Nuclear Tech Race Is On In Middle East

CaroKann writes "The TimesOnline is reporting that six Middle Eastern nations have announced interest in developing nuclear technology. The nations involved are Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, the UAE and Saudi Arabia, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Middle East Economic Digest states that most of these nations are interested in developing nuclear technology for the purpose of powering desalination plants. However, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, suggests that the sudden interest in nuclear technology is driven by the desire of the six nations to create a 'security hedge' in response to Iran's recent nuclear development program."

Comments

Ho hum

[Drinking Bleach]

Worry me when they're threatening to use them.

Re:Ho hum

[Anonymous Coward]

Worry me when they're threatening to use them.

Have you ever listened to the Sunnis & Shiites? There are large numbers of them that despise each other, and would do just about anything to kill each other.

Over the last year, a majority of the deaths in Iraq have been Sunnis & Shiites killing each other.

Re:Ho hum

[DigitalRaptor]

People already ~are~ threatening to use them.

Various terrorists, including Bin Laden, have threatened to kill millions of Americans.

The threat isn't that North Korea or anyone else will nuke the U.S. They're probably smarter than that.

The real threat is that they'll sell components to terrorists who will smuggle them into the U.S. across our porous southern borders, then detonate them in a big city ala Jericho.

This threat is a lot more real than any other we face, IMHO.

Re:Ho hum

[Anonymous Coward]

I missed that actually, do you have a cite for me?

Re:Ho hum

[Troed]

Yes, and you too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_a nd_Israel

Re:Ho hum

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. Did you happen to read last night's article by Bruce Schneier? While the events you describe have some chance of occuring, you're still FAR more likely to die in an auto accident.

Re:Ho hum

[houghi]

Well, one country that already has the bomb and has already used it, HAS treaten to use it again.

Re:Ho hum

[nightfire-unique]

The real threat is that they'll sell components to terrorists who will smuggle them into the U.S. across our porous southern borders, then detonate them in a big city ala Jericho.

This threat is a lot more real than any other we face, IMHO.

I would tend to agree. It may be in the interest of everyday Americans to learn to control their government's military, assassination and anti-democratic excursions (Iraq, Iran, NK, all over south america, Vietnam, Panama, Israel/Lebanon, Afghanistan, etc, etc, etc). This way, the amount of hatred harboured towards the US will decrease, and the terrorists will instead go about their everyday lives.

Re:Ho hum

[DigitalRaptor]

I agree with you that the U.S. should think long and hard about how it is viewed in the world and why.

However, I disagree strongly that the terrorists or their movement would ever just "go about their everyday lives".

You need to see "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West", a 2 hour or so documentary about the radical islam.

Their hatred for us is taught to them from a very young age and is religious in nature. It will not change or go away without decades of effort. No one change will even come close. Ever. Period.

It is simply beyond our comprehension without seeing that documentary or understanding what it demonstrates. I thought I already understood radical islam but was blown away by some of the stuff in it. And it is their words, their TV, their music, their teachings.

Re:Ho hum

[Shawn is an Asshole]

Yeah, there is a larger chance of dieing in a auto accident rather than in a terror attack. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to prevent attacks, though. Just not at the expense of liberty.

Re:Ho hum

[The One and Only]

OK, how many of us went to Catholic school? Religious indoctrination at a young age is powerful, but being taught something "religious in nature" at "a very young age" doesn't turn vast numbers of people into fanatics immune to human nature. It's in the interests of some to paint radical Islam as some sort of all-powerful threat and to dehumanize Muslims, but it's not in the interest of reason, nor is it in the public interest, to believe that propaganda.

Re:Ho hum

[cheekyboy]

you tubes 10 minute limit sucks, whats a good program to automatically split one avi, into lots of 10 minute segments either
automatically, or by placing chapter markers.

Re:Ho hum

[DigitalRaptor]

If you haven't seen "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West", we can't continue this discussion.

Catholic school is not the same as being raised in an environment where you are fed this stuff 24 / 7 / 365 in every way and from every source. Not even close to the same.

Re:Ho hum

[Ant P.]

I couldn't care less if these countries had nukes, bioweapons or whatever the fuck they want to build. What I'm worried about is the terrorist retaliation attacks using those weapons on my country after the US makes up some excuse to invade them.

Re:Ho hum

[nightfire-unique]

I will watch that video later tonight, though frankly I'm skeptical; everything you've said is inconsistent with real HUMANS that I have met from Iran, Kuwait, Egypt, Lebanon, Tunisia, Montreal, New York, Toronto, France and recently Iraq, who consider themselves to be Muslim. Some are Sunni, and some are Shia/Shiite, but most are quite "religions" (as in they pray several times a day, partake in Ramadan, and plan to make a pilgrimage.

As an Atheist I find them silly sometimes, but never have I encountered one who was hampered by "radical Islamism." Ever. Many were furious, and actually two lost relatives in American bombing campaigns against their homelands, but I have never heard any of them actually say things which are consistent with your writing (and many westerner's writings).

Just as radical Jews, Christians and Atheists exist and do kill exclusively to promote their religion/lack of religion, so do radical Islamists. But there is no sense in developing foreign policy based on this fact; they exist in such a minority as to be statistical noise.

Re:Ho hum

[DigitalRaptor]

VirtualDub would do it easily, but not automatically.

Google Video doesn't have that limit, though that video isn't already there so you probably couldn't put it there.

Re:Ho hum

[sgt_doom]

The nations involved are Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, the UAE and Saudi Arabia, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Of course, since the UAE (Royal Family of Dubai) now owns at least six US ports (never divested, and with the passage of the US-Oman Free Trade Agreement by those Republicofasicsts and Globalists masquerading as democrats [can you say D.I.N.O.?] their ownership is now considered perfectly legitimate) it seems like the perfect opportunity.

A little knowledge.....

Re:Ho hum

[sgt_doom]

A simple question - simply requiring critical thinking skills - and I ask this fully aware that those fascists in the White House (USA) are morally, ethically, and legally wrong to invade and occupy Iraq. Query: Just why are those Sunnis and Shi'a killing one another in such a focused fashion? And in what other religions do such great numbers of suicide bombers occur? None of the Benedictine nuns nor Jesuit brothers ever suggested I suicide for Christ.....

