Tuesday, June 14, 2005
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (1)
Activating the Saudi SEP field
If you study international relations, you quickly become very aware of the power of an SEP field:
This Associated Press report by George Jahn makes me wonder just how many governments will be deploying an SEP field:
posted by Dan on 06.14.05 at 04:20 PM
"It also has expressed interest in Pakistani missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, and Saudi officials reportedly discussed pursuing the nuclear option as a deterrent..."
The damned liberal media and the Democratic Party and their so-called "nuclear option." For how long will they get away with this until Senator Frist puts a stop the linguistic abuse on display here?posted by: jbryan on 06.14.05 at 04:20 PM [permalink]
Given that the US government has stood by and done nothing while Israel developed 80+ nuclear warheads, I fail to see why the Saudis should expect anything beyond a token objection.
Oh, a correction. The US government did not "do nothing" -- it subsidized Israel's efforts with $3 Billion/year in aid as well as giving Israel the largest collection of F16s outside the Air Force with which to deliver the warheads.posted by: Don the Greater on 06.14.05 at 04:20 PM [permalink]
I agree with the post above by don. Until the USA and the world make a serious effort at disarming Israel's nuclear weapons, it is only natural for other countries in the area to move forward with that they see as thier need for nuclear weapons themselves.
Or, to add, considering that the USA is attacking Arab counries these days and making "bunker buster" nuclear weapons with the obvious effect of threatening to use them on Iran, who on earth would not expect that countries around the world would want nuclear weapons to protect themselves.
A major lesson of the war against Iraq is that if you are a weak country with no way to defend yourself, you get attacked. While if you are an agressive country that actually has weapons like N. Korea, you are pretty much safe.
Pretty much, either there is a real effort to totally eliminate nuclear weapons throughout the entire world (especially for agressive countries like the USA and Israel) or it is worthless and hypocritical to focus on countries that have a legitimate reason to be cared they are next on the hit list.posted by: i agree on 06.14.05 at 04:20 PM [permalink]
Um... Israel is believed to have had deliverable nuclear weapons at the time of the '73 war, long before they received their Camp David summit payoffs. Furthermore, Israel is not a signatory to the NPT and has just as much legal right to nuclear weapons as India or Pakistan. It might be nice if they didn't have them, but... Finally, Israel is the one nation we can safely say has no incentives to use nuclear weapons for anything but defense against an existential threat. The Arab/Iranian world doesn't need nukes to counter Israel, they just need to leave it alone.posted by: Dylan on 06.14.05 at 04:20 PM [permalink]
To me, this leak appears to be related to the whole 'Iran' thing, and the US efforts to justify military action against Iran, based on their nuclear policies.
Its going to be really tough for anyone to impose sanctions on Iran, which would be a necessary precursor to a "justified" attack on Iran, given that the Saudi's aren't even allowing any inspections. And now that the whole "Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons" case is falling apart (it turns out that the highly enriched uranium found on some equipment in Iran was, as Iran claimed, actually from Pakistan, which had sold Iran used equipment....) it looks like we can chalk up another failure to Bushco's approach to foreign policy....posted by: p.lukasiak on 06.14.05 at 04:20 PM [permalink]
Check out this guy's take on this issue:
Spot on, I'd say......posted by: Peter on 06.14.05 at 04:20 PM [permalink]
Given GW's past lack of commitment to nuclear disarmament ( getting out of treaties with out replacing them ), his lack of apparent philosophy on the issue, and apparently a complete lack of focus, I would say we will have a world full of nuclear states in the very near future.
Also I think Israel is quite capable of deploying in what they would term a "defensive strike" and the rest of us would be left wooly headed and disbelieving. Israel decides it's own terms and acts on them. They are unilateral. LIke GW. They are unilateral because they absolutely have to be, given the unwieldy situation they have place themselves in. GW is unilateral because he lacks imagination.posted by: exclab on 06.14.05 at 04:20 PM [permalink]
Re Dylan's comment "Israel is the one nation we can safely say has no incentives to use nuclear weapons for anything but defense against an existential threat. The Arab/Iranian world doesn't need nukes to counter Israel, they just need to leave it alone "
For example, when an Israeli F16 dropped a bomb on a Gaza apartment building in the middle of the night --killing 9 children and seriously wounding over 100 people -- it was an error.
As Sharon and senior Israeli officials explained later, they thought the apartment building was empty except for a single sinister Hamas terrorist.
One would have thought that Sharon and his officers would have know that Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on earth but evidently there was an "intelligence failure". Yeh, that's the ticket. Maybe we can have the Iraq Intelligence Committee look into the matter.
Another article noted
Bush's coalition of over 40 nations is "unilateral"?
exclab's "imagination" appears unfettered by any knowledge of either rudimentary English or basic mathematics.posted by: E Pluribus Unilateral on 06.14.05 at 04:20 PM [permalink]
Yes it is unilateral. Everyone who got on the boat to go to Iraq, except the USA, had a public at home that was against the war (except the east europeans I grant you) . Of a consequence nobody but the USA sent very many. They each sent a pitance. Even the UK, (when Rumsfeld even now says security is not better in the last year), is trying to bow out gracefully. Those pitances made up Bushes claim to a great coalition but , the USA made the choice, and is paying the price. It was by no means an international aclamation of leadership. Its a silly odd war and for most people in the world, in an SEP field. A man with imagination could have thought of several different, cheaper and better ways to get terrorists. Like find Bin Laden and kill him.
BTW, why aren't there a hundred or more federally funded full-ride Arabic scholarships available? This is a war right. I would have thought our ignorance of the Arabs would have sparked some ideas along that line. I grant you , I think Clinton I should have done that and more. But on balance, neither the ditherer or the warrior come out ahead of the other.posted by: exclab on 06.14.05 at 04:20 PM [permalink]
Re exclab's comment "Its a silly odd war"
Perhaps a few notes will help:
a) November 2000- 2002: The biggest campaign donor to the Democratic Party
b) May 2002: Haim Saban funds the "Saban Center for Middle East Policy"
c) June 30,2002: St Petersburg Times notes that "leading congressional
d) September 10, 2002: During a conference at the University of Virginia,
e) December 19, 2002: In a Los Angeles Times op-ed "Lock and Load",
f) January 17, 2003: Atlanta Jewish Times notes that " pro-Israel interests
g) June 20, 2003: In a New York Times column, "Saddam's Bombs? We'll Find
h) September 2004: John Kerry attempts to criticize the Bush war on Iraq
i) November 2004: Instead of $12.7 million, Haim Saban's campaign donations
j) November 2000-2002: Another large Democratic donor is billionaire S
k) March 18,2003: S Daniel Abraham donates $2,000 to Howard Dean's campaign
l) September 11, 2003: Howard Dean receives a storm of criticism from the
k) November 2003-Feb 2004: Howard Dean campaign is destroyed in Iowa
l) March 2004: FEC report indicates that attack group "Americans for Jobs"
m) November 2004: Instead of $Millions, S Daniel Abraham only gives the
n) October 2004: John Kerry attempts to criticize Bush's invasion of Iraq
 http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.asp (enter "Saban, Haim" and
 http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.asp , enter "Abraham, S Daniel"
 http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.asp , enter "Abraham, S
posted by: Don the Greater on 06.14.05 at 04:20 PM [permalink]
Let me magnify two of the above items:
"before the war I heard
2) So what is the end result of Kenneth Pollack's Dance of Seven Veils?
ha ha ha. Stop, please! My ribs are hurting!posted by: Don the Greater on 06.14.05 at 04:20 PM [permalink]
1) Ah yes, but weren't Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Condi Rice misled
2) So after, 1600 AMerican dead, tens of thousands maimed and wounded, and $300 billion in
"Apr 29 - After Iraq’s new government failed to name a permanent oil minister Thursday, the coveted post was given on a temporary basis to Ahmed Chalabi, the repatriated former exile who admitted giving the Bush administration and members of the media false information about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs before the 2003 invasion.
Chalabi, who was also named as a deputy prime minister by Ibrahim Al-Jaafari, the country’s new prime minister, told Reuters he might be oil minister for only a short time, but one of his aides suggested that political disagreements over the selection of permanent ministry leaders might leave Chalabi in the position indefinitely.
posted by: Don the Greatre on 06.14.05 at 04:20 PM [permalink]
I am chastenedposted by: exclab on 06.14.05 at 04:20 PM [permalink]
Post a Comment: