Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Saudi Nukes: The Game Is On
Investor's Business Daily ^ | February 23, 2011

Posted on 02/23/2011 4:26:01 PM PST by Pan_Yan

Mideast Arms Race: If you think surprise upheavals of long-stable Islamic regimes are scary, how does a nuclearized Saudi Arabia courtesy of France grab you? The fallout from Iran's nuclear program is arriving.

The kingdom of Saudi Arabia on Tuesday announced a deal with France to collaborate on the research, development and handling of nuclear materials — for peaceful purposes only, of course.

Why would the world's biggest oil exporter, the country with the most reserves on the globe, be investing in nuclear energy of all things? The Saudis' official reason is that they wish to reduce their country's consumption of oil and gas in the coming decades, good enviro-conscious players on the world stage that they are.

The truth, however, is that Saudi Arabia has been more than mildly interested in nuclear-weapons capability for a lot longer than most might realize.

In 1988, Los Angeles Times reporter Jim Mann revealed that an obscure U.S. official whose job was to keep track of airstrip construction around the world had recently "looked at a reconnaissance photo of the Saudi Arabian desert and noticed something extraordinary about a newly constructed airfield" — that the Saudis were installing Chinese CSS-2 intermediate-range missiles, which are designed to carry atom bombs.

With a range of about 1,500 miles, Saudi Arabia could use such rockets to attack Israel, India, Russia — or Iran.

(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: iran; nukes; saudiarabia

1 posted on 02/23/2011 4:26:04 PM PST by Pan_Yan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan

I read years ago that they had some non-ballistic nukes. May have been erroneous?


2 posted on 02/23/2011 4:28:31 PM PST by Christian Engineer Mass (25ish Cambridge MA grad student. Many younger conservative Christians out there? __ Click my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan

What do they expect them to do, allow the forces aligned against them to win? It is human nature to hang on to power as long as possible. With nukes, they can take out their Sunni and Shia foes in other lands, when the dust settles from these “democratic” uprisings.


3 posted on 02/23/2011 4:31:19 PM PST by runninglips (government debt = slavery of the masses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan

“...the country with the most reserves on the globe...”

.
It has been established that the US has more proven reserves. Only ours are worthless because they remeain unused.


4 posted on 02/23/2011 4:32:42 PM PST by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: runninglips

After we give everything a few years to cool off can we just break through the glass and start pumping the oil again?


5 posted on 02/23/2011 4:33:35 PM PST by Pan_Yan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan

whoa...


6 posted on 02/23/2011 4:34:32 PM PST by thatdewd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan

Why don’t we save them some money and sell them a few nukes? They can hire us to run their silos, as well.


7 posted on 02/23/2011 4:35:21 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan

The experts predicted that if the Persians get The Bomb the Arabs will have to get it to defend themselves from them.


8 posted on 02/23/2011 4:36:55 PM PST by McGruff (If you tell a lie enough times some people will come to believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Tech support could still be done in india it would no be a long..... long distance phone call


9 posted on 02/23/2011 4:38:53 PM PST by al baby (Hi Mom!!! <sarc>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
how does a nuclearized Saudi Arabia courtesy of France grab you?

With a range of about 1,500 miles, Saudi Arabia could use such rockets to attack Israel, India, Russia — or Iran.

Or, with only a slightly longer-range missile, France.

10 posted on 02/23/2011 4:39:52 PM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan

Nukes? Just a little EMP weapon would be enough.


11 posted on 02/23/2011 4:42:30 PM PST by jonrick46 (We're being water boarded with the sewage of Fabian Socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan

Don’t worry, the Saudi Royal Family is not going to nuke their customers.


12 posted on 02/23/2011 4:48:50 PM PST by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 353FMG

Do you have a source on that?


13 posted on 02/23/2011 5:21:00 PM PST by Eyes Unclouded ("The word bipartisan means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." -George Carlin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan

Saudi’s been doing the WMD shuffle for many years, nukes *and* the largest bioweapon effort in the world after biopreparat folded.

The US always knew.


14 posted on 02/23/2011 5:29:52 PM PST by Hardraade (I want gigaton warheads now!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
Don’t worry, the Saudi Royal Family is not going to nuke their customers.

Who's to say the Royal Family remains in charge?

15 posted on 02/23/2011 6:03:51 PM PST by GreyMountainReagan ("Pray for America")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: runninglips

If islamists anywhere in the world get into a war for all the marbles with a nuclear power, Mecca and Medina are logical targets.

If the Allah described in the Koran exists, Mecca and Medina are under divine protection by an omnipotent god.

If Mecca and Medina can be obliterated, than any Allah that exists is not the omnipotent god described in the Koran and the Hadith. Destroying them would be a knockout moral blow.

The Saudis have to see the precariousness of their situation.


16 posted on 02/23/2011 6:11:22 PM PST by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Christian Engineer Mass

I believe that Saudi has had nukes for two decades. CSS-2 missiles, which they have, were developed for nukes only. They are very inaccurate and of no use except as nuclear weapons delivery devices or giant erasers for looks (http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/missile/saudi.htm). Logic dictates that the Saudis can certainly afford the nukes and China would be willing to deliver them for the right price. Why purchase a large number of CSS-2 missiles without nuclear payloads? The answer is - nobody would!

The nuclear weapons allegedly came from China via Pakistan with Chinese technicians in charge of maintenance and upgrades. This missile uses a very toxic fuel and when it is being fueled, humans must be in full environmental protection suits as sealed as an astronaut space suit. Very nasty stuff. Saudis, of course, do not do this fueling.

An interesting book entitled The Gold of the Exodus by Howard Blum, is about where the real Mt. Sinai is located and alleges that the Saudi had nukes as a side note. The book was written in 1998.

I also know that the Israelis did train to take out some bases in Saudi much like they had done on the Iraq Tammuz nuclear facility in 1981 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera).

A nuclear Saudi would have been a game changer in the Middles East especially in the First Gulf War as the CSS-2s were reportedly being targeted at Baghdad. If this were true, then the First Gulf War was unnecessary. Politically public knowledge of this would be a disaster for US foreign relations so it has always been denied at the highest levels. BTW, I was against sending troops to Saudi in support of Kuwait in 1991 for some strange reason!


17 posted on 02/23/2011 6:20:07 PM PST by inthaihill (Bangkok Safe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: inthaihill

OK thanks for the info.

“If this were true, then the First Gulf War was unnecessary”

I don’t see how you got there. Saddam was never going into Saudi. “desert shield” was just a rouse of course. But the Saudis wouldn’t have nuked him toget them out of kuwait


18 posted on 02/23/2011 6:54:37 PM PST by Christian Engineer Mass (25ish Cambridge MA grad student. Many younger conservative Christians out there? __ Click my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Christian Engineer Mass

-———Saddam was never going into Saudi.-——

You are very very wrong. The Iraqi’s actually entered Saudi Arabia at Kafgee and were driven off buy a Qatari armored unit and Saudi Ttoops backed by a small unit of US Marines.


19 posted on 02/23/2011 7:05:02 PM PST by bert (K.E. N.P. N.C. D.E. +12 ....( History is a process, not an event ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan

Only France?! Don’t think so.

The house of Saud came into existence long ago, thanks to British support.

The point is that as long as the West (in general, regardless of whether it is France, Britain, U.S., etc..) makes S.Arabia or any part of the moslem world their own so-called playground or for their own interests (factual or perceived by most of the population in the ME/N.Africa region), we, in the West, will continue to have problems (oil inclusive) & there will be trouble brewing in that region, which will, eventually, affect us in the West too.

I watched David Cameron’s recent visit to Egypt with some interest. It was gracious of him to admit that Britain, for example, has been a key player in the ME region for some time due to its wish for maintaining its own interests, and that now he wished to see a shift to ‘democracy’ in the region....

Same time, there are many ordinary people in the ME/N.Africa, who continue to ask: So, Mr David Cameron, will the British & Western gov’ts’ interests cease to exist now? Or, why on earth do you care about ‘democracy & freedom’ in our countries, when you’ve shown no interest in them for decades, if not centuries, beyond installing (religious or secular) gov’ts who have served your own purpose!

You understand that the above is not necessarily my views, but the general sentiments echoed in the ME/N. African region.


20 posted on 02/23/2011 7:31:30 PM PST by odds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan

Folks, please think long and hard about this news.

The “possibility” of Iran someday having nukes just became the “probability” of nuclear weapons on the loose in the Mideast.

If any of you think these wild-eyed lunatics can keep their dirty fingers off the button, God bless you. But I don’t think so. In fact, I’m certain that we will again see mushroom clouds on the surface of the Earth ... in our lifetimes.

Dust off those old 1950’s Civil Defense manuals and start learning everything you can about nuclear weapons effects and defensive measures. As in ... RIGHT NOW!


21 posted on 02/23/2011 8:10:49 PM PST by DNME (With the sound of distant drums ... something wicked this way comes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Christian Engineer Mass
Saddam was never going into Saudi.

Erroneous. The first engagement between the Coalition and Iraq occurred on Saudi soil, before the counterattack to drive Iraq from Kuwait began. The Saudis actually fired the first shots of the engagement of an Iraqi armored brigade about 20 miles into Saudi Arabia...

the infowarrior

22 posted on 02/23/2011 8:50:18 PM PST by infowarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DNME
In fact, I’m certain that we will again see mushroom clouds on the surface of the Earth ... in our lifetimes.

Yes, unfortunately. More than likely.
23 posted on 02/23/2011 9:33:58 PM PST by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 4:15, 5:13; John 3:17-18, 6:69, 11:25, 14:6, 20:31; Rom10:8-11; 1 Tim 2:5; Titus 3:4-5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Christian Engineer Mass

My position was based on knowledge of Saudi’s ability to retaliate with a public acknowledgement of their nuclear arsenal. You say that Iraq had no intentions of invading Saudi Arabia but they had, in fact, positioned eleven divisions along the Kuwait-Saudi border (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/history/desert_storm/desert_storm.html). Desert Shield was an operation to protect Saudi Arabia from invasion by these forces. Intelligence at the time indicated the “ruse” as you called it was real and possible. Eleven full divisions of Republican Guard and army mechanized infantry is not a defensive arrangement. So said the analyst at the time (me included).

Imagine what would have happened if Iraq were shown Saudi CSS-2s loaded with tactical nukes aimed at targets in Iraq to include Baghdad. If the Saudis had nukes, is there a possibility that the US decided it better for foreign policy purposes to use American and allied forces whether to the allow such an unbelievable truth to come out. Had analyst look at the intelligence (which was very compelling) and then rationalize it by saying the Saudis would have told us if they had obtained nukes. Foolish is as foolish does.

An interesting situation, don’t you think?


24 posted on 02/23/2011 10:29:00 PM PST by inthaihill (Bangkok Safe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: inthaihill

“Desert Shield was an operation to protect Saudi Arabia from invasion by these forces”

Desert Shield was an operation to plausibly get a large amount of military into the theatre for Desert Storm.

Saudi nukes wouldn’t have got them out of Kuwait, which needed to happen. With Kuwaiti oil money, Saddam would still be in power now, and Iraq would be 50x the problem it ever was.


25 posted on 02/24/2011 6:42:05 AM PST by Christian Engineer Mass (25ish Cambridge MA grad student. Many younger conservative Christians out there? __ Click my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DNME

When nukes go live, it’ll be via the truck, not the missile. And the real attacker will do it via a “rogue group” proxy.

And it will be the muslims we have let into the US legally that do it.


26 posted on 02/24/2011 6:55:55 AM PST by Christian Engineer Mass (25ish Cambridge MA grad student. Many younger conservative Christians out there? __ Click my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DNME
Dust off those old 1950’s Civil Defense manuals and start learning everything you can about nuclear weapons effects and defensive measures.

I remember being taught to duck under my school desk, but I don't think that works anymore...


27 posted on 02/24/2011 7:00:26 AM PST by COBOL2Java (Obama is the least qualified guy in whatever room he walks into.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd

Tha Saudis have more to worry about than the kaabaa being blown to smithereens, which would shatter islam. Every one of the house of Saud have genetic markers making it easy to target the group with an engineered plague.

Leaving no Sauds alive anywhere in the world.


28 posted on 02/24/2011 7:28:14 AM PST by Hardraade (I want gigaton warheads now!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Christian Engineer Mass

Not sure where you are getting your information on what the intent of the operation was. Yes, it was giving us time to move the necessary equipment into the area to remove the Iraqis from Kuwait but it had nothing to do with plausible deniability which you imply. My information comes from personal experience as I was one of the Intel Requirements Officers working in the Collection Coordination Facility in the Pentagon during the Gulf War. With eleven full armored Iraqi divisions sitting on the border between Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, there was genuine concern of an impending invasion.

Do not discount that as one of the reasons for Desert Shield. It was the topic of concern in every meeting I attended up and down the chain.

Can anyone really say what a nuke set off in the middle of the desert would or would not do? Again, the CSS-2s were targeting Iraqi installations. Neither of us can say definitively what would or would not happen.


29 posted on 02/24/2011 7:33:01 AM PST by inthaihill (Bangkok Safe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Eyes Unclouded

Don’t you read the Oil and Gas Journal and have you not followed geological news for the last 5 years?


30 posted on 02/24/2011 8:20:35 AM PST by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 353FMG

No. Also no not really. That’s why I was curious. Are you talking about the Bakken thing in the Dakotas?


31 posted on 02/24/2011 9:56:27 AM PST by Eyes Unclouded ("The word bipartisan means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." -George Carlin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Eyes Unclouded

Not only in the Dakotas but also offshore Gulf of Mexico, West and East Coast. And with enhanced drilling technology developed in the last 30 years it is possible to recover more oil from wells that have been declared ‘depleted’.

All we need is the will and serious intention to develop our own oil wealth and stick with it. Just imagine what it will do to our unemployment problem, alone.


32 posted on 02/24/2011 10:20:19 AM PST by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson