My point is merely that it is a step in the right direction to begin this process of mastering the full nuclear cycle and establishing one of the most sophisticated and one of the largest nuclear energy infrastructures in the world (in fact). The "bomb" while an option sometime in the future in theory, is just a side bonus but who is seriously going to threaten KSA with nuclear mayhem and which country (ies) is KSA supposedly going to nuke? Neighboring countries (Israel and Iran) and in return suffer from the after effects? That's why it is such a silly discussion.
Every country on the planet should have a right to pursue nuclear energy and in theory also building the bomb. However there are some exceptions. For instance I am not sure that the current North Korean regime is the right pick or the Iranian Mullah's but that is just me.
However it is a bit unfair that tiny Israel (extension of the US by all accounts) can built nuclear weapons with Western aid and they do not suffer any scrutiny at all nor is their right to have nuclear weapons questioned. However this right was denied to Libya and Iraq in the past and nowadays Iran and probably KSA as well and others be they Egypt or Turkey.
Some say that nuclear weapons actually enhance peace, that can very well be the case, which might actually be an argument for why more nuclear armed states in the Middle East could ensure some kind of stability or at least prevent major wars from occurring such as the Iraq-Iran war and others.
It's a complicated topic as nuclear weapons should not exist in a ideal world. Imagine for a second that everything turns into mayhem tomorrow morning and all nuclear bombs somehow go off (of course this is never going to happen in theory). Well that would mean the end of not only us humans but the entire planet as we know it. It's a deadly weapon and while countries are moving towards nuclear energy such as KSA, UAE and others, some European countries are moving away from it (Germany) and Japan due to safety reasons if I am not wrong.
Don't be a full on retard.
@Sharif al-Hijaz has already posted links that show Americans are bending over backwards to get contracts from KSA to build their nuclear reactors - possibly even ignore the rul;es on uranium. And you think after having won the contracts to build Saudi reactors Americans are going sanction KSA. Are you trying to be dumb or are you born that way? USA would sanction half of the world before they sanction KSA.
KSA practically owns the White House that Trump sits in.
That's a misunderstanding. US firms are pressuring the US government to win some of the contracts that KSA is offering not to lose influence in this regard to competitors and "enemies" such as China and Russia. They want to control that aspect of KSA hence the "123 agreement" that they wanted KSA to sign which was refused by KSA and rightly so.
US could in theory turn against KSA any moment in time. It would be costly and a stupidity from their part but we are not talking about some unbreakable bond at all. You also overestimate KSA's influence greatly in relation to the relationship with the US.
This is more complicated than this. With Saudi Arabian and Russian ties reaching unprecedented heights (in the modern era if not of all-time) and China getting a bigger and bigger foothold in the GCC and region (Djibouti - where KSA and China are building a military base next to each other - what a coincidence), the Saudi Aramco IPO (that China has shown tremendous interest for), recent mass-investments from both sides, One Road One Belt (if I recall the name) project that China wants KSA and the GCC to join (which will happen) and other projects, one gets a picture of diminishing US influence. 20 years ago this was
exclusive US domain with leftovers for the UK.
