Comments on: Saudi Arabian Uranium Enrichment? http://hibbs.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/8/saudi-arabian-uranium-enrichment an ACW Network site Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:21:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Andrew Tubbiolo http://hibbs.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/8/saudi-arabian-uranium-enrichment#comment-28 Andrew Tubbiolo Sun, 29 Aug 2010 16:30:25 +0000 http://hibbs.armscontrolwonk.com/?p=8#comment-28 Am I wrong here in saying this? But my first reaction to the concept of a nuclear Saudi Arabia is the thought that they buy everything. Do they have in house developed talent base that operates in depth on any major weapons systems? One has to wonder how a nuclear arsenal will work when you don't have any loyal citizens to design the bomb, make the parts, assemble the bomb, keep the bomb, and turn the keys when the time comes and of course sweep the floors and clean the toilets around all the infrastructure. Having that train of systems and people left to contractors sounds like a formula for disaster from the Saudi point of view. Am I wrong here in saying this? But my first reaction to the concept of a nuclear Saudi Arabia is the thought that they buy everything. Do they have in house developed talent base that operates in depth on any major weapons systems? One has to wonder how a nuclear arsenal will work when you don’t have any loyal citizens to design the bomb, make the parts, assemble the bomb, keep the bomb, and turn the keys when the time comes and of course sweep the floors and clean the toilets around all the infrastructure. Having that train of systems and people left to contractors sounds like a formula for disaster from the Saudi point of view.

]]> By: Alex http://hibbs.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/8/saudi-arabian-uranium-enrichment#comment-27 Alex Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:21:20 +0000 http://hibbs.armscontrolwonk.com/?p=8#comment-27 Come to think of it, they must be coming up for replacement - the Chinese have been swapping out the CSS-2/DF-3A from their own forces in favour of the DF-21, apparently they're down to 16 missiles still in service, and 1981 is a long time ago. Those rockets are only a year younger than I am. Will they replace them? Will the Chinese sell to them? China 1981 was quite a different polity to China today. Come to think of it, they must be coming up for replacement – the Chinese have been swapping out the CSS-2/DF-3A from their own forces in favour of the DF-21, apparently they’re down to 16 missiles still in service, and 1981 is a long time ago. Those rockets are only a year younger than I am.

Will they replace them? Will the Chinese sell to them? China 1981 was quite a different polity to China today.

]]> By: Adil http://hibbs.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/8/saudi-arabian-uranium-enrichment#comment-26 Adil Fri, 27 Aug 2010 05:38:04 +0000 http://hibbs.armscontrolwonk.com/?p=8#comment-26 I remeber Perkovich's words that enrichment technology would be the new "status symbol" for new nuclear states I remeber Perkovich’s words that enrichment technology would be the new “status symbol” for new nuclear states

]]> By: handy gadget http://hibbs.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/8/saudi-arabian-uranium-enrichment#comment-25 handy gadget Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:09:34 +0000 http://hibbs.armscontrolwonk.com/?p=8#comment-25 Mark, Tactically, you may very well be right. In the long-run, though, the further spread of nuclear power will mean the furhter spread of nuclear fuel making and not just in convenient black boxes in countries we like doing business with. Ignoring this prospect has made the further spread of large reactors seem fine. Indeed, the Bush and Obama administrations have promoted the spread of "legitimate" nuclear energy programs in some of the most dangerous places (e.g., the Middle and Far East). We did this once before in the 1970s and, thankfully backed off. As a result, we only got Osirak, Bushehr and large reasearch reactors in Algeria, Syria and Egypt (i.e., only four probable covert nuclear weapons efforts plus Israel). Given that the laws of nature, physics and human character haven't likely changed much since then, focusing on your tactical points, however well taken they might be, is probably a strategic mistake. Handy Gadget Mark,

Tactically, you may very well be right. In the long-run, though, the further spread of nuclear power will mean the furhter spread of nuclear fuel making and not just in convenient black boxes in countries we like doing business with. Ignoring this prospect has made the further spread of large reactors seem fine. Indeed, the Bush and Obama administrations have promoted the spread of “legitimate” nuclear energy programs in some of the most dangerous places (e.g., the Middle and Far East). We did this once before in the 1970s and, thankfully backed off. As a result, we only got Osirak, Bushehr and large reasearch reactors in Algeria, Syria and Egypt (i.e., only four probable covert nuclear weapons efforts plus Israel). Given that the laws of nature, physics and human character haven’t likely changed much since then, focusing on your tactical points, however well taken they might be, is probably a strategic mistake.

Handy Gadget

]]> By: mark http://hibbs.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/8/saudi-arabian-uranium-enrichment#comment-24 mark Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:03:02 +0000 http://hibbs.armscontrolwonk.com/?p=8#comment-24 The argument put forth by some nonproliferators, that Iran's nuclear program is unjustified because Iran has huge oil reserves, is grossly unfair and arrogant. It is also politically counterproductive because it reflects true ignorance about the legitimate concerns that are raised by developing countries. The argument put forth by some nonproliferators, that Iran’s nuclear program is unjustified because Iran has huge oil reserves, is grossly unfair and arrogant. It is also politically counterproductive because it reflects true ignorance about the legitimate concerns that are raised by developing countries.

]]> By: FSB http://hibbs.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/8/saudi-arabian-uranium-enrichment#comment-23 FSB Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:05:19 +0000 http://hibbs.armscontrolwonk.com/?p=8#comment-23 Where are the right wing think-tanks whining about Saudi and UAE's pursuit of nuclear energy because both countries have soooo much oil (that is, as they do with Iran)? When do we bomb the Saudis? Where are the right wing think-tanks whining about Saudi and UAE’s pursuit of nuclear energy because both countries have soooo much oil (that is, as they do with Iran)? When do we bomb the Saudis?

]]> By: mark http://hibbs.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/8/saudi-arabian-uranium-enrichment#comment-22 mark Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:31:17 +0000 http://hibbs.armscontrolwonk.com/?p=8#comment-22 Great question--anyone know the answer? I had some info from Western officials last month who said they were certainly there and a worry,all right. I got earlier this month some insistent e-mails claiming that I was missing a major development because Saudi Arabia already had Chinese warheads on them... that was news to me--and probably to a whole lot of other people who really know about this subject. Great question–anyone know the answer? I had some info from Western officials last month who said they were certainly there and a worry,all right. I got earlier this month some insistent e-mails claiming that I was missing a major development because Saudi Arabia already had Chinese warheads on them… that was news to me–and probably to a whole lot of other people who really know about this subject.

]]> By: Alex http://hibbs.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/8/saudi-arabian-uranium-enrichment#comment-21 Alex Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:30:52 +0000 http://hibbs.armscontrolwonk.com/?p=8#comment-21 How are their CSS2 missiles these days? How are their CSS2 missiles these days?

]]> By: mark http://hibbs.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/8/saudi-arabian-uranium-enrichment#comment-20 mark Thu, 26 Aug 2010 06:18:16 +0000 http://hibbs.armscontrolwonk.com/?p=8#comment-20 Philip, when you start making exceptions, it gets to be a habit... Philip, when you start making exceptions, it gets to be a habit…

]]> By: Philip White http://hibbs.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/8/saudi-arabian-uranium-enrichment#comment-19 Philip White Thu, 26 Aug 2010 03:26:30 +0000 http://hibbs.armscontrolwonk.com/?p=8#comment-19 The suggestion that the US might not require Vietnam to accept the UAE conditions makes me wonder how much simpler things would have been in East Asia without the Japan precedent. This also relates to South Korea's determined push to be allowed to reprocess. There may not be much to be gained now by blaming the Japan precedent for the current impasse, but it is there in the background reminding us how double standards come back to haunt us. The suggestion that the US might not require Vietnam to accept the UAE conditions makes me wonder how much simpler things would have been in East Asia without the Japan precedent. This also relates to South Korea’s determined push to be allowed to reprocess. There may not be much to be gained now by blaming the Japan precedent for the current impasse, but it is there in the background reminding us how double standards come back to haunt us.

]]>