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.

 

Arab Nation May be Going Nuclear

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Arab Nation May be Going Nuclear


www.military.com

According to an expert on the Middle East, Israel may soon no longer be alone in possessing nuclear weapons in that volatile region of the globe.

But the other power with "the bomb" may not necessarily be Iran. While some countries claim Tehran is bent on becoming a nuclear-armed power – a claim Iran denies – an Arab country already is taking steps to go nuclear, says Jim Hoagland, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post journalist, who spoke Thursday at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
A very interesting tease of an article from Military.com today regarding a recent interview with Washington Post news reporter Jim Hoagland who claims he is developing information and leads that a Arab nation he refuses to name is on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons.

The War on Terror now going on its tenth year is shaping up to be the Cold War replacement for the Military Industrial Complex as talk of missile shields lead to a new kind of arms race and expensive permanent funding of expensive research and technology that very likely like in the case of the Cold War never be used.

Mutually Assured Destruction that belief that neither the Soviets nor the Americans would use nuclear weapons to attack one another as both nations would be totally wiped out in the process, a totally free idea, had more to do with the stockpiles of expensive weaponry each super power produced in the Cold War Arms race.

Amazingly part of the Middle East threat today is based on the fear that some of those arms produced in mass quantities to ensure each nations mutual destruction will eventually fall into the hands of radical elements who will buy them from corrupt elements from the Soviet Union or the U.S.

Is it all just an elaborate hoax to keep us in fear and our tax dollars going to funding and developing more and more weapons as if the planet didn’t already have enough of them laying around?


www.military.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   

"As a senior Arab political official who was in town recently said to a small group of us, [that] it's clear there is already activity underway on the Arab side on the development of nuclear weapons," Hoagland told a packed room at the institute's offices. Hoagland did not identify the Arab official or others in the "small group," and hastened to add that there were "no details to provide."


Just like in the Cold War where you had a Western/Capitilist/Christian side and a Eastern/Communist/Athiest side, now we have that first side lined up against an Arab/Islamic side.

Makes you kind of wonder what the Arab/Islamic side was doing during the Cold War? Patiently waiting their turn?


Israel is the only known Middle Eastern country with nuclear weapons -- with anywhere from 100 to 400 warheads in its stockpile. The Jewish nation -- which has never signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty -- never confirms or denies its nuclear status. And the U.S., to avoid an embarrassing clash with its closest ally in the region, never confirms or denies Israel's nuclear arsenal as well.


Of course the presumed greatest threat is always to Israel. This is even though Israel is home to some of the holiest shrines and places in Islam that they likely would rather see in hostile hands than destroyed.


In 2007 Israel bombed a Syrian site that it claimed was being used for nuclear weapons development. Syria has denied the accusation and an official with a Vienna-based agency that follows nuclear weapons issues says there has never been evidence shown to support the Israeli claim.


Do these kinds of paranoid based unillateral actions on the part of Israel help to stabilize or destabilize the region, and drive Arab nations to seek out the MAD doctrine of self protection?


"I think there's some interesting continuity on this point," Hoagland said. "During the Bush administration there was discussion about a nuclear umbrella, a doctrine that would be directed at reassuring Arab states in the Gulf, Arab states at large, that they would be protected against an Iranian nuclear weapon."


Is just this another way to subjucate Arab nations and their oil supplies?



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
That is a bit of a tease....My money would be on Saudi Arabia. Interesting how the article mentions cooperation between Saudis & Pakistan....couldn't they just buy them from the U.S.


If it was Syria it's hard to believe Israel wouldn't know about it and bomb them again....

Your M.A.D. idea for the region is an interesting take as well....big danger for crazy factions taking control of them (I know you'll say ~Israel~ in response to that) but just saying...

Do you think Israel would ever push the big red button on someone?



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Signals
That is a bit of a tease....My money would be on Saudi Arabia. Interesting how the article mentions cooperation between Saudis & Pakistan....couldn't they just buy them from the U.S.


If it was Syria it's hard to believe Israel wouldn't know about it and bomb them again....

