Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28
  1. #11
    Hey! Get off my lawn. 5 Star Poster Odelay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwest
    Posts
    2,164

    Default Re: The Middle East and the Nuclear Question

    Quote Originally Posted by broncofan View Post
    It's an enormous setback every time a Netanyahu, a George Bush, or an Ahmadinejad is elected.
    Ain't that the truth.



  2. #12
    Member Rookie Poster Bark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    28

    Default Re: The Middle East and the Nuclear Question

    Build Solar out there, More than enough sun to power the whole planet where they are, Why the F! would they want Nuclear anyway?.



  3. #13
    Silver Poster fred41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Queens, N.Y.
    Posts
    3,899

    Default Re: The Middle East and the Nuclear Question

    Don't pop those champagne corks yet...nothing's signed...let's see what it ultimately amounts to in June...or later.



  4. #14
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,472

    Default Re: The Middle East and the Nuclear Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Bark View Post
    Build Solar out there, More than enough sun to power the whole planet where they are, Why the F! would they want Nuclear anyway?.
    Solar is still facing storage problems on the technical level and can't power a city the size of Dubai, which also relies on Abu Dhabi for its oil and gas these days. Nuclear is a prestige product for people with the money, which they have, and is a carbon neutral form of energy which some feel ought to be the long term replacement for coal, oil and gas in Europe. If the nuclear industry had not had such poor public relations in the last 25 years it might be the 'fuel of the future'. The core issue in Iran and eventually in Arabia relates to the development of nuclear weapons, with which some people are obsessed in the case of Iran in spite of Iran's claims that it has no plans to weaponize the energy sector. The same people who conjure up the reckless Iranians dropping nuclear bombs all over the place are sometimes the same Americans who seem reluctant to admit that the most serious contravention of protocols was committed by their close ally Pakistan, whose nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan helped the development of nuclear centrifuges in Iran, North Korea and offered it to Libya before Qadhafi decided to abandon the plans. But then the USA is now giving Saudi Arabia military assistance in its war with the Yemen, which is rather like the frog accepting a lift from a scorpion over that tempestuous river.


    1 out of 1 members liked this post.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,472

    Default Re: The Middle East and the Nuclear Question

    Meanwhile the development of Saudi Arabia's nuclear programme moves on with the decision to begin extracting some of the estimated 60,000 tonnes of uranium in the Kingdom. This is part of the policy to diversify Saudi Arabia's energy profile, as is also the case with the development of nuclear energy in the United Arab Emirates, and of course in neither case has the stage in which uranum is enriched and reprocessed been part of the plan, those being the ingredients for a nuclear weapon. After all, in the Middle East, if you cannot trust Saudi Arabia, who can you trust?

    So no hysterical tweets from the White House, no emergency debates in the House of Commons, no threatening speeches from Benjamin Netanyahu.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8029331.html



  6. #16
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,472

    Default Re: The Middle East and the Nuclear Question

    The nuclear question in the Middle East, framed in terms of enabling or not enabling development may be taking a different and more sinister turn as the US government now considers the actual use of nuclear weapons to be a practical option. There has for some time been a difference of opinion in the military on the use of 'tactical' or 'battlefield' nuclear weapons which, it is claimed, can remove a 'target' with extreme efficiency but without the payload of an Hiroshima type bomb, thus reducing the extent of nuclear fall-out. On one side are those who believe the time has come to use them, while for others the danger is not just a strategic one that raises stakes in the conflict concerned, but establishes the use of nuclear weapons as an accepted part of military engagement which other nuclear armed states would consider gives them the right to use them, though there is a third school of thought that argues the use of nuclear weapons is illegal under international laws that govern the use of chemical and biological weapons.

    The new Presidency that is determined to 'think outside the box' is led by a semi-literate idiot who has already asked why the US can't use the nuclear weapons that it has, and has appointed to positions of influence soldiers who may be more rather than less likely to use them, not least because their Commander-in-Chief has judged their careers so far to have been one long history of failure, given that is only since January 2017 that the US has succeeded on the battlefield, if you believe the US has been the demise of so-called 'Islamic State'. These old soldiers may feel they need a spectacular victory to justify their wages. That they couldn't care less how many people are killed is a basic fact that doesn't lose them any sleep.

    The scenario unfolding now concerns the view that the Ba'ath regime in Syria is in the last phase of crushing the rebellion that broke out in 2011, with rebels in Idlib province, and the Ghouta district of Damascus facing annihilation from the regimes indiscriminate and illegal bombing campaign. But, if this brings an end to this phase of the conflict, it does not mean an end to conflict as there remains in the north a significant Kurdish presence in what may be in effect an autonomous zone along the Turkish border. It remains to be seen if the Asad regime will make a temporary agreement with the Kurds, or insist that the region return to Syrian sovereignty, but this is complicated by Turkey's rejection of any form of Kurdish independence or autonomy on its border, while the Russians are non-committal on the Kurds as they wait to see if the US which helped the Kurds defeat Daesh, decides to throw them under the bus as part of its withdrawal from the conflict, something the US might want but may not be able to achieve.

    The rogue elements in this have been seen this week with Israel's bombing in Syria, which it claims targeted weapons being shipped from Syria to Lebanon, an attack that has enraged the Syrians, not that they can do much about it. The Russians, again, may be biding their time to see if Asad can be replaced with anyone who promises to retain the Russian presence, but the prospects of a military conflict appear most likely to focus on the Kurds, but it is not clear if the US would use a nuclear weapon here as the target is not clear. What could change the game is an attack on Israel by Syria, with or without Russian approval and assistance. Syria may appear to be exhausted, militarily and financially, having only survived since 2015 with Russian assistance, but with the Israeli government, in effect declaring a two-state solution dead, and with Syria still keen to repatriate the al-Jawlan currently occupied by Syria, a rash move could be on the cards, given that rash moves are not uncommon in the region, and support for Syria from Iran would as it has done, automatically bring Saudi Arabia on the side of Israel, indeed the two allies may be plotting the overthrow of Asad even as we speak.

    All hypothetical, but the question remains, where, if it were deployed, would the mad Americans drop their tactical nuclear weapon, and what would be the consequence?

    The US pondering the use of nuclear weapons-
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...sable-warheads

    Patrick Cockburn's current assessment of the situation in Israel and Syria-
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8150031.html



  7. #17
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,472

    Default Re: The Middle East and the Nuclear Question

    Saudi Arabia has declared that if Iran develops a nuclear weapon so will the Kingdom in spite of the terms of the Iran Agreement, from which the US might withdraw its support.

    “Saudi Arabia does not want to acquire any nuclear bomb, but without a doubt, if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible,” bin Salman told CBS television.

    Saudi Arabia wants initially to build two nuclear stations as part of its medium term program to wean itself off oil. It plans to build 16 civil nuclear stations over 20 to 25 years generating 16 gigawats of nuclear energy.
    Although Saudi Arabia stresses it wants nuclear technology only for peaceful uses, it has left unclear whether it also wants to enrich uranium to produce nuclear fuel, a process which can be used in the production of atomic weapons.

    US administration officials have already met bin Salman in London to discuss the terms of a deal.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...med-bin-salman



  8. #18
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,472

    Default Re: The Middle East and the Nuclear Question

    Yesterday the Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, proved to those who don't already know, what a worthless, bloated piece of shit he is, unfit to represent the UK, a vanity project whose only rival to self-invented greatness is the President of the USA.

    For once, Johnson realised there is a greater person than himself, and went on US tv to grovel in public before the King, having been told that the only way to get his attention is to shower his Majesty with praise. Boris Johnson now shows more deference to the King of the country in which he was born than the Queen of the country he serves. How this fat, fatuous vanity project survives in British politics is a mystery that may soon be solved if he either resigns or is sacked as a result of his refusal to support Theresa May.

    Boris Johnson in 2017 endorsed the 'Iran Nuclear Deal' to the extent that he wrote an article for the Washington Post to explain why, but yesterday fronted his tv appearance with this sort of garbage-

    “The president is right to see flaws in [the deal] and he set a very reasonable challenge to the world,” said Johnson, offering praise of the president that he would repeat
    .

    He didn't see that many flaws in it before, yet here he is, this nauseating hypocrite, so utterly desperate for the Americans to rescue Britain from the Brexit mess he played such a major role in creating, mostly through barrel-bombs of lies, that he is prepared to sacrifice the last shreds of respectability the office of Foreign Secretary has to save his rotten soul. And to think that he subscribes to the view that the American Majesty must be given the Nobel Peace Prize because a Black Man got it and no Black Man can ever upstage the greatest and most popular President in the history of the USA. And yet over many years the Nobel Peace has been so degraded as to be worthless, but the President is obsessed with it and is more important to him than the lives of real people with real problems in Korea and Iran.

    This is how far we have sunk, all values discarded, the rule of law dismissed as irrelevant, international politics reduced to the level of a third-rate game show relegated to cable.

    Johnson in 2017
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.03e8f1b26fa8

    Johnson, crawliing on his hands and knees before his King in 2018-
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...rump-iran-deal


    1 out of 1 members liked this post.

  9. #19
    Eurotrash! Platinum Poster Jericho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Corner booth at the Titty Twister
    Posts
    10,507

    Default Re: The Middle East and the Nuclear Question

    Blimey, How's the blood pressure?


    1 out of 1 members liked this post.
    I hate being bipolar...It's fucking ace!

  10. #20
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,472

    Default Re: The Middle East and the Nuclear Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Jericho View Post
    Blimey, How's the blood pressure?
    One Amlodipine every day, a Metformin after meals.



Similar Threads

  1. Middle East Drifting
    By zulusierra in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-01-2012, 04:29 AM
  2. here in the middle east
    By cody99 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-30-2009, 08:45 PM
  3. turkey and middle east
    By takyouk in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-02-2009, 12:18 PM
  4. middle east
    By takyouk in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-13-2008, 08:48 AM
  5. FROM THE MIDDLE EAST
    By avrix in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-31-2007, 04:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •