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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hellmutt
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.


For the records, Saudi Arabia has been working on a nuclear weapon for about two years now as German Intelligence confirmed. As a matter of fact the Saudis financially funded the Pakistani nuclear program. No one cares as Saudi Arabia is not be considered as a threat to Western society.


BERLIN (AFX) - Saudi Arabia is working secretly on a nuclear program, with help from Pakistani experts, the German magazine Cicero reported in its latest edition, citing Western security sources.

It says that during the Haj pilgrimages to Mecca in 2003 through 2005, Pakistani scientists posed as pilgrims to come to Saudi Arabia.

Between October 2004 and January 2005, some of them slipped off from pilgrimages, sometimes for up to three weeks, the report quoted German security expert Udo Ulfkotte as saying.

Forbes


Egypt, Tunesia, Morocco, and the UAE are all Westernized Muslim/Arab countries dependent on Western tourism and financial investment.




posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
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.


And that, is a damn fine point...you're right of course, if more people would convert to other forms of energy, running out of oil would be a mere 'matter-of-fact'...granted it can be a time-consuming and costly thing to do, but the cost in the long run i'm sure would more than pay for itself.


AB1

[edit on 4-11-2006 by alphabetaone]



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   
The article appears to be stricly political in timing and focus. The timing is incredible, an the wording (as has been pointed out) is highly suspicious.

Wording example:

The move "follows the failure by the West to curb Iran’s controversial nuclear programme."


In reality the failure to curb lies in the hands of the IAEA, Russia, & China more than the U.S. This wording illustrates that this article is entirely focused on influencing the Nov. elections. We are being told that they really want this technology to prevent the U.S. from meddling in their affairs, yet you can clearly see that they are meddling in U.S. affairs with innuendo, inference, and intimidation tactics by choosing this particular time to make the announcement.


Timing example:

The countries involved were named by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Saudi Arabia. Tunisia and the UAE have also shown interest.


Take Saudi Araia for example. The reality is that Saudi Arabia and the others have been working to acquire the tech since the mid '80's. They did not suddenly decide this now, just prior to the U.S. 2006 elections.


Khilewi produced documents for the London Sunday Times that supported his charge that the Saudi government had paid up to five billion dollars from the Saudi treasury for Saddam Hussein to build a nuclear weapon. Between 1985 and 1990, up to the time Saddam invaded Kuwait, the payments were made on condition that some of the bombs, should the project succeed, be transferred to the Saudi arsenal. The transcrips depicts the Saudis funding the nuclear program and handing over specialised equipment that Iraq could not have obtained elsewhere.



Saudi scientists have been working since the mid-1990s in Pakistan

Saudi bar codes can be found on half of Pakistan's nuclear weapons because it is Saudi Arabia which ultimately co-financed the Pakistani atomic nuclear program.

Saudi Arabia has set up a program in Al-Sulaiyil, south of Riyadh, a secret underground city and dozens of underground silos for missiles.


Pakistan, Saudi Arabia in secret nuke pact October 22, 2003

Saudia Arabia working on secret nuclear program with Pakistan help

Saudi Arabia Special Weapons



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 10:11 AM
link   
We should be asking why the government does everything in their power to prevent us from doing that. I personally am not rich and so a $40,000 investment in a wind-generator isn't on my horizon...but why hasn't my government offered my city some incentive to invest in same? I live in a small town of about 1600 people. Do you realize that there are wind-generators on the market that could power my whole town - so except for back-up purposes we would be "off the grid". Do you realize that the number one source of CO2 emissions is electric power plants?

If just the smallest towns were given some subsidy by the government to all get on wind-generation think of how impactful that alone would be. Then we could start working on the big cities.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Do you realize that there are wind-generators on the market that could power my whole town - so except for back-up purposes we would be "off the grid".


Ever checked into what one of those would cost, out of curiosity? I wonder if you got the whole town to contribute, if the in the long run the electricity would be any cheaper?



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Oh gosh...what a challenge TA. I swear on my greening heart I'll give it a go. It's going to be a tough battle because we have an extremely high percent of elderly in this community and they are easily scared by people who want to prevent any change. For years and years now even the most moderate improvements (say curbs on city streets) have been rejected in votes because the little city council rulers will start telling the elderly that it's going to make their taxes go up. That's an easy scare-tactic for people living on a few hundred SS dollars a month.

But I'll give it a-go.
It's a worthy endeavor.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
We should be asking why the government does everything in their power to prevent us from doing that. I personally am not rich and so a $40,000 investment in a wind-generator isn't on my horizon...but why hasn't my government offered my city some incentive to invest in same?


In Portugal, an investment on "alternative energies" is tax deductible, and anyone who uses it to produce his own electricity can sell that electricity to EDP, the company responsible for the electricity production and distribution in Portugal.


Just another bit of information, most of the natural gas we use here in Portugal comes from one of those countries, Algeria.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   
It's strange but reading these threads nobody hardly mentions Israel and the impact that the Arab states around it acquiring nuclear weapons will have to the very existence of the fairly new established nation.

Not sure if you heard on the news recently but the president of Iran is threatend publicly that Israel should be wiped of the pages of history and a few days ago even repeating that talk by saying "Israel will soon disappear" and many anti-Semitic remarks. I guess that's fair enough, but then for a nation who is building (but according to Iran, they are not) nuclear weapons in its program, Israel is seeing his remarks as a real threat.

If you had a friend or neighbour who threatens to destroy you day after day publicly to other people and to you and is building the weapon that will in many aspects do it... well you can let them alone and sit back and do nothing and wait for a presidents threat of annihilation or you can make the first move and set back and destroy their plans of making the weapon which will destroy you.

Well if you look at the past about 25 years ago when Iraq was on the brink of getting nuclear weapons, Israel acted and destroyed their reactors and facility's although condemnation from all nations would follow.

So my theory is from what ive learned is that Israel will by no means allow Iran to build a bomb which would most likely be used against the nation but will act first to set-back or destroy altogether its nuclear program by taking out key targets in Iran. I watched a documentary about this on BBC and it said Iran will reach the point of no return no later than summer 2007.

Then from that point if Israel attacks first then it truly is conspiracies and theory's as to what it would lead to. My theory for what its worth will go something like this :

Israel will attack Iran's nuclear plants within the next year by surprise if they don't stop enriching and UN talks fail...then the back lash would be condemnation from the rest of the world and then Iran's retaliation following quickly after, with maybe even other arab country's joining Iran's retaliation against Israel, cause if truth be known Israel is hated by all its neighbours. The price of oil will sky-rocket as the middle-east enters into chaos.

Then maybe even super-powers getting involved to sort it out - but then from that point i can only blindly guess, but 1 good thing about all this (if it does happen) is that bible prophecy will be being fulfilled in that Israel will be center of the whole mess, with what then according to the bible a anti-christ (new world leader) will cease power in Israel and make peace and rebuild the temple (which in prophecy, has still yet to be destroyed)

Then i suppose whatever way you look at it or examine it...there is gonna be trouble in the middle-east very soon if Israel acts because of Iran's threats.

Happy Days


[edit on 4-11-2006 by Mountain_Fire77]



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   
read this very clearly! the only country that ever used a used a nuclear bomb
on another country is the usa, we all should be worried about america's nukes
more then iran or north korea. ''they used it once they can use it again''
more possibly then anybody else in this world.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mountain_Fire77
It's strange but reading these threads nobody hardly mentions Israel and the impact that the Arab states around it acquiring nuclear weapons will have to the very existence of the fairly new established nation.

The only countries of that article that are neighbours of Israel are Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the other countries are not Israel's neighbours.



So my theory is from what ive learned is that Israel will by no means allow Iran to build a bomb which would most likely be used against the nation but will act first to set-back or destroy altogether its nuclear program by taking out key targets in Iran. I watched a documentary about this on BBC and it said Iran will reach the point of no return no later than summer 2007.

I don't know if you noticed, but this is not about Iran, its about six other countries, not all from the Middle East, that said that they want to start civilian nuclear energy programmes, nothing more.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   
And no muslim would ever do that.


.

[edit on 4-11-2006 by iqonx]




Really.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 07:43 PM
link   
In my opinion THIS is one of the main reasons why in fact Iran is researching the use of P2 centrifuges rather then the P1 centrifuges. The need for enriched Uranium for nuclear reactors will be astounding in the next 5-10 years and so far the only main suppliers are USA, Australia, Russia, China, South Africa (I think they only supply yellowcake) and possibly a small handul of others. If you follow the Commodities market you will see that Uranium is a fast growing investment right now and that this product will be a highly profitable industry along with petroleum. One of Irans resources is uranium in its raw form. Using that plus the fact that they can produce efficiently nuclear fuel will make them a tidy sum of money by supplying these other countries that are close by with the needed fuel.

If I'm not mistaken the Iranians have also been working on a fuel rod that has a lifespan of 10-13 years -vs- the current lifespan of a fuel rod which is about 5-7 years. Less waste disposal and a more cost effective life-span. I may be mistaken on who was doing the research. Please correct me if Im wrong.


Pie





Pie



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by doctorfungi
This isn't good at all. The more countries that have nukes - the higher risk of nuclear war.


I agree 100% with the poster who said this is actually for the best. While we're at it, let's make sure that Sudan, Liberia, Cuba, the Congo, and anyone else who wants nukes gets them. That way, we can stabilize the world! That'll make those nosey western countries think twice!

Oh, and let's not forget Afghanistan - we owe the Taliban at least that much.

/sarcasm



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   
While this could conceivably be a rush to build nuclear weapons, it's equally likely that they are doing this to secure a future means of producing energy. The oil isn't going to last forever, they know this better than anyone.

Time will tell, as with anything else.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Oh, and let's not forget Afghanistan - we owe the Taliban at least that much.

/sarcasm


Nope, Afghanistan can't have any unless they can buy them on the black market like every other respectable nation. Nobody gets a free ride. Well, unless of course we find out some nations are getting a free ride, which also wouldn't surprise me.

/never had any sarcasm to turn off - I meant every word of it.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   
hey, this might not be so bad.


nukes or no nukes, all of those countries are about fifty years' dedicated research away from an effective ICBM.

so if all six of those nations get the bomb, we're more or less safe, and they'll turn the middle east into either A) a stalemate or B) a parking lot with high levels of background radiation... either way, they won't bother us any more, right?



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Perhaps we may be jumping to an alarmist position for the wrong reasons?

Perhaps this truely is an alarming development, in a region already the center of intense concern, but perhaps our focus should be not so much on the potential for conflict as for the the possible unspoken motivations behind these actions.

Perhaps I'm being far too obtuse!

OK, may I suggest another possiblility for this push towards nuclear power? It has nothing to do with Iran. It has little to nothing to do with Israel. It has only tangentally anything to do with OPEC.

It has Everything to do with the recent revelations, projections and admissions, from multiple sources, regarding Global Warming and the social and economic impacts expected by the resultant climatic changes.

I think, what is fueling this push to nuke power, is that the regional powers have "gotten the message" from the Major/Western governments that petroleum usage will soon be drastically curtailed by world-wide lagislative fiat. In an effort to "soften the blow' of the climatic effects we, already, cannot expect to avoid; and to adjust for a world economy under the strict control of crisis-management, induced by climatic catastrophies, petroleum will become, by newly enacted law, a rationed commodity.

It is not that we will be running out of oil. It is quite simply that, if we are to survive as a "modern" civilization, the governments of the industrialized nations have come to realize that it is necesssary to force reduced production and utilization of the petro-chemical based products which contribute to the acceleration and intensification of climate shift-effects.

As some one posted earlier, the powers that be (And hope to continue to be) have read the writting on the wall: The die have been cast, it is too late to avoid the Pain. The choice Now is Reduce, or Be Exstinguished.

And consider how neatly this realization dovetails with the drastic, almost fascistic, actions the major powers (US/UK in particular, less obvious, Russia) have recently taken to centralize and consolidate social control and authority within the government structure. "Martial law preparations" some have called it on these boards, actions to be expected of governments facing only the most dire of circumstances.

Such as we might have to encounter if/when the crows of our oil-induced orgy of climate abuse start begin coming home to roost.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 02:09 AM
link   
To the poster that said 3/4 of the uranium in the world is in Australia and Canada, that may be true (I don't know) - but Iran also has substantial uranium deposits. In fact, I think they've got one of the deepest uranium mines on the planet.

Also consider the fact that they've exploited a great deal less of their uranium, compared to Australia and Canada.

Just food for thought...



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
To the poster that said 3/4 of the uranium in the world is in Australia and Canada, that may be true (I don't know) - but Iran also has substantial uranium deposits. In fact, I think they've got one of the deepest uranium mines on the planet.


I've read that their uranium is not as good a quality as that of South African yellowcake though.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 02:31 AM
link   
"Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, UAE and Saudi Arabia seek atom technology"

--this isn't really new.

From this website: www.howardbloom.net

c. 1983 Abdul Qadeer Khan, future father of “The Islamic Bomb”, manages to snag the complete design for a Chinese nuclear device 34 inches in diameter, the perfect size for a missile warhead. Khan obtains detailed drawings of all of the warhead’s 100 or so parts.[cxxx]

1998 First test of the Islamic Bomb—Pakistan’s nuclear warhead.

2003 The US seizes “the BBC China, a freighter bearing centrifuge parts made in Malaysia, along with other products of Dr. [A.Q.] Khan's [nuclear] network, all bound for Libya.” Libya fesses up and hands over its nuclear skunk works.[cli]

2003 Dr. A.Q. Khan, father of the Islamic Bomb and a national hero in Pakistan, is put under house arrest. An initial spate of information indicates that Khan has been selling nuclear technology he acquired in Europe to North Korea and Libya and shipping materials through Malaysia.

2004 American intelligence officials are shocked to discover that Khan’s nuclear network goes much farther than they thought. In fact, it has “tendrils…in more than 30 countries” including Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Ivory Coast, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates. Credible reports say that during his trip to Afghanistan, Khan met face-to-face with Osama bin Laden. Intelligence officials wonder, “what other countries, or nonstate groups, beyond Libya, Iran and North Korea, received what one Bush administration official called Dr. Khan's ‘nuclear starter kit’”--buy a hundred million dollars worth of nuclear equipment and Khan throws in the design for a thoroughly-tested nuclear warhead for free. The suspected list of customers includes Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Algeria, Kuwait, Myanmar and Abu Dhabi.

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

It seems every one of these "six" countries have been seeking nuclear technology for some time!



[edit on 5-11-2006 by CreeWolf]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join