Your M.A.D. idea for the region is an interesting take as well....big danger for crazy factions taking control of them (I know you'll say ~Israel~ in response to that) but just saying...

Do you think Israel would ever push the big red button on someone?


Yes in fact I truly believe that if Israel ever finds itself so pressed that it's on the verge of being wiped out that it would not only fire it's nuclear arsenal at the nations attacking it but the nations that refused to come to it's aide to save it.

That is sadly the downside to Mutually Assured Destruction friend, when and if it happens it's likely going to result in who ever pushes the button in desperation taking out everyone for spite.

In my humble opinion NO NATION should have nuclear weapons.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
I just hate the fact that I am being teased with this information. I read Saudi Arabia could be a good contender for this but I think it is way to obvious. My first question is, when he says Arab does he mean North Africa too? Because if he includes North Africa I would have to say Egypt, but if he doesn't mean them too I would have to say Oman.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I agree but nobody will ever offer to turn them in first.

"Is just this another way to subjugate Arab nations and their oil supplies?"

YES, without a doubt!

[edit on 11-1-2010 by Signals]



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


It is perplexing and hard to imagine it’s the Saudis since we have such a huge military presence on their soil as a remnant from the first Gulf War, the same holds true for Kuwait and the Emirates.

I doubt it would be Egypt since they receive billions each year as a result of the Camp David Accords and would be putting that stipend in risk to have nuclear weapons.

Jordan would be in that same boat. It’s possible Libya or Oman or Yemen could be who Hoagland is eluding too? Or it could just be some well planted fiction to fuel a new type of arms race or broaden the War on Terror?

Thanks for posting.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


As ridiculous as it sounds I wouldn't be surprised if he IS referring to Yemen....seeing as how that is where the propaganda is being focused as of late. OMG WMD's, "They're coming right for us"



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Excuse my ignorance...


But does Pakistan not count as an Arab Middle Eastern nuclear power?? They are touching Iran. They are a Muslim nation.

They have a stockpile of nuclear weapons, and have since the early 90s.

This is common knowledge.



[edit on 11-1-2010 by seattletruth]



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Signals
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I agree but nobody will ever offer to turn them in first.

"Is just this another way to subjugate Arab nations and their oil supplies?"

YES, without a doubt!

[edit on 11-1-2010 by Signals]


It is all about oil, both controlling the supply and keeping it expensive through the politics of fear and uncertainty that drive the prices up on the spot market.

I sold my car and bought a bicycle instead so I don't have to be enslaved and hostage to it!

It is thought provoking that Israel has an estimated 300-400 nuclear weapons. There simply aren't that many Arab/Muslim targets out there!

Mutually Assured Destruction is alive and well!



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by seattletruth
Excuse my ignorance...


But does Pakistan not count as a Middle Eastern nuclear power?? They are touching Iran.

They have a stockpile of nuclear weapons, and have since the early 90s.



Pakistan like Iran are Asian and not Middle Eastern Nations. They are not Arabs, but simply Muslim.

A lot of times people confuse variosu Asian Islamic nations with Arab nations simply because they are Muslims.

Arabs and the Persian Asian Iranians actually despise each other. The Persians consider themselves superior to Arabs, and most Asians consider themselves superior to the other barbarians of the world!



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Signals
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


As ridiculous as it sounds I wouldn't be surprised if he IS referring to Yemen....seeing as how that is where the propaganda is being focused as of late. OMG WMD's, "They're coming right for us"


Yemen is probably the poorest nation in the Middle East since it has no real oil reserves. Their citizens do have a lot of trouble with the Saudi Government though and the Nomad lifestyle of Arabs crossing borders is still very much real.

The Saudis fear Yemenese tribesmen who are opposed to their secular rule and religious policies.

