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: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
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.

Thats exactly my sentiments


Nuclear weapons have been war enders and war preventers. There is no historical evidence of nuclear weapons raising the risk of war whatsoever.




posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 03:41 AM
link   
for god's sake you people keep saying the exact same BS on these threads over adn over again, how about you come up iwth something new. look Israel has Nukes, the countries around it wanna have nukes because of it and because of Iran, Iran is not particularly the Arabs best ally, they hate Iran, if Iran gets Nukes, it will put all the middle eastern countries at it's mercy, which non of these countries want. and please don't give me the "US is spreading democracy" BS, we've already seen what US instilled "democracy" is all about, corruption, car bombings, death, misery, economical downfall, please stop the BS!!!!



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 04:31 AM
link   
I Think..

all nations are realising the energy and natural resouce problem we will all face in the near future, no country wants to go back to the stone age.
I can't see a problem with the middle east going nucleur, afterall oil and gas will not las that long paehaps finising even within hour life time, and of course america is the only nation to use nukes on a civilian population indescriminatly.

Everyone who can nuke up will first for the economic reasons then for safety, just imagine what the world will be like when oil, gas are unatainable for the masses and moores law comes into effect around 2020. i believe this will cause wide spread instability and power grabbing most lightly.
The on worth while deterant is a nuclear one, for eg no two nuclear have yet gone to full scale war.

Need i say more??





posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 04:38 AM
link   
The most important question I haven't seen stated yet.

What is the US of A going to do? Russia and China won't support any tough sanctions on Iran, while the UAE, Egypt and others are allowed to enrich uranium.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 04:39 AM
link   
Damn why do so many people go on and on about the Atomic weopons used in WW2, you make it sound like WW2 Japan was some cake walk that we could of stopped in a weekend with bb guns. Even modern day Japanese know that there forefathers asked for it,damn they wouldnt even surrender after the first one was dropped.

I can imagine if China had developed Nukes first how many would of got scattered across Japan, and imagine if Nazi Germany had.

Anyhow were only delaying the enevitable just give everyone nukes keeps all the Leftys happy and gets to the Punch line a few decades/hundred/thousand years earlier than hoped/expected.

May peace be with you.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
Damn why do so many people go on and on about the Atomic weopons used in WW2, you make it sound like WW2 Japan was some cake walk that we could of stopped in a weekend with bb guns. Even modern day Japanese know that there forefathers asked for it,damn they wouldnt even surrender after the first one was dropped.
I can imagine if China had developed Nukes first how many would of got scattered across Japan, and imagine if Nazi Germany had.

May peace be with you.


Times have changed and taking over the world is not so easy anymore, i agree if any of the above got thier hands in it first they would have used it, but all that proves is the first one to aquire nukes would have used it, it just happend to be america who one the race , and thank goodness it was'nt germany or japan but mass merder is mass murder no matter the perpetrator.

Simply put if we all de -nuked 2moro the history books would read america was the first and only country to use nuke on a civilian population full stop..

And as for the Japs asking for it thats BULL, no civilian could ask to be nuked thay don't even have a say on wether they sould go to war or not.

May peace be upon you.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Sorry if i was misunderstood Reaper, i didnt mean the Japanese civillians asked for it, but Japan as an Agressive expasionist nation asked for it.

As im sure you are aware Hiroshima was a city of considerable industrial and military significance, Nagasaki was home to wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other many many other war materials, So both these where legitimate targets and would of virtually crippled the Japanese war machine even if they wished to continue there quest for world domination.

Cheers.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
Sorry if i was misunderstood Reaper, i didnt mean the Japanese civillians asked for it, but Japan as an Agressive expasionist nation asked for it.

As im sure you are aware Hiroshima was a city of considerable industrial and military significance, Nagasaki was home to wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other many many other war materials, So both these where legitimate targets and would of virtually crippled the Japanese war machine even if they wished to continue there quest for world domination.

Cheers.


I agree with the above statement, the targets were ligitamate but war is ugly no matter how we look at it.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 07:15 AM
link   
OK, first lets see how this decision could be related to the Middle East situation.



Egypt was one of the countries involved in the attack to recover the Sinai region from Israel, and some time after signed a peace treaty with Israel, and today the relations between the two countries could considered normal.
Egypt's relations with Iran are not good, but they are improving when compared with what they were some years ago.

Saudi Arabia has not been a declared enemy of Israel (as far as I know), but has supported the anti-Israel boycotts.
Relations with Iran are a little shaky, apparently they see each other more as competitors than allies.

UAE's position regarding Israel is something I do not know, but I guess they are not on friendly terms. Interesting is the fact that UAE has some territorial disputes, with Saudi Arabia and with Iran.
Economic relations with Iran are improving.

Morocco is not a Middle East country, and is one of the countries who are actively supporting and encouraging negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.
Relations with Iran are good, but Iran supports the independence of the Western Sahara region.

Argelia is not a Middle East country, and is not on good terms with Israel. Its relations with Iran are improving.

Tunisia is not a Middle East country, its relations with Israel are good, as those with Iran.
Tunisia was the target of an AlQaeda attack, the Ghriba synagogue bombing.


Now, what is the situation regarding energy?

According to the CIA World Factbook, this is the situation:



Algeria
   Electricity - production: 26.99 billion kWh (2003 est.)
   Electricity - consumption: 24.9 billion kWh (2003 est.)
   Oil - production: 1.373 million bbl/day (2005 est.)
   Oil - consumption: 246,000 bbl/day (2004 est.)
   Oil - proved reserves: 12.46 billion bbl (2005 est.)
   Natural gas - production: 82.4 billion cu m (2003 est.)
   Natural gas - consumption: 21.32 billion cu m (2003 est.)
   Natural gas - proved reserves: 4.531 trillion cu m (2005)

Egypt
   Electricity - production: 84.26 billion kWh (2003)
   Electricity - consumption: 78.16 billion kWh (2003)
   Oil - production: 700,000 bbl/day (2005 est.)
   Oil - consumption: 566,000 bbl/day (2003 est.)
   Oil - proved reserves: 2.7 billion bbl (2005 est.)
   Natural gas - production: 27 billion cu m (2003 est.)
   Natural gas - consumption: 27 billion cu m (2003 est.)
   Natural gas - proved reserves: 1.9 trillion cu m (2005)

Morocco
   Electricity - production: 17.35 billion kWh (2003)
   Electricity - consumption: 17.58 billion kWh (2003)
   Oil - production: 300 bbl/day (2005 est.)
   Oil - consumption: 158,000 bbl/day (2003 est.)
   Oil - proved reserves: 100 million bbl (2005 est.)
   Natural gas - production: 5 million cu m (2003 est.)
   Natural gas - consumption: 650 million cu m (2003 est.)
   Natural gas - proved reserves: 1.218 billion cu m (2005)

Saudi Arabia
   Electricity - production: 145.1 billion kWh (2003)
   Electricity - consumption: 134.9 billion kWh (2003)
   Oil - production: 9.475 million bbl/day (2005 est.)
   Oil - consumption: 1.775 million bbl/day (2003)
   Oil - proved reserves: 262.7 billion bbl (2005 est.)
   Natural gas - production: 60.06 billion cu m (2003 est.)
   Natural gas - consumption: 60.06 billion cu m (2003 est.)
   Natural gas - proved reserves: 6.544 trillion cu m (2005)

Tunisia
   Electricity - production: 11.56 billion kWh (2003)
   Electricity - consumption: 10.76 billion kWh (2003)
   Oil - production: 76,000 bbl/day (2004 est.)
   Oil - consumption: 90,000 bbl/day (2003 est.)
   Oil - proved reserves: 1.7 billion bbl (2005 est.)
   Natural gas - production: 2.15 billion cu m (2003 est.)
   Natural gas - consumption: 3.84 billion cu m (2003 est.)
   Natural gas - proved reserves: 77.87 billion cu m (2005)

United Arab Emirates
   Electricity - production: 45.12 billion kWh (2004)
   Electricity - consumption: 38.32 billion kWh (2002)
   Oil - production: 2.396 million bbl/day (2005 est.)
   Oil - consumption: 310,000 bbl/day (2004 est.)
   Oil - proved reserves: 97.8 billion bbl (2005 est.)
   Natural gas - production: 44.79 billion cu m (2003 est.)
   Natural gas - consumption: 37.88 billion cu m (2003 est.)
   Natural gas - proved reserves: 6.006 trillion cu m (2005)


According to those numbers, Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are big oil and natural gas producers, and Tunisia is a big natural gas producer.

Al those countries have oil and natural gas reserves.


So, those countries are not declared enemies of Israel or supporters of Iran.
They are not declared friends of Israel or enemies of Iran.
They all have oil and natural gas reserves.
Some are rich countries, like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, other are poor countries, like Morocco.

Politically, I don't see what may have made those countries and not others to seek nuclear energy technology.

Could it be that they know something that we do not know about the oil and natural gas reserves? Are they expecting to have exhausted those reserves by the time they are supposed to have nuclear energy? And if that is the case, why aren't other countries doing the same?



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Well, first off, thanks very much for the data, ArMaP.
Let's go back to the possibility this is externally generated instead of looking at it as if a disparate group of countries all of a sudden had the same idea. If PNAC is involved in this - along the lines of their philosophy that no clear leader can be allowed to emerge in the region - then the whole "because of U.S. interests" thing will point to the oil and gas reserves. So it kind of makes sense that the research you did shows the common factor for these countries is hydrocarbon reserves.

[edit on 11-5-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   
We have four-hundred years of fossil fuels left, at current pace. The scarcer it gets, the more advance our technological adaptations become. There really is no reason to go Nuclear, but why have many countries in the West decided to? France, Britain, Japan, and the U.S.A. all have expeditious nuclear production capabilites. The reason for going this way is probably the same in the Middle East, as it is in the West.

You people can't be so disinformed and factually distorted to believe that prosperous, Westernizing countries such as Egypt, Morocco, and the U.A.E have alterior motives in this hyperinflationary spiral of sociological surpass.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   
The whole idea is stupid and nuclear weapons should be outlawed, as they are too dangerous to obtain. They should make a law that allows countries to harbor nukes but keep them frozen or in a state where they cannot be used without following certain procedures. But of course once a country has got nukes they all want them for reasons ranging from suspicion that 1 country has them and the other doesnt too fear or defensive measures.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by cognoscente
We have four-hundred years of fossil fuels left, at current pace.


While I'm certain I won't be around to verify this statement, I don't believe that's correct. Of course, we don't really know how many years of fossil fuel we do have left, but the current known reserves won't last that long.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   
well with all the fuel in Antarctica and the poles, and the oil and fuel in other regions, and they'll probably be able to get to more later on in 10-25 years, so basically we might have fuel to last us some 50-100 years, but in 20-30 we'll start feeling the hurt of having too actually look for oil before you use it, which means there can be cuts in oil production, and oil production might slow down sometimes, might go fast sometimes, all this hurts the world economy. there's also global warming, which if that english report is right, would have disastrous effects on environment adn in turn world economy in about 20 years. so basically having a good ammount of your energy needs produced by nuclear energy would be really good right now. anyhow i don't like any of this, hell i'm only 15 years old, i don't wanna have to wear special suits to protect me from the sun and radiation and have wars going up all over the place, or worse if we have a World war, by the time i'm 25, or 35 or 45 or 55 or 65!!!!



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   
It may not matter whether we have 4 , 40, or 400 years left in the world's oil supply.

If the world is forced to drastically curtail the use of petroleum products to lessen the impact of climatic change, the economic impact on these, and other countries in the region, will be severe. Yes, these nations may very well know something the rest of us don't, that the market for their major revune-producing product is about to be significantly reduced.

Consider what happened to the maker of buggy whips when people stopped buying buggy whips.

It won't be easy. It won't be pretty. It might already be too late.

The first world nations of the world are certainly starting to act as if They know that the stinky brown stuff is about to hit the fan.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join