behooved to help equalize things. So the sudden "we're all going nuclear" situation may very well be fueled by outside sources.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Seems to me it has been a matter of time for awhile now. Yet housing nuclear energy facilities without the air defence to protect these sites could be more dangerous to Mideast countries than the benefit of having the capability to produce high grade plutonium capable of presenting a threat to other countries with adequate air power, missile, high speed attack craft and nuclear loaded subs.

Dallas



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 07:20 AM
link   
That sounds right on the button,Val.(excuse the pun)

Sort of like the old "divide and conquer" ethos.
This actually reminds me of the so called "scorched earth" policy of Saddam,
If he can`t have the oil,no one can(or if we can`t control the middle east,let them all go nuclear and blow each other to Hell!)

This really makes me sick,and lots of other people too.

I have recently traded in my petrol car and im trying to acquire a diesel,so i can run it on BIO fuel,made by a small local company.
The reason for this is that i felt guilty every time i put petrol in the tank.
People are murdered so that i can drive.
Well,no more.
This is all i can do at the moment,and i know it makes no difference-But if everyone did something similar....It would break the war machine in short order.
At least i am not contributing to the murder through paying for petrol.
Peace.
Its more fun than war.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 07:24 AM
link   
SS,

You know what. If you get your diesel and complete the conversion, I would be very interested in reading a thread you create on the whole process, what's involved and how much it ended up costing you.

And I agree with your summary statement:


Sort of like the old "divide and conquer" ethos.
This actually reminds me of the so called "scorched earth" policy of Saddam,
If he can`t have the oil,no one can(or if we can`t control the middle east,let them all go nuclear and blow each other to Hell!)


That's about how it reads.

But this time, this "let's all go nuclear" thing, if it is being fueled by external sources, it might not work out well for those sources. This time, it may lead to an independent middle east.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Val:
I will make a thread on the BIO fuel project when its up and running.
I am hoping the conversion side of things wo`nt be too expensive,
but it will be worth it.
I agree,this nuclear proliferation could lead to an independent middle east.
It could be a long and violent process though.
This alone may not mean an immediate end to hostilities,as war racketeers
are adept at continuing to make a profit(a killing),even when they know they
cannot win,or that the war is lost.
The stakes are high for the racketeers-
They realize a change in public perception could scupper their pay checks,and maybe
put them in prison.

What a world we live in.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Methinks they know something about about the black gold they sit on.... If it's going to run out you better have a backup plan and I think this is the sign, right from the home office....



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by UofCinLA
Methinks they know something about about the black gold they sit on.... If it's going to run out you better have a backup plan and I think this is the sign, right from the home office....


Well, I don't think they're near the end yet, but I think they've finally seen the writing on the wall and have started considering their resources as limited, which they didn't do for a very very long time.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 07:50 AM
link   
None of these countries are getting nukes becuase of Iran.

They are getting them becuase of America trying to change the governments in the middle east and trying to install democray in the region which means the overthrow of arab dictatorships.

Iran will never use nukes on a arab country.

These Arab countries are using the Iran nuke program as an excuse to build nukes so they can stop America from overthrowing them.

Think about it. What danger is Iran to Egypt? or even Algeria, Morocco or Tunisia. And there is no way what so ever that Iran would ever drop a nuke of Saudi Arabia becuaseit could possibly end up contaminating Mecca with radiation. And no muslim would ever do that.


.

[edit on 4-11-2006 by iqonx]



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   
There is something behind the words used for that article.


THE SPECTRE of a nuclear race in the Middle East was raised yesterday when six Arab states announced that they were embarking on programmes to master atomic technology.


Middle East?

Only Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt are on what is usually called the "Middle East", the other countries are North African countries.

Have they said this way to avoid saying "Muslim countries"?
Or have they said it this way to avoid saying "Middle East and North Africa" countries?
Or just to avoid saying "Middle East and North Africa" countries?

As you can see, some of those countries are very far from the Middle East.


PS: The disputed are of Western Sahara is included as Morocco, with a different shading



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Now that reports have been released about the absolute devastation that is and will be casued by global warming the argument for everyone to have acess to Nuclear Power gets stronger by the day.

Dangerous waters!

I predict that new technolgys and possibly Enviroment taxes will reduce the demand for oil over the next 10 years.


3/4ths of the Worlds Uranium is owned by Australia and Canada, so looks like the the ME may have to do some Aussie/Canadian butt kissin in the future hey?



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by NumberCruncher

3/4ths of the Worlds Uranium is owned by Australia and Canada, so looks like the the ME may have to do some Aussie/Canadian butt kissin in the future hey?

Not necessarily...

Thorium Power Plants Could Solve The World's Energy Problems


Wikipedia: Thorium

The current thorium mineral reserve estimates (in tons)[1]:

* 360,000 India
* 300,000 Australia
* 170,000 Norway
* 160,000 United States
* 100,000 Canada
* 35,000 South Africa
* 16,000 Brazil
* 95,000 Others

They could get Thorium from India, Norway or the US. No need for Aussie/Canadian butt kissin...



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 08:40 AM
link   
For some reason there's this odd thing that happens when discussing OPEC. It's the only seller/buyer relationship I can think of where people who discuss it appear to get the roles reversed. No one's been kissing OPEC's butt. They have the goods - that makes them the seller. The rest of the world is the buyer. In a seller/buyer relationship the seller is not in the dominant position. What I'm trying to point out is - sitting on a pool of oil won't feed you. There's no way to logically turn the relationship with the middle east around to make them the manipulators.

The customer is always right.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Well lets hope they do use Thorium plants, India is currently trying to get Australia to sell her some of its Uranium so im guessing its not so easy or cheap? to change to these plants.


Still doesnt change my point thou, if the ME wants Uranium they will need to convince Australia and Canada to sell it to them, Australia alone has 70pc of the Reserves but i beleive Canada still remains the largest Uranium exporter (go figure).


Personally i think Nuclears plants should be banned then if Thorium plants are viable.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
There's no way to logically turn the relationship with the middle east around to make them the manipulators.

The customer is always right.


Unless, of course, the demand is so intense that their clout (the reserves of oil they do sit on) puts them in a manipulative position greater than the posture of the buyers'.

Think back some years ago to Cabbage Patch Dolls, or Furby's or Playstation 2's...who was really the manipulator, the buyer or the seller? The people getting hurt and in some instances killed over something as stupid as a doll, or a electronic game should clear that question right up.


AB1



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Righto, but in both cases - Cabbage Patch dolls and oil - the consumer drives the market. What I'm trying to say is...

the wind is still blowing,
the sun is still shining,
the waves are still crashing,

and we're still acting like we'll fall over dead if oil runs out. The customer drives the market. OPEC doesn't have a sword hanging over our heads...we do.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by NumberCruncher

Personally i think Nuclears plants should be banned then if Thorium plants are viable.

It takes about 15 years or so to build a test reactor (Thorium). The sooner they start, the better.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join