The Saudis for some reason seem to enjoy almost as favored a nation status with us here in the U.S. as Israel does.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


The only reason I say Oman is because they have a 14% GDP spending on there military, while this doesn't give a definite answer it is just a great reason to believe it is Oman. I know it isn't Libya because they have been watched very closely since the '80s with this nuclear stuff so it's not them. I know it isn't Bahrain or Qatar because they are not into military technology that much. It isn't Saudi Arabia because they are too closely watched. It isn't the UAE because they are also closely watched because they have alot of capital running through their nation. It isn't Jordan or Egypt because of your reasons. It isn't Syria because Israel would just blow it up again. So these just leaves Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Yemen, Oman, and Azerbaijan. It might also be Turkey because they already know how to make the weapons and the US would not make a big deal of them having 'the bomb'.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


OK, I was right to say "excuse my ignorance" then, LOL

But really that's just using technicalities for fear mongering, to make it seem like Muslims don't have nuclear capabilities already. Also, all Muslim nations hate eachother. Every single one. That's they don't form an Arab union. That's why they have their own nations.

And furthermore, I have a lot of friends in Pakistan, and they would be pretty offended if you told them they weren't Arab. Also almost every single person in the country can read and speak Arabic.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.... I'd say they were an Arab nation.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Turkey might be a good bet as might Oman, Morracco or Tunisia.

Great speculation friend, thanks for putting your thinking cap on!



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Very interesting teaser from military.com. Now, who is the new nuclear kid on the block in the Middle East? Hmmm? I am willing to wager my bets on the Saudi's. They have the money to do just about what ever they like. Plus, they have the world largest oil consumer, the US, by the stones with their oil output. Not to mention, they have a bitter neighbor nearby with the Iranian Shiites who are allegedly creating a nuclear deterrent.

So, it is most likely the Saudis. However, I could be way off, but given their role in world with oil production, and the capital derived by such business, it makes sense. Now, if it is true and it goes public, the US once again finds itself the monkey in the middle in terms of politics in the region.

I am sure the Israelis would raise a stink about it as well, given Saudi Arabia's proximity to their country, and frothing at the mouth terrorist element operating in the country who could one day seize such an arsenal. It would essentially put the US between a rock and a hard place in terms of current Middle East foreign policy. How would the US handle such affront by an ally in the region, since they practically turn a blind eye to Israel's nuclear arsenal. Very interesting development.

[edit on 11-1-2010 by Jakes51]



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Why it is not Yemen. Yemen is too poor and never had a truly established military before either. They are mostly nomadic tribes and the government has little if any control outside the larger cities. They are not allies of any country with the knowledge of how to make the bomb either except Pakistan and highly doubt Pakistan wants another country with radicals to have 'the bomb' since they are afraid enough for their own stockpile let alone give it to another failing state. It is Mauritania because they are in too much distress after the coup d’état and their unstable junta's along with deep poverty and they are just now finding oil reserves. I doubt it is Morocco either even though they are not in deep poverty like Yemen or Mauritania and they do not have many radicals and are actually quite peaceful. I doubt it is Tunisia because they really have no reason to build the bomb since they have no enemies and are not very big on their military technologies. I highly doubt it is Lebanon either because if they were doing that Israel would just bomb it. So this really only leaves Algeria, Oman, Sudan, and Turkey. But with Algeria if they were to develop the bomb they would be monitored like Pakistan was in the '90s and Libya in the '80s and Iran now. If it were Sudan they would not be harassed, you know why? Because they have nothing to offer the US like Libya, Iraq and Iran does so we would never mess with them. If it were Oman we wouldn't really think twice about it since they are stabile and don't have enemies, they are quite neutral in the Middle East. And it might be Turkey because it would be a great thing to NATO, have another nuclear power in the Middle East to deter Iran. So watch for Sudan and Oman, but especially Turkey.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
The fact that a journalist knows about it and the intelligence service are not beating the war drums I would say Saudi. And I suspect it would be part of some US deal.. Hence the lack of coverage and the usual warmongering.

Why not, you give them just about everthing else?



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Agreed. I don't believe for a second it's Yemen....but the war rhetoric suggests that is who we are pointing our fingers at right now...

A very interesting thread posted by lel1111 about Yemen Here




top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join