Report: Saudi Arabia to buy nukes if Iran tests A-bomb (From "Arab Spring" to nuclear Middle-East)

MSNBC ^ | 2/10/2012 | staff

[Venturer]

Playing us like a large game fish.

[af_vet_rr]

Playing us like a large game fish.

Indeed they are. They could have dealt with Iraq in 1990-1991 if they so chose to unite and do so. They did not. They wanted Iraq out of Kuwait and punished, but not bad enough that they would risk a lot of the lives of their own soldiers and people.

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

Tom Lehrer couldn’t be reached for comment but if he could he might have said:

One of the big news items of the past year concerned the fact that China, which we called “Red China,” exploded a nuclear bomb, which we called a device. Then Indonesia announced that it was going to have one soon, and proliferation became the word of the day. Here’s a song about that:

First we got the bomb, and that was good,
‘Cause we love peace and motherhood.
Then Russia got the bomb, but that’s okay,
‘Cause the balance of power’s maintained that way.
Who’s next?

France got the bomb, but don’t you grieve,
‘Cause they’re on our side (I believe).
China got the bomb, but have no fears,
They can’t wipe us out for at least five years.
Who’s next?

Then Indonesia claimed that they
Were gonna get one any day.
South Africa wants two, that’s right:
One for the black and one for the white.
Who’s next?

Egypt’s gonna get one too,
Just to use on you know who.
So Israel’s getting tense.
Wants one in self defense.
“The Lord’s our shepherd,” says the psalm,
But just in case, we better get a bomb.
Who’s next?

Luxembourg is next to go,
And (who knows?) maybe Monaco.
We’ll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb.
Who’s next?
Who’s next?
Who’s next?
Who’s next?

[Publius]

Tom Lehrer: "Who's Next?"

[GOPJ]

Interesting, since Pakistan has said they would back Iran if they were attacked over their nuclear program.

Pakistan plays all sides against the middle, right? We were taken in by them - we're not the only ones. They've probably already sold nukes to both sides in this mess - wonder when they'll deliver...

[Ohioan]

What you describe, here, should not be characterized as "alarmist." While we disagree on a remedy, what you describe is one facet of what is probably the inevitable future; and it dictates an inevitable remedy.

We have to beef up our defense posture, frankly understanding that guerrilla warfare (which morphs into terrorism when not confined by national borders), by its very nature, will employ stealth attacks. When you throw in a rejection of traditional moral values, which limit what we in the West find morally acceptable, you enter a phase where what you describe become far more likely.

Thus we need not only beefed up space defenses to take out any incoming missiles; but much better port, coast & border security. An immediate start would be efficient profiling of airports, and taking those, who have been groping old native born white women, to searching cargo holds of all sorts.

The idea of targeting a succession of possible or actual hostile nations, who are likely to be replaced by another set of hostile nations, tomorrow, helps people vent anger, but does not address the real problem--which really is the future.

For example: Who would have believed that after American Naval units, visiting Japan in a goodwill gesture in the 19th Century, leading to her reentry into world affairs, would be the target of a surprise attack in 1941? Who would have believed (before the Axis powers lined up together in the 1930s) that Germany would declare war on the United States, in 1941, immediately after responded to the Japanese attack. (At the time, the largest population of German rooted immigrant families in the world was in the United States.)

Of course, by 1941, all of that was actually predictable. Germany was the victim in 1922/23 of the monetary policies, again in fashion in many lands. The middle-class was virtually wiped out; the people turned in desperation to a consummate Austrian demagogue who forged the above alliance. One thing followed another.

The problem is, that we cannot really predict what other land, or where, the next collapse of a now stable social order will occur. There is no place on the planet, where it is certain that will not occur. We need to be prepared for the threats that you describe, from whatever source. Focusing on one region, in my opinion--particularly on the other side of the world (for all sorts of reasons, a mistake)--simply puts off vital preparations, in addition to multiplying those who hate us to the point that they will commit atrocities on Americans in other lands; brutality that serves no real interests of anyone.

I have never been an advocate of Mutually Assured Destruction; that was the Fabian Defense Secretary under JFK/LBJ. We needed to win the technological war, so that only our enemies would face destruction. And we did that in the 1980s. Now we still have that superiority over Iran, but we need to guard against any variation of the threat that you indentify, but seek to limit to one region (a mistake).

William Flax

William Flax