Re:Ho hum

[lixee]

However, I disagree strongly that the terrorists or their movement would ever just "go about their everyday lives".

Allow me to step in as an insider; If free election were held in any of the countries mentionned in the article, the islamists would win by a large margin. It's not necessarily good for the liberties or women's rights but at least such governments would certainly stand up to the west. And that is what the population is interested in at this point.

Now, you're right that some of the Islamists have blood and chaos in sight, but the majority just wants to instaure a regime where the will of the people's represented. And trust me, more than 90% of the inhabitants of those countries are convinced that Americans are nothing short of warmongers. Heck, the majority of Europeans thinks so as well. And don't even get me started on Latin America...

You might argue that Saudi Arabia already has a regime that's as close to Islamism as it could get. True enough, but what the people really want (if they had the opportunity to cast their votes in fair elections) is somebody who'd be less lenient on US interests in the region and hopefully stop the pillage.

Why Islamists? Because they're the only alternative. Arab nationalsm has been smothered by the west back in the early 60's and the little remains wiped out by the west-friendly oppresive regimes that were put in power.

You can't get rid of ALL the terrorist kooks but if structural change is introduced in foreign policy and trade, support for those will wither. Support of Hezbollah has grown tremendously after the latest Israeli summer carnage in Lebanon. I suspect that the latest raids in Gaza are only making more people pro-violence (Lebanon and Palestine are the only Arab countries where there were FREE elections recently - and yeah, Algeria back in the early 90's with the consequences we all know). Moroccans, Algerians, Tunisians, Egyptians, Saudis and Emiratis are all watching the supply of weapons and tacit support the US is giving unconditionally to Israel. Next guy who puts "death to America" on his agenda will be assured to get a lot of sympathizers. Sadly, there are no free elections in any of those countries anyway. Maybe it's all for the better since they wouldn't stand a chance in a military confrontation. Oh wait, they blow themselves up...nevermind!

Re:Ho hum

[nightfire-unique]

A simple question - simply requiring critical thinking skills - and I ask this fully aware that those fascists in the White House (USA) are morally, ethically, and legally wrong to invade and occupy Iraq. Query: Just why are those Sunnis and Shi'a killing one another in such a focused fashion? And in what other religions do such great numbers of suicide bombers occur? None of the Benedictine nuns nor Jesuit brothers ever suggested I suicide for Christ.....

Excellent questions. Here are my observations:

Sunnis and Shiites are battling for control of Iraq, in much the same way that North and South Korea battled for control of Korea after the fall of Japan (the occupying force) in the 40s. The Americans have chosen to support the Shiites after the Sunni dominated provinces rejected the new constitution. Now, the Sunnis are fighting the Shiites because the American troops are more difficult to target.

As we're all geeks here, watch the latest Battlestar Galactica season.. pay attention to the tension that forms between the Human police force recruited by the Cylons and the insurgents. It's good entertainment, yes.. but surprisingly insightful. :)

Religions themselves don't dictate whether or not suicide bombers are common. Situations which cause desperation are the catalyst for suicide attacks. For example, Japan used "suicide bombs" in the form of Kamikazee attacks against American naval vessels during WW2. They also had man-guided torpedos which had no escape mechanism - a naval suicide bomb.

Many allies fighting during WW2 engaged in suicide tactics, where they would give their lives to save a commander or lay a costly strike against enemy forces, knowing that they would not survive.

No one gives their lives for a cause when they believe there is a better, more effective way. When you massacre people in a mosque or school (US-Afghanistan bombing campaigns, Israel-Lebanon campaigns, Pakistan-Pakistan strikes, etc), a percentage of those who survive will have lost loved ones and will be willing to end their life as long as it means those he/she feel responsible are injured or killed as well. This is an evolved trait - tribes which allowed attacks against them to occur without retribution were statistically less likely to survive than those tribes which raised the cost of assaults against them by employing revenge attacks).

And rest assured that many involved in the Christian Crusades committed horrendous crimes, massacres, raping and pillaging, and yes - attacks where the perpetrator knew in advance that the result of the attack would be their death (ie. suicide attack).

And there you have it. In my estimation, it is desperate people - outgunned, with no hope of a "fair fight" - that perform these attacks. The most effective way to stop the attacks is to make them less desperate (ie. by not massacring their loved ones, setting up checkpoints, toppling their democracies, etc).

Re:Ho hum

[Anonymous Coward]

Without living in these countries, it is easy to fall prey to nazi style propegenda like this documentary Obsession. It is produced by neocon types and oriented towards israeli-palestinian conflict using 9-11 context.

Re:Ho hum

[Andy Gardner]

Their hatred for us is taught to them from a very young age and is religious in nature. It will not change or go away without decades of effort. No one change will even come close. Ever. Period.

Curious, Just one observation. If as you suggest 'their' hatred is indoctrinal and religious in nature, how do you explain the widespread condemnation of the 9/11 attacks throughout the Muslim world by religious leaders/media/extreme movements?

Re:Ho hum

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the fact that a a pro Israel media lobby group produced the documentary you mention not make you just pause for one insi winsi moment ?

Does it not strike you as rich that charges of "...indoctrination at an early age..." are coming from an advocacy group for a nation where school children were signing artillary shells with messages to the Arabs they where about to be fired at ?

Carry on believeing that every one on the "other side" is just some evil non human thing that hates you and wants only to do you harm if it makes you feel better. Just dont' count on it being true, because We refuse to be your boggy man.

Re:Ho hum

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you seen Jesus Camp?

" Jesus Camp revolves around a pentecostal minister who hosts a summer camp for children in North Dakota, and the sectarian Christian conservative families who send their children to this camp. Directors ... construct a subtle, yet damning narrative about a religious movement that isolates its children from mainstream culture, indoctrinates them into right-wing causes, and uses them as political props.
...
  The camp director explains that she admires the way Islamic cultures raise children so devoted they will risk their lives for their faith."

The point being that indoctrination can take many forms across all religions.

If you're basing all your knowledge on some 2 hr film, it is more than likely that you're ignoring decades of history which paints the United States (and other Western countries) in a very bad light with respect to their actions regarding Muslim nations.

Almost all the countries in the Middle East & the predominatly Muslim European countries have a history of significant internal intereference by England, France and/or the U.S.

Re:Ho hum

[nightfire-unique]

Ok I just watched the movie. If I wasn't so afraid of the effects it might have on ignorant people, I would call it a comedy.

What a sad piece of fiction.

Re:Ho hum

[DigitalRaptor]

There are a lot of religious leaders over there that condemn the attacks in an interview with the media, and then go right out and hold one of their "death to America" rallies and preach how soon allah will wipe us all out and then Muslims will rule the world.

Just because they say they condemn the attacks doesn't mean they aren't rejoicing off the air.

Re:Ho hum

[DigitalRaptor]

Did you watch the whole 2 hour documentary, or the few minute clip on YouTube (which covers nothing)?

If you watched the whole movie, where did you find it so others can see it?

Re:Ho hum

[DigitalRaptor]

Here is part 1 on YouTube.

The other 7 parts are linked in from there.

Re:Ho hum

[DigitalRaptor]

It may surprise you, but all of the people in this video are real humans. They live, they breathe, they hate, and they teach their children to hate.

I don't hate them (or anyone), and I don't teach my children to hate them (or anyone). However, I believe that we MUST take them at their word.

When their clerics stand at a pulpit in front of hundreds and thousands and preach that they are going to kill us and overthrow us in the name of allah, chanting god is great, you MUST take them at their word.

When a school child in America even talks about blowing up their school they are taken at their word and prosecuted.

The entire reason 9/11 happened is because we didn't take the terrorists at their word. They had told us they would bring down the towers, they had even tried before. We simply didn't believe them. We underestimated them.

Now bin laden (lowercase out of disrespect) has said he is ready to kill 10 million Americans. If we ignore him, if we don't take him at his word, we do so at our own peril.

Unless prevented, history has a way of repeating itself. Especially when very determined people are hell-bent on doing just that.

Re:Ho hum

[Grym]

"And there you have it. In my estimation, it is desperate people - outgunned, with no hope of a "fair fight" - that perform these attacks. The most effective way to stop the attacks is to make them less desperate (ie. by not massacring their loved ones, setting up checkpoints, toppling their democracies, etc)."

This is a common misconception about suicide bombers that just isn't true. Namely that the actors are disparate, tortured souls personally affected by the conflict. I suggest you read Dying to Win by Robert Pape which profiles suicide terrorists and the timing/events surrounding suicide attacks. The results are surprising.

Once you look at the data, it becomes obvious that suicide terrorism is not an act of passion or desperation at all. What seems abhorrent and unthinkable to us is just another form of coercion for the Islamic extremists. In fact, Mr. Pape's point makes perfect sense. If suicide terrorism was simply an act of revenge, why is it that negotiations with group leaders can lead to cease-fires? Moreover, why haven't we seen suicide terrorist attacks employed against totalitarian or media-restricted states?

What does this mean? Well, once you get around the fact that this is another form of coercion you can start to address it as such. Don't intend to occupy Islamic states and not encounter suicide bombers. Contrary to what you say, you wouldn't allow unrestricted borders with Islamic states.

-Grym

Re:Ho hum

[Andy Gardner]

Just because they say they condemn the attacks doesn't mean they aren't rejoicing off the air.

So you're basically suggesting it's a global Islamic conspiracy.

Re:Ho hum

[DigitalRaptor]

I'm saying I've seen video of one of their clerics condemning the attacks one day and leading a "death to America" rally the next.

Which is not suprising when their religion allows them to lie.

Mind you this is not all muslims, just the estimated 10 - 15% of them that are radical. So there are only about 200 million people involved in the conspiracy. Does that make it global?

Re:Ho hum

[DigiShaman]

The strange thing about radical islam, is their master/slave mentality. That is to say, they want you be your master, or your slave. That's why they really haven't attacked the US as much as their own people. Ironic as it sounds, but I've read some radical islamic factions are keeping their distance out of respect.

Why you ask? Because we are standing up for ourselves and what we believe to be the truth. When you put your life on the line for what you believe in, you implicitly hold a higher moral standing...so they think.

I would postulate that if only one nuclear bomb could be found and used, it would be against a European country and not America.

So...maybe going to war was a "good thing". Only time will tell, and history to teach us.

Re:Ho hum

[KKlaus]

I too watched that movie... talk about ignorant fear mongering. I can't tell if its desire for fame or stupidity that causes people to make "documentaries" about this, but just because there are enough videos over a decade to fill 2 hours doesn't mean that the world is filled with terrorists and holy crap they're coming to get us and OMGZBBQ this is war!

Yes there are some islamist wack-jobs out there. But seriously. The US for instance has had one terror attack in the past 5 years. Thats about the rate we seem to get them. Not very scary. And if there is a war against the west, whoever is waging it really sucks at it.

Re:Ho hum

[The One and Only]

I actually started to watch it, but after spending five minutes mentally cataloguing all the emotional manipulations and other propaganda techniques the film employed, I decided the endeavor was no longer worth my time and effort.

Re:Ho hum

[mc6809e]

Curious, Just one observation. If as you suggest 'their' hatred is indoctrinal and religious in nature, how do you explain the widespread condemnation of the 9/11 attacks throughout the Muslim world by religious leaders/media/extreme movements?

Condemned in English.

Praised in Arabic.

Re:Ho hum

[The One and Only]

Just why are those Sunnis and Shi'a killing one another in such a focused fashion?

For one, they have incompatible interpretations of Islam and do not believe it is possible to peacefully coexist in the same country. Europe went through the same pattern of warfare during the Reformation. Another reason is political manipulation: the Shi'a are backed by Iran, which wants to expand its sphere of influence--it cannot do so in a democratic Iraq that holds friendly relations with the United States or with the Sunni states. Mundane politics, under a religious or ideological facade--surely that's never happened in the West!

And in what other religions do such great numbers of suicide bombers occur?

Largely by historical accident, the Muslims are in a position where (a) no better tactic is open to them and (b) people are just crazy enough to go along with it. It's essentially no different than the suicide pilots (you might remember them as kamikazes) of imperial Japan. Like the Muslims, the Japanese only resorted to suicide tactics out of tactical desparation. Also like the Muslims, the Japanese had a culture that highly valued individual martyrdom.

Re:Ho hum

[DigitalRaptor]

Well if it uses techniques used every day in advertising, political commercials, and most documentaries ever made, it can't be true.

Whew, peace at last! I'll sleep good tonight knowing that.

Re:Ho hum

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>And in what other religions do such great numbers of suicide bombers occur?

The world leaders in suicide bombings are the Tamil Tigers.

>Just why are those Sunnis and Shi'a killing one another in such a focused fashion?

Revenge for the Saddam regime motivated the Shi'a, fear of being the new victims (and of missing out on the oil) motivates the Sunni, and both know they have a once in a lifetime chance to lay claim to territory and power now that the Americans deleted the country's operating system. Going back a bit further, the Shi'a carefully commemorate grievances from over 1300 years ago, and Sunni are appalled by some features of Shiite doctrine.

>None of the Benedictine nuns nor Jesuit brothers ever suggested I suicide for Christ.....

Christians teach that actively seeking out martyrdom is vanity, but it's probably happened. Suicide bombing does not fit well into orthodox Islam, either, which has an explicit written prohibition against suicide (it's only implicit in Christianity). People who blow themselves up shock normal Muslims, are condemned by most clerics, but do get support from a non-negligible movement. Saudi money has spread what would normally have been a splinter sect into a worldwide phenomenon.

Re:Ho hum

[DigitalRaptor]

Yes, we've had one attack in the last 5 years, but I think the important thing is that they (bin laden, al qeada, etc) said they would bring down the WTC and did. We were largely complacent and bickering amongst ourselves then, and are largely complacent and bickering amongst ourselves now.

So now they say they want to kill 10 million Americans (biological, nuclear, whatever). You just think they're talking out their butts? If they say it, they mean it, and believe they can do it.

All this crap about just leaving them alone and they'll leave us alone reminds me of Arthur Neville Chamberlain. That sucker actually thought he had brokered peace with Hitler. A year later german tanks were rolling into his home town.

I'm not saying muslims are evil. I'm saying history teaches us we must be vigilant and must not underestimate those that would love to see us infidels smoldering in ruins.

And they don't suck at war, they're mopping the floor with us in Iraq, achieving every one of their goals: death of infidels and the breeding of hatred for the west. Anti-American sentiment has to be at or near an all-time high, which is exactly what they want.

Re:Ho hum

[The One and Only]

I would also like to add that we also train a large group of armed and dangerous men to use suicidal tactics in combat--the group is the Secret Service, the combat would be any armed attempt on the President's life, and yet we train and indoctrinate these men to take a bullet for the President. We train them as human shields to protect our great leader--clearly we are fanatics who cannot be reasoned with.

Re:Ho hum

[The One and Only]

I don't know about it not being true, but it certainly can't convince someone who can think for himself. If you have a rational argument for your point, than lay it out for me without trying to exploit my emotional memories of 9/11 or any lingering fear and hatred I have for Muslims.

Re:Ho hum

[Andy Gardner]

What are you blithering about, your original point was that 'their' hatred of us is indoctrinated through the media and religion.

"Their hatred for us is taught to them from a very young age and is religious in nature. It will not change or go away without decades of effort. No one change will even come close. Ever. Period."

So you've seen one video of a complete nutter, great basis for condemning an entire culture... My counter was that while this does happen in Islamic countries, it also happens in the west, citing the near total condemnation of 9/11 by the Islamic community. You've even backed up my point by suggesting it is the minority not the majority who hold fundamentalist beliefs and promote terrorism, even while I suspect you're figure of 10-15% is complete hyperbole. I'd like to see a credible source for this sweeping statement.

Re:Ho hum

[DigitalRaptor]

I don't know anything about your lingering fear and hatred of muslims.

I don't know what more you need than Bin Laden saying he is ready to kill 10 million Americans?

Seriously, what the hell more do you need?

If some punk even jokes about killing someone at his school he's expelled and probably arrested. Labeled for life for sure.

But the leader of the extremest movement and orchestrator of 9/11 says he's ready for round 2, and I'm supposed to think he's just joking?

Watch the news and take them at their word that they mean what they say and that they really want to do it.

Re:Ho hum

[Andy Gardner]

Provide me a source for a respected Islamic leader that condemned 9/11 in English and praised it in Arabic. You can't just make things up.

Re:Ho hum

[DigitalRaptor]

Of course its the minority, but that's all it takes.

I think 10% is a very, very reasonable estimate. You think when they have 200,000 people out in the streets all chanting "death to America" and burning our flag and efagies of Bush that represents everyone in the world with that view? What, they all just fly from country to country holding these rallies? Radical islam roadies?

So the muslims that burned 21,000 cars in France were what, 1% of the population?

Forget it. Good night.

Re:Ho hum

[The One and Only]

Funny how bin Laden has been quoted as saying these things for years, and yet he has yet to kill as many people as, for instance, drunk drivers in California alone. I don't doubt he's serious--I do doubt that he represents much of a threat. Just because neo-Nazis live in Idaho and Montana doesn't mean Jews in New York are at threat of facing another Holocaust. Bin Laden is more of a threat than neo-Nazis, but only because we've been meddling in the Middle East for decades proving him right. In fact, bin Laden himself wouldn't bother himself with us if we didn't prop up the same MIddle Eastern regimes he's trying to overthrow. For years he was no more than just another Saudi dissident.

Re:Ho hum

[Memnos]

OK, so worry starting 3..2..1.. now. I apologize for denigrating your deeply-studied viewpoint on the behavior of foriegn states (and our own state). But you might want to consider that the mere possession of atomic or thermonuclear weapons carries an inherent threat that they can be used. That is what they are for.

Re:Ho hum

[tomz16]

Ass... Let's forget being PC here for a second and look at the facts.

How many catholic school children died in suicide bombings this past century? How many radical muslims?

That is all, you may go now...

Re:Ho hum

[DigitalRaptor]

You'll get no argument from me that we have created our current enemies, including Bin Laden, and that we have pretty much the worst foreign relations and policies that we've ever had.

However, just because he (they) talk more than they act doesn't mean they aren't a threat.

Iran (and maybe even North Korea) would love to facilitate a suit-case nuke inside the U.S. Especially if they're name wasn't attached to it. So even if Bin Laden alone isn't a threat, the potential is there.

A single nuke in a single U.S. city would have a devastating effect on moral and the economy. Look at what happened after 9/11 and it is near the bottom of the scale for big terrorist attacks. Even sporadic bombings (suicide or otherwise) would have a pretty profound impact.

I hate fear-mongering as much as I hate complacency. I just think it's worth taking our enemies seriously.

Re:Ho hum

[Anonymous Coward]

It will be too late by then.

Re:Ho hum

[Atlantis-Rising]

You ignore everything he said about non-islamic suicide bombers, which, frankly, invalidades your point. Just because something is guided and organized does not make it less of an act of passion or desperation.

Re:Ho hum

[Andy Gardner]

I think 10% is a very, very reasonable estimate.

Well I think you shouldn't just pluck numbers arbitrarily out of the air but facts obviously don't hold much sway with you.

You think when they have 200,000 people out in the streets all chanting "death to America" and burning our flag and efagies of Bush that represents everyone in the world with that view?

Where are these rallies? Who are 'they' ?

So the muslims that burned 21,000 cars in France [yahoo.com] were what, 1% of the population?

Seriously do you even realise what you sound like, do have you any concept of the wider socio-economic factors surrounding the '05 French civil unrest? Oh no of course it's just a bunch of Muslims running round burning cars.

It's rhetorical xenophobic rubbish like that that empowers the extremists and exacerbates the problem further.

Re:Ho hum

[Grym]

You ignore everything he said about non-islamic suicide bombers, which, frankly, invalidades your point. Just because something is guided and organized does not make it less of an act of passion or desperation.

I didn't address it because it wasn't relevant. He (and you) are conflating two different things: namely, the selfless acts of military personnel against military personnel in the context of battle and suicide terrorism perpetrated against civilians as a form of coercion against democratic states.

Just take a look at the tactical leader of the 9/11 operations, Mohammad Atta. He was wealthy, educated in Germany, and neither he nor his family could ever be considered victims of Western aggression. And yet, you'd have us believe that his act of suicide terrorism was one of desperation and passion and--more importantly--something that could have been prevented via appeasement. It wasn't.

And Mr. Atta is quite the norm in this regard as well. I highly suggest you read the book I linked because the author actually profiles all of the September 11th hijackers in this way. He even created a database of all the suicide bombing incidents to occur in the 20 years up until the book was published and uses that database to see what the bombers have in common. The result totally debunks this ridiculous and ill-conceived notion that suicide bombers as emotionally unstable individuals who have been personally affected by the conflicts in which they participate.

-Grym

Re:Ho hum

[cudiaco]

This documentary you speak of is made by a very right wing pro-Israeli group. Its anti-Muslim, anti-Arab propaganda at its best.

Re:Ho hum

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't American muslims carry out suicide attacks? If they're all like Atta then we should see at least one attack every few years. The US as a nation "appeases" its citizens to some extent, which supports the grandparent's claim. Atta, of course, came from the Middle East where very little "appeasing" goes on.

It's temping for Americans to say that a wealthy individual can't possibly be passionate and desperate - after all, we're taught that money is the ultimate goal in life. It isn't actually true though; money has very little to do with happiness. If anything, wealth increases the chances of a desperate attack by (1) giving a sense of self-righteousness, (2) allowing one opportunities to be exposed to atrocities and learn about the suffering of others, and (3) providing the resources with which a deadly attack could be carried out. Basically, the notion that desperate and passionate people are all poor and have lost their mothers to US bombing is inaccurate.

As was pointed out, the mentality of a suicide bomber is similar to the mentality of a soldier going on a suicide mission. You seem hung up on the fact that you consider the first 'evil' and the second 'noble', but you need to remember that how you see things is not how a suicide bomber sees things. Perhaps if these people were "appeased" (i.e. treated the way we expect to be treated ourselves) then many of these problems wouldn't exist.

Re:Ho hum

[Anonymous Coward]

You really are an idiot. You believe all that fear-mongering shit which goes on. Have you seen Jesus camp? Those are the people who you should also fear.

I have one plea for you. Read up on history. Find out why exactly some people hate your country so much. You don't need to go to the time of the Crusades. Just go back, let's say, the last 100 years. Then just read what went on.

Iran as it is today was created due to CIA fuck-ups. The Middle East situation was due to Great Britain, USA and Soviet Union all messing it up.

And here's a small hint for you: a nation which has a common enemy will unite against the common enemy. Without the common enemy, they would focus on their bad leadership and fighting against each other. Just think, first you had the Nazi Germany, then Soviet Union and communists, now you have Middle East and terrorists. Tomorrow you will be putting up a fight against European social democracy, European freedom, European justice and European values.

Re:Ho hum

[cyber-vandal]

And I would point out to you that the only two European countries that have actually suffered terrorist attacks are Spain and the UK, both of whose governments supported the Iraq war.

Re:Ho hum

[ultranova]

If you haven't seen "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West", we can't continue this discussion.

Why ? Are there some facts there that you can't find anywhere else ? You realize, of course, that this would make said facts unverifiable, and therefore suspect ?

But it's pretty ironic that you were apparently indoctrinated by a documentary describing indoctrination :).

Re:Ho hum

[CaptainAvatar]

All this crap about just leaving them alone and they'll leave us alone reminds me of Arthur Neville Chamberlain. That sucker actually thought he had brokered peace with Hitler. A year later german tanks were rolling into his home town.

OK. The Munich agreement was signed in September 1938. So, are you saying that the Germans occupied Birmingham in September 1939, or are you saying that Neville Chamberlain was actually Polish?

Re:Ho hum

[cold fjord]

And there you have it. In my estimation, it is desperate people - outgunned, with no hope of a "fair fight" - that perform these attacks. The most effective way to stop the attacks is to make them less desperate (ie. by not massacring their loved ones, setting up checkpoints, toppling their democracies, etc).

When you look at the data, a surprising picture of suicide bombers emerges:

Seeking the Roots of Terrorism

Despite the limitations of both data sets, several findings are of interest. The poverty rate is 28 percent among the Hezbollah militants and 33 percent for the population. In terms of education the Hezbollah fighters are more likely to have attended secondary school than are people in the general population (47 versus 38 percent). The results suggest that poverty is inversely related, and education positively related, to the likelihood that someone becomes a Hezbollah fighter.

Similarly, Claude Berrebi, a graduate student in economics at Princeton, has studied the characteristics of recent suicide bombers in Israel. From information on the Web sites of Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas, he was able to paint a statistical picture of suicide bombers. He compared that to survey-based data on the broader Palestinian population of roughly comparable age. His results indicate that suicide bombers are less than half as likely to come from impoverished families than is the population as a whole. In addition, more than half of the suicide bombers had attended school after high school, while less than 15 percent of the population in the same age group had any post-high-school education.

Study Finds Most Bombers Are Educated

The study, released this month by an Israeli think tank, looked at the 163 Palestinians -- 155 men and 8 women -- who killed themselves while attacking Israeli targets between September 2000 and December 2005. It found that almost a quarter (37 individuals) graduated from college and another quarter (39) from high school. There is no clear information about the education level of 76 of the suicide bombers, but researchers at the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, which published the study, assumed that many of these terrorists also had achieved high levels of education.

"This illustrates what we have been saying for years, which is that the chief motivating factor for suicide terrorism is ideology, a conviction that the cause is just, and not simple-mindedness or economic distress," said Yoram Kahati, senior research fellow at the center. Palestinian suicide terrorism, he said, is typically a product of a combustible combination of militant ideological fervor and a personal or collective sense of hopelessness. "These are people who are not stupid, yet are absolutely convinced that they are doing the right thing by sacrificing their lives," Kahati said.....

"This corresponds with the worldwide pattern" of the typical suicide bomber "and shatters a lot of our simplistic assumptions that if we cure the world of poverty, terrorism will go away," said Bruce Hoffman, a leading counter-terrorism expert who heads the Rand Corporation's Washington office. Suicide terrorism "is a much more complex phenomenon, not amenable to any simple cause or simple solution," he said.

Even for Shoe Bombers, Education and Success Are Linked

THE fifth anniversary of 9/11 passed with a great deal of hand-wringing over all the people who want to kill Americans. Especially worrisome is the apparent rise of terrorists whose origins seem far from fanatical.

These terrorists are not desperately poor uneducated people from the Middle East. A surprisingly l

Re:Ho hum

[ultranova]

Yes, we've had one attack in the last 5 years, but I think the important thing is that they (bin laden, al qeada, etc) said they would bring down the WTC and did.

If I went to harbor and everytime a ship left it would say "that ship will sink", and one of them eventually would, would that make me a prophet ?

After at least one failed attempt WTC indeed fell. From what I've understood, it was a surprise to Bin Laden as well - he had only attempted to cause a fire and structural damage. In other words he got lucky. That does not make him a copetent leader.

So now they say they want to kill 10 million Americans (biological, nuclear, whatever). You just think they're talking out their butts? If they say it, they mean it, and believe they can do it.

If I say I'll kill you, and I'll shoot you dead, and next say that I'll kill 10 million people, does that make me capable of doing so ?

And they don't suck at war, they're mopping the floor with us in Iraq, achieving every one of their goals: death of infidels and the breeding of hatred for the west. Anti-American sentiment has to be at or near an all-time high, which is exactly what they want.

All of which is Bushs fault, not Ladens. That Ladens enemy happens to be an idiot doesn't make him a genius.

Re:Ho hum

[Anonymous Coward]

Iran (and maybe even North Korea) would love to facilitate a suit-case nuke inside the U.S. Especially if they're name wasn't attached to it. So even if Bin Laden alone isn't a threat, the potential is there.

No they wouldn't, because they know full well that if a nuke exploded on U.S. soil (or British, French, Russian, Chinese, Indian or Israeli soil), it wouldn't matter shit if their name was on it or not - they'ld be taken out on suspicion of involvement alone, with the rest of the world sufficiently frightened not to complain. Despite what certain people would have you believe, neither North Korea nor Iran are controlled by suicidal maniacs.

The real reason the existing nuclear powers don't want anyone else to have nukes is not because they are afraid of nuclear war or terrorists, it is because any country posessing nuclear weapons is much less susceptible to intimidation and blackmail.

Re:Ho hum

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you still fail to grasp the point. Yes, there are tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of hate filled islamist maniacs bent on killing us. No responsible person would argue to simply ignore the threat. However, we should keep the threat in perspective. Treating the entire muslim world as an enemy (like certain people in the West would like us to do) will just result in a self-fullfilling prophecy, meaning we would have to fight 1 billion+ people instead of just a couple of hundred thousand. A much better strategy would be to address the legitimate issues the muslims have with us, thus cutting off the extremists support base, and then rely on muslims dealing with the extremists themselves. No military action on our part required, just some solid police work in our own countries to deal with those islamists already here.

Re:Ho hum

[BgJonson79]

Besides Iran, what democracies have been toppled in the Middle East in the past, say, few decades?

Isn't another way to make someone less desperate be to make them more prosperous? What if western-style prosperity is the problem to the realy crazy bastards? What if the only way to make the really, really crazy f**kers happy be putting veils on women and stop voting?

Re:Ho hum

[oliderid]

I mostly agree but:
Ben Laden became a terrorist leader without having experienced any western agression. In Fact, he becomes an extremist after living inside our "decadent" societies.

The same for the Egyptian terrorist who used to study in Germany before 11th september.

Or the extremists who blew themselves up in London. They were all born in the UK (IMHO).
Or the Islamist who killed Theo van Gogh: Born in The Netherlands.
I don't know for Madrid...But I bet that there is at least one Spanish Islamist.

None IMHO have lived under the situation you have described.

Sometimes you simply have to face it: They "hate" you because of what you are, they know you, they know you better than you know them. They received all the knowledge and wisdom the west could give them. They freely choose to reject all these values we cherish (freedom, reason above passion, science above dogma, rule of human laws against "God's laws", democracy, free speech, strict eguality between men an women, etc.). They choose something else.

It is far too simple to put all the blames on social/economic facts. A Violent ideology is often the root the problem (in the east and in the west). Never forget that they are intelligent being just like you and some of them are even smarter.

Re:Ho hum

[sgt_doom]

You, good Citizen Grym, have won the prize for critical thinking skills. Of course, the one possible weak point is, assuming those US government videos of Osama and friends are to be believed, Atta may have been one of those hijackers who were unaware it was in actuality a suicide mission. Thank you.

And...

[Anonymous Coward]

USA and UK have pledged to provide all the possible help to counter Iran's Nuclear threat?

