Why Pakistan won't sell Saudi the Bomb!

[shuntmaster]

It is their bomb(funded by them).. I dont think they will be too pleased if you try to sell it to them.

Pakistan ready to give Saudi Arabia nuclear bombs, experts say
Riyadh's instant nuclear option is a clear signal to the West not to be tempted into cutting the Iranians slack.

Saudi Arabia helped finance the Pakistani nuclear weapons program and is confident Islamabad will give it atomic bombs – which could trigger a Middle Eastern nuclear arms race, the BBC reported on Wednesday. According to a NATO source, Pakistan actually has made bombs for Saudi Arabia and they are ready to go, the report said.

Experts say the kingdom has long aspired to achieve nuclear capacity of its own, in order to counter Iran's atomic ambitions. Getting the bomb merely by tapping Pakistan for it could bring the unnerved kingdom, which is openly anxious about Washington's warming ties with Iran, into the nuclear age even before its Muslim neighbor, they now suggest.

"They [Saudis] already paid for the bomb, they will go to Pakistan and bring what they need to bring," former Israeli Military Intelligence chief Amos Yadlin said, according to the BBC.

Saudi Arabia hasn't hidden its ambition, openly stating to the U.S. as early as 2009 that it would also seek capacity if "Iran crossed the threshold," the BBC reported, adding that Saudi Arabia has had the missile technology to deliver warheads since the late 1980s. In May 2012, former senior U.S. diplomat Dennis Ross confirmed for the first time that Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah explicitly warned that if Iran obtains nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia would seek to do so as well.

Iran may not be the only target: Jane's reported last summer that Saudi Arabia has missile launchers aimed at Israel too.

The state of Iran's nuclear project is far from clear. Some sources, including the U.S.-base Institution for Science and International Security, think Tehran could be just weeks away from stockpiling enough enriched uranium to produce its first nuclear weapon, based on the amounts of enriched uranium that the Iranians have accumulated so far and on the number of fast centrifuges that have been installed recently.

The ISIS did not postulate on how long it would actually take to build a working bomb from that stockpile.

As for the perceived changes in Iran's attitude towards the West, spearheaded by the newly-elected president Hassan Rohani, Israeli military sources do not believe they change Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

Washington meanwhile recently suggested that it believes building the bomb could take at least a year. In late October the White House urged Senate committee leaders to hold off on new sanctions, in order to give negotiation a chance.

The detailed BBC report on the Saudi funding of Pakistan's military nuclear program didn't add too many new details. The assumption that the Saudi kingdom invested billions of Dollars in building the Islamic bomb and in return can demand an operation nuclear weapon at any time, that the Pakistanis were basically the contractors and custodians who absorbed international condemnation while the Saudis picked up the tab, has long existed within the western intelligence community and has appeared before in the media. What is interesting in the BBC's report which was based on sources in London, Washington, Riyadh and Islamabad was its timing.

Coming out at the same time as representatives of the Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council along with Germany were about to meet in Geneva for another round of talks over Iran's nuclear program, the report signals the frustration of the Saudi leadership at the "too-soft" approach of the Obama administration towards the new Iranian government under President Hassan Rouhani, their concern the Americans will sign an agreement which will continue to allow the Iranians to secretly advance towards nuclear capability and their belief that President Barack Obama has taken the military option off the table. The most surprising detail in the report, the non-denial from the Saudis (Pakistan denied it) strengthens this message. Instead the Saudis preferred to blame the international community for not doing enough to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

The veiled threat from Riyadh of its instant nuclear option was a clear signal to the leaders of the west not to be tempted in to cutting the Iranians some slack and that in the regional arms race that will be on the moment Iran completes its nuclear cycle, the Saudis won't be starting from square one.

 

[Pakistanisage]

Very mature, apparently the Professionals tag has lost considerable value since I held it.
If you are quoting NATO, you would know under what conditions the alliance came to be and what they intended to counter.

Enacted in response to Communist expansion, the NATO countries were meant to serve as a deterrent to a Soviet Advance on their territory, seeing as there is no threat of Iranian Expansion in the ME region, along with a severe shortage of countries that may feel that their nations are at a threat from "Iranian Expansionism", I doubt you can paint much of a scenario that would lead to a NATO-style alliance being formed.

Countries form Strategic Alliances according to their own " Threat Perceptions " Kid.

I don't think it is appropriate for Pakistan to mimic other countries.

We have to find Solutions based on our own Scenario.

