What's new

Is Saudi Arabia a nuclear weapon state now?

tyrant

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Messages
566
Reaction score
0
Country
Saudi Arabia
Location
United States
Guys,

I know you have read about the recent show of DF3 missiles.
What do you think? Can we add KSA to nuclear weapon wielding states or not yet?



This is the Debka article published a while ago:


Saudi Arabia became the first Middle East nation to publicly exhibit its nuclear-capable missiles. The long-range, liquid propellant DF-3 ballistic missile (NATO designated CSS-2), purchased from China 27 years ago, was displayed for the first time at a Saudi military parade Tuesday, April 29, in the eastern military town of Hafar Al-Batin, at the junction of the Saudi-Kuwaiti-Iraqi borders.

The DF-3 has a range of 2,650 km and carries a payload of 2,150 kg. It is equipped with a single nuclear warhead with a 1-3 MT yield.

Watched by a wide array of Saudi defense and military dignitaries, headed by Crown Prince and Deputy Prime Minister Salman bin Abdulaziz, the parade marked the end of the large-scale “Abdullah’s Sword” military war game.

Conspicuous on the saluting stand was the Pakistani Chief of Staff Gen. Raheel Sharif alongside eminent visitors, including King Hamad of Bahrain and Sheikh Muhammad bin Zayed, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi.
debkafile’s military and intelligence sources report the event was deliberately loaded with highly-significant messages, the foremost of which was that the Middle East is in the throes of a nuclear arms race in the wake of the Iranian program.

1. The oil kingdom was saying loud and clear that it has obtained nuclear missiles and is ready to use them in the event of an armed conflict with Iran.

2. The message for Washington was that Riyadh adheres to its adamant objections to the comprehensive accord for resolving the Iranian nuclear question which is racing toward its finale with the six world powers led by the US. The Saudis share Israel’s conviction that this pact - far from dismantling Iran’s nuclear capacity - will seal the Islamic Republic's elevation to the status of pre-nuclear power. The result will be a Middle East war in which the Saudis will take part.
3. The participation of the nuclear DF-3 missiles in the “Abdullah’s Sword” exercise signified Riyadh’s estimate that the coming conflict will see the use of nuclear weapons.
4. By showing off their ageing Chinese missiles, the Saudis intimated that they had acquired the more advanced generation of this weapon, which they are keeping under wraps. debkafile’s intelligence sources report that in recent visits to Beijing, high-ranking Saudi officials negotiated the purchase of Dong-Feng 21 (DF-21), whose range is shorter, 1,700 km, but more precise and effective in view of its terminal radar guidance system. The West has no information about when the new Chinese missiles were delivered to Saudi Arabia.
5. The presence of the top Pakistani soldier at the parade of military and nuclear hardware was meant as corroboration of Islamabad’s active role as the source of the Saudi nuclear arsenal.
6. The Saudis no longer rely on the American nuclear umbrella. They are developing their own nuclear strike force with the help of China and Pakistan.
 
. .
If it ever came out that Pakistan gave Saudis nukes Pakistan would be invaded with UN approval to disarm it. That is why I doubt Pakistan will ever do something so drastic however a nuclear umbrella has probably been in place for a long time.
 
. .
If it ever came out that Pakistan gave Saudis nukes Pakistan would be invaded with UN approval to disarm it. That is why I doubt Pakistan will ever do something so drastic however a nuclear umbrella has probably been in place for a long time.

Why is that? Lot's of countries have been responsible for nuclear proliferation before. KSA is a sovereign state, not a terrorist group.
 
.
Why is that? Lot's of countries have been responsible for nuclear proliferation before. KSA is a sovereign state, not a terrorist group.

Pakistan already got huge scrutiny from the AQ Khan proliferation accusations. Western Nations are always bringing up Pakistani nuclear assets as a security risk, Pakistan needs to keep things close to its chest.
 
.
Debka is a rubbish source. Pakistan is not and will not engage in nuclear poliferation nor we can afford a 4th round of international sanctions.

KSA and Pakistan can have a defense agreement for a nuclear umbrella like NATO has with Turkey. Presence of WMDs in KSA will damage regional security as Iran will weaponize up too.

KSA already has WMD protection, it doesn't need a WMD stockpile of its own.
 
.
I would actually be happy to see Iran as a nuclear power for all their hard work and history they deserve it.
 
. .
Give them the bumb seriously. These articles would just stop then hahaha
 
.
There were these two small but very sophisticated south african nuclear bombs that went missing somewhere in the gulf states, while being transported by britain...
What do you make of it?
 
. .
OP's article is speculative at best and is much like some one desperately clutching at anything they can reach. Totally fails as propaganda piece. Certainly not worthy of serious attention.

What do you mean by that ? Say for example Israel nuke KSA then in return Pakistan will nuke Israel ? Am i correct ?

Yes.

Any country that thinks of harming our Arab brothers will have to watch out for us. Everybody knows it and that is why nobody will think of attempting any such thing.

There were these two small but very sophisticated south african nuclear bombs that went missing somewhere in the gulf states, while being transported by britain...
What do you make of it?

We would need to see what evidence can be brought to substantiate it. On the face of it, this sounds like speculation. A weapon is worthless if untested.

Suppose the story is true, how could anyone be sure that any or both of these speculative packages does / does not work? Even if one is demonstrated to be an actual bomb, there is no guarantee that the other would be a bomb too.

Nothing equals the certainty of possessing the demonstrable technology especially in nuclear field. Buying nuclear devices is not a realistic option. How can one be sure at all?
 
Last edited:
. .
OP's article is speculative at best and is much like some one desperately clutching at anything they can reach. Totally fails as propaganda piece. Certainly not worthy of serious attention.



Yes.

Any country that thinks of harming our Arab brothers will have to watch out for us. Everybody knows it and that is why nobody will think of attempting any such thing.



We would need to see what evidence can be brought to substantiate it. On the face of it, this sounds like speculation. A weapon is worthless if untested.

Suppose the story is true, how could anyone be sure that any or both of these speculative packages does / does not work? Even if one is demonstrated to be an actual bomb, there is no guarantee that the other would be a bomb too.

Nothing equals the certainty of possessing the demonstrable technology especially in nuclear field. Buying nuclear devices is not a realistic option. How can one be sure at all?
Those came from the South African total of 10 nuclear bombs, with one tested. Actually 3 went missing somewhere in the middle east.
You can read about it, it is all over the net for a while now, here follows an example:
BROKEN ARROW, THE MOST DANGEROUS WEAPONS OF ALL | Veterans Today
 
.
Back
Top Bottom