To be expected really

[KitsuneSoftware]

Very soon the cat will not only be out of the bag, but it will have shredded it on the way out.

Re:To be expected really

[kfg]

Letting the cat out of the bag is not the same thing as squeezing the toothpaste out of the tube.

KFG

Was it Nostradamus who said?

[paiute]

First we had the bomb
But that was good
Because we love peace and motherhood
Then Russia got the bomb
But that's okay
The balance of power
Is preserved that way.

Re:Was it Nostradamus who said?

[LordEd]

Then Cats set us up the bomb
But that's okay
The Zigs for justice
are on their way.

Re:Was it Nostradamus who said?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why the government allows PC users to vote. We don't let criminals vote, we don't let children vote, we don't let Negroes vote, why the FUCK do we let PC users vote?

Plan ahead

[WindBourne]

Iran has nuclear capable missles that can hit all of the middle east and most of Europe. The time to plan is not when they announce and show their nukes, but when you can influence them. Sadly, that time was a couple of years ago. We decided to invade a nation for its oil rather than worrying about the security of all the nations. At this time, I would count on the fact that the entire middle east will have nuclear missles within 15 years. Lets hope that W. (or the dems) do not kill the ABL (anti-ballistic laser). Lasers are probably our best shot at stopping these missles. The patriot system can be easily overwhelmed.

Re:Plan ahead

[daeg]

Lasers do no good if we end up killing off all of the sharks in the oceans. If sharks fail, we can try some mutated sea bass.

Re:Plan ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

THATS your security blanket?

A fictitious pie-in-the-sky technology?

Re:Plan ahead

[Broken scope]

If you can hit the actual missile, change its course, dent up the surface or damage stuff needed for reentry, you can prevent it from hitting its target with a fission or fusion reaction. Now the radioactive materials will still be spread around so its a trade off you have to make.

Re:Plan ahead

[iceph03nix]

umm...not so fictitious. The lasers you see in scifi shows are still very far off but we do have lasers today that can be used for missile defense. Its not ZAP-BOOM but rather a process of using the rays in the laser to overheat the internal systems in the missiles control systems thus disarming it. Think of it like setting a spotlight right next to your computer and turning it on. How long do you think your comp is gonna run with that much heat applied directly to it?

Re:Plan ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Re:Plan ahead

[topace3]

Lasers are probably our best shot at stopping these missles

Except that defense against nuclear missiles upsets the nuclear balance of power. I wouldn't trust any nuke-armed contry with such an advantage. Of course, sooner or later, every contry worth blowing up will have it, and then maybe we could talk about getting rid of most of the nukes in the world, but the immediate danger is one contry with nukes and no way to strike at them. At that point, it won't matter wether it's a commie terrorist dictatorship, your favorite EU state or the USA, enough power will turn anyone bad. I can only hope that this technology is developed in several countries at the same time.

Re:Plan ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

Can the system reliably hit a missile without a GPS transponder inside of it yet?

Re:Plan ahead

[yog]

The consensus in mainstream analytical circles is that a nuclear war is quite unlikely. Even Iran's mullahs aren't that crazy, their bluster about destroying Israel notwithstanding; Israel is rumored to have MIRVs with dozens of warheads on them; they could easily wipe out all life in Iran if they wanted to.

The real likelihood is that a terrorist might obtain a nuclear device and detonate it in the middle of a major city, or from a container ship floated into New York harbor.

Probably the main thing protecting us is not anti-missile technology, which of course is meaningless against a smuggled weapon, but rather the threat of nuclear annihilation against any foe (N. Korea, Iran) thought to have supplied the bomb to the perpetrators. Undoubtedly such threats have been made clear to those people behind the scenes.

Re:Plan ahead

[WindBourne]

You are thinking of the patriot system. The ABL is about undergo testing for the targeting system. Late next year, is suppose to be the test for the total package. ABL should work whereas the patriot system never really had a chance.

Re:Plan ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

The missile defense system was a dumb idea thought up by people who watched too many cartoons of Robin Hood splitting arrows as a kid. A "better" idea would have been to launch multiple rockets (say, 8) with a net between them (with two nets, one at the front and one at the back it would even fly well as long as the nets were kept taut), which would increase the effective target size. Then you have two choices, try to drag the enemy missile in the net to someplace harmless, or simply have the rockets twist inward and detonate against the enemy missile in an attempt to destroy it, the latter more likely to be physically possible since when the net hits the missile, the rockets will be pulled inwards anyway.

Re:Plan ahead

[Yvanhoe]

THATS your security blanket? A fictitious pie-in-the-sky technology?

Well, the mutually assured destruction doctrine is not really the most reassuring philosophy either

Re:Plan ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you see, ICBMs tend to move at very high velocities. And radar, well, that technology isn't even remotely suitable to pinpoint the exact vector of a fast-paced object in threedimensional space, unless I have missed some fundamental developments. The problem IMO is, the US Army is way too proud/paranoid, to use/copy/copperate with other nations on sophisticated weapons and defense systems.

Take this as an example:

http://warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=329&linkid=2545

Already tested on a smaller scale, proven effective and uberquick, this looks promising to me. Thing is, it's a decade old and the USA waved off any attempts to co-develop this with the Russians. I admit, Yeltsin didn't have the aura of a trustworthy person, but plasma technology is IMO better suited than missile-based anti-missile systems. LAser could be an alternative, but heating a missle up requires time and a monitoring system capable quickly adjusting the laser-emitter's position to the pace of the missile to be taken down. An arduous task to accomplish, isn't it?

Most importantly, the arguments in the report above are valid. RUssia and the US should cooperate on potical and military issues a lot more than they do. Their basic (foreign policy) goals are the same. Don't disregard a country's importance just because _one_ president is trying to subdue the media.

Re:Plan ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

I pray you're attempting humor. I really do. If we had that kind of precise rocketry coordination the missile defense system would be a breeze. Instead of nets, Shrapnel warheads. Simply detonate a "net"/wall of Shrapnel in front of the bm, and at a great enough negative speed to shred the onboard systems. From a single source (missile) the effective area is too small, but a coordinated wing might be able to cover the probable error region. Or hell, toss in HE warheads and with enough missiles simultaneously detonating you could almost guarantee the disabling of the hostile missile. But a net? Nets create drag, and one large enough to net a bm with any accuracy while being strong enough to not instantly disintegrate on contact. . . . it simply does not exist.

Re:Plan ahead

[Master of Transhuman]

Gimme a break.

Iran HAS NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM. There is not one single scrap of evidence that they do, according to the IAEA - merely some "concerns" - and there is an explicit religious fatwa from the Iranian Supreme Leader rejecting the possession of nuclear weapons by Iran.

Get it through your head.

Secondly, even if they HAD one (and it would be rational for them to do so), they would have NO ABILITY to threaten ANYONE in the Middle East, let alone Europe, with any kind of first-strike scenario.

Israel has an estimated 100-400 nuclear weapons, including nuclear-tipped cruise missiles on submarines, giving them a second-strike capability, as well as a first-strike capability.

Iran couldn't match that in thirty years...

Get a clue.

THERE IS NO IRAN "NUCLEAR CRISIS".

The sole effect of Iran having one or more nuclear weapons would be to remove the "regime change" program of Israel and the neocons off the table. Because even if Israel has a second-strike capability, Israel has no ability to survive a (properly targeted) first strike on it. Therefore regime change in iran would no longer be an option for the US and Israel.

THIS is why Bush and the neocons are going to attack Iran at any time before Bush leaves office.

The result will be a catastrophic regional war in the Middle East that will doom the US economy, result in scores of thousands of US soldiers dead, hundreds of thousands or millions of Iranian and Iraqi civilians dead, massive terrorism directed at the US and complete chaos in the Middle East.

All for the benefit of some fucking Zionists (who are little more than Nazis themselves) and some fucking empire-building fascists and dick-sucking/drug-using evangelists in this country.

Anybody who believes otherwise is a complete and total moron.

Re:Plan ahead

[myowntrueself]

ABL should work whereas the patriot system never really had a chance.

Hey, give patriot a break; it did have a chance. A chance to make someone a shitload of money!

Re:Plan ahead

[dobestpossible]

I love how sharks are relevant to so many articles at Slashdot! (No sarcasm intended)It is amazing what those creatures are able to do, not just for themselves but others too. They are so concerned with the health and well being of mankind that they selflessly sacrifice themselves for the greater good of all. God bless the sharks and the inventors that create weapons for them to defend themselves and us.

Re:Plan ahead

[DigiShaman]

Not really.

The only way to really down a missle is by rupturing its fueltank. The actual warhead itself would remain unharmed most likely. At the very least, the core metal (nuclear material) would fall like a rock out of the sky into someones backyard. Obviously you wouldn't want to be near the stuff, but the clean-up is very managable.

Re:Plan ahead

[Broken scope]

I didn't say down, nor destroy. I said prevent it from operating properly. It could misfire or not fire at all.

What is preferable? It landing in a major city and killing 80% of the population or it burning up and possible spreading radioactive material of a larger area.

Re:Plan ahead

[Dravik]

The Patriot missile is very good at its intended purpose: Tactical Air Defense against aircraft. It was modified to be used against other missiles after the fact. It does an ok job against theater ballistic missiles and has improved since the first gulf war. It will never be really good against other missiles because that just isn't what it was built for.

Re:Plan ahead

[DigiShaman]

What is preferable? It landing in a major city and killing 80% of the population or it burning up and possible spreading radioactive material of a larger area.

I agree with you. I'm just pointing out that depending on where you destroy the missile, its nuclear payload might stay very well intact. We are talking about a solid sphere/core of metal which is either plutonium or uranium.

You are correct. The choice to destroy a missile on the ground or in-flight is a no brainer vs. its destructive alternative.

Re:Plan ahead

[sarathmenon]

All this makes sense. USA has been abusing its power way too much - The taliban war can be termed a knee-jerk reaction against 9/11 and to a small extent justifiable. The attack against Iraq was uncalled for, and it is only logical that other countries perceive this as a threat against their sovereignty. I'll only blame the US's high attitude for the escalation in the nuclear problem - something the whole world will pay for dearly in the next 100 years.

Re:Plan ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

nets, sharks, shrapnel, whatever. What is important is getting the funding for your project, billions and billions of dollars.

Re:Plan ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

That all might be true, if the country wasn't led by an advocate and believer in the 12th Imam and hadn't sworn that Isreal will perish in a sea of fire, but as it stands I think it is a bit foolish to call those who disagree with you morons. You should have gone with the Nazi approach if you really wanted to kill discussion.

This scenario is why we have the NPT, and why it is important to enforce its provisions on all those countries that have signed it. What Iran has done is show a path for others to follow.

Re:Plan ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

"Rumsfeld, quit humping the laser" Dr. Evil

Re:Plan ahead

[RockDoctor]

Lasers are probably our best shot at stopping these missles

Except that defense against nuclear missiles upsets the nuclear balance of power. I wouldn't trust any nuke-armed contry with such an advantage.

Reluctant though I am to suggest that Dubya is anything other than a thoroughly corrupt dribbling retard of a sock-puppet, in this case the people who fist him and write his speeches do seem to have grasped the shocking, terrible, evil fact that ...
- even IF one created an ( extremely effective && almost fail-safe && affordable && maintainable ) laser system for shooting down incoming nuclear missiles, THEN
- it wouldn't do much to protect the Motherland (sorry, that's Russia; try "Fatherland" , nope - Germany. What is it that the Merkins call the "patria" in their "Dulche et decorum est, pro patria mori" ?) against a non-missile bomb. For example, a 2-ton (mass, not yield) nuke in the hold of a boat smuggling another 3 tons of cocaine and Heroin® into the harbour of a major city ; set up the triggering so that it blows 5 minutes after the air pressure inside the container is released, and label it "Fresh figs - product of Israel - keep refrigerated.", just to stir up more trouble.

Missile defense systems, if they work, are effective ways of encouraging people to deliver unwelcome equipment using non-missile techniques.

Re:Plan ahead

[heinousjay]

Blaming only the US makes sense so long as you absolve everyone else in the world. It's not logical in any way, and your opinion has no influence on reality, but if it makes you feel better, go right ahead. You'll die just the same, and it will make no difference.

Re:Plan ahead

[sarathmenon]

Seriously, why so? If you rewind 400 500 years in history this has been the case - the human race only needs an excuse to kill