I find a lot of value in Pakistan forming a Strategic alliance with KSA as our relationship matures to a higher level.

 

[Icarus]

Really ?

Do have a link on this or is this your own immature assessment ?

The immature assessment of every Realist Scholar and Thinker ever to be born:

http://assets.cambridge.org/97805215/92291/sample/9780521592291wsc00.pdf

http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0029.pdf

 

[Vinod2070]

There is no way to be sure but there is a good possibility that Saudi will have access to Pakistani nukes when they really need them.

They have been the funders of the program and it couldn't have been unconditional.

 

[Icarus]

Countries form Strategic Alliances according to their own " Threat Perceptions " Kid.

I don't think it is appropriate for Pakistan to mimic other countries.

Indeed, which is why the "Kid" pointed out that your NATO example was severely out of place and context.

We have to find Solutions based on our own Scenario.

I find a lot of value in Pakistan forming a Strategic alliance with KSA as our relationship matures to a higher level.

Indeed we must, whereas forming a strategic alliance with the Saudi carries great dividends for us and a great opportunity for cultural and social exchange, we have to draft policy depending on what our ultimate goals in are in the region.
The the moment, we have a number of Saudi Cadets at our Military academies, we have Saudi Civil Servants and Intelligence Personnel coming for training to those respective academies, our Staffs man their Military Academy, we maintain a brigade strength presence there but to be actively involved in their affairs will be detrimental to our policy.

 

[shuntmaster]

Pakistan's bomb and Saudi Arabia
Western intelligence officials believe that Pakistan has pledged to provide nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia in a Middle East crisis, but would Islamabad keep its end of the bargain?

The great anxiety underpinning this month's NPT talks in New York, and the deepening crisis over Iranian nuclear aspirations, is the fear that if and when Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, it would trigger an arms race across the Middle East. Israel already has an arsenal of course, but over a dozen other countries in the region have recently announced plans to pursue or explore civilian nuclear energy programmes, in what is seen as a hedge against future threats. But which states, if any, would be prepared to go the whole way?

The Centre for European Studies and the German Marshall Fund of the United States has just held a small conference in Brussels called "Transatlantic test: What should the West do with Iran?" There were a bunch of Nato types there and some diplomats from Europe and the Middle East, and some very interesting talk. What struck me were the relatively sanguine views on the knock-on effect of Iran going nuclear (or achieving break-out capacity).

Putting it briefly: Turkey would not jeopardise the Nato umbrella by going nuclear unilaterally. Egypt has considered its options and decided it cannot afford to go nuclear and risk losing its annual US grant. The biggest worry is Saudi Arabia, which cannot rely on a US nuclear umbrella for reasons of domestic and regional politics.

According to western intelligence sources (the meeting was under Chatham House rules so I am not allowed to be more specific) the Saudi monarchy paid for up to 60% of the Pakistani nuclear programme, and in return has the option to buy a small nuclear arsenal ('five to six warheads) off the shelf if things got tough in the neighbourhood.

There has been much reporting about this alleged deal over recent years, notably by The Guardian back in 2003, when Ewen MacAskill and Ian Traynor wrote about a Saudi strategic review to weigh the kingdom's nuclear options.

A report by Mark Fitzpatrick at the IISS in 2008 on Nuclear Programmes in the Middle East, found the Guardian article was "an accurate representation of what had emerged from the Saudi side during discussions" at a symposium in Britain attended by several members of the Saudi royal family.

The Saudis and the Pakistanis have consistently denied any such deal, but what I heard in Brussels was billed by an official as being from intelligence sources. Whether or not anything has been signed, however, there are real questions on whether Pakistan would deliver when it came to the crunch.

There is a third partner in the relationship, the US, who might have something to say about it and the means to exert pressure to make sure it did not happen. Still, it remains one of the more likely dominoes to fall in a worst-case scenario.

Another interesting point to come out of the Brussels meeting was how difficult it is inside Nato to make policy or even to talk about policy towards Iran, because Turkey will not allow it. That makes it a bit awkward when it comes to framing the alliance's New Strategic Concept later this year.

 

[Pakistanisage]

w

The immature assessment of every Realist Scholar and Thinker ever to be born:

http://assets.cambridge.org/97805215/92291/sample/9780521592291wsc00.pdf

http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0029.pdf

Do you even bother to read the crap you are posting.

Or more relevant , do you even understand the Crap you are posting.

Just going to google to find some articles ad hoc does not show that you really understand the concept.

Realism in international relations supports my contention.

The idea behind Realism is that each country protects its own self interest.

That is precisely why I support a Strategic Relationship with countries like KSA, Turkey or China i.e. to protect Pakistan's National interest.

BTW , Machiavelli was an antecedent to Realism Philosophy and it is all about fulfilling Self Interest.

I guess there are things you don't learn from Video Games, kid.

 

[T-123456]

Countries form Strategic Alliances according to their own " Threat Perceptions " Kid.

I don't think it is appropriate for Pakistan to mimic other countries.

We have to find Solutions based on our own Scenario.

I find a lot of value in Pakistan forming a Strategic alliance with KSA as our relationship matures to a higher level.

What do you think Iran would do when you would form such an alliance?
Isnt it better to have good relations with both sides?

 

[Pakistanisage]

What will Iran do that they have not already done ?

They already have an Alliance with India.

We have a lot more to gain with our alliance with KSA than we will with Iran.

This is my Personal Opinion but I am a big supporter of Strong relationship with KSA.

We will choose our friends wisely and then we will support them robustly.

That does not mean that we shouldn't have relations with Iran because we should.

But the quality of our relationship with KSA should be strategically stronger with KSA.

We also have relations with Greece but in case of a conflict between Greece and Turkey we will always lean towards Turkey.

 

[T-123456]

What will Iran do that they have not already done ?

They already have an Alliance with India.

We have a lot more to gain with our alliance with KSA than we will with Iran.

Ok,what do you gain by forming this alliance?
And if there is something you could lose,what would that be?
Do you want this alliance because Iran and India have one(didnt know they had one)?

 

[Pakistanisage]

Ok,what do you gain by forming this alliance?
And if there is something you could lose,what would that be?

Alliances are formed between countries whose core National Interests are well aligned with each other and who have something to offer each other. In case of KSA, there are multiple Saudi and Pakistani core National Interests that are well aligned and also a strong possibility of achieving Synergism. KSA is a country rich in resources and Pakistan is a country with Manpower and a strong Military that can help KSA in many areas.

In the recent weeks and months , many high powered Saudi Delegates and officials have been visiting Pakistan to explore possibilities.

 

[T-123456]

Alliances are formed between countries whose core National Interests are aligned with each other and who have something to offer each other. In case of KSA, there are multiple interests that are well aligned and possibility of Synergism. KSA is a country rich in resources and Pakistan is a country with Manpower and a strong Military that can help KSA in many areas.

I hope Pakistan makes the right choice for the nation.

 

[AUz]

Countries form Strategic Alliances according to their own " Threat Perceptions " Kid.

I don't think it is appropriate for Pakistan to mimic other countries.

We have to find Solutions based on our own Scenario.

I find a lot of value in Pakistan forming a Strategic alliance with KSA as our relationship matures to a higher level.

Your comment would have had carried a lot more weight if you didn't write 'kid' there.

No need to put down others

 

[cleverrider]

Excuse me my friend, but I rather have few GOOD and RELIABLE Friends than a lot of $hitty ones

An attack on KSA is an attack on Pakistan. Period.

Someone give this boy a cookie (the reason I said this is because you called @Icarus a "kid") No need.

On a serious note, There are no friends in geopolitics or any other matter its all about interests.

If you're thinking that the big boy in a playground gonna come and help/protect you in your fight (or any other favors) that will simply not happen.

A strong Pakistan is the way forward. (Remember the previous wars, what happened? they might help you a little but they can not win wars for you) the best defense policy is to make yourself strong.

Attack on KSA, Attack on Pakistan..? period? What period>? NO.

If you're talking about attack on the two cities, I dont think so (& God will protect them that's our faith). We cant do much anyway if they are attacked with our outdated f16s.

You do know the sh!t the Arabs have created in our backyard>?

 

[Neptune]

Well, interesting subject for sure.

The question should be, what will it bring to Pakistan in case of a share in nuclear arsenals?

I personally believe that Pakistan should not share any of its strategic weapons with anyone close to him. It's not about the people of those countries but their politicians. No one can guarantee that Turkey won't attack Pakistan at future when US drags NATO into a war with Pakistan. Or KSA won't attack Pakistan by some reason. Those are weird examples. But they have significant possibilities. In fact, even if there's a 1% possibility. It'll threaten Pakistan's national security. That's why I don't support a nuclear share. US case is completly different as they are the only superpower capable of taking anyone, defending itself to any power. Regards.

 

[typoerror]

Now Pakistan is gonna provide a nuclear umbrella for a third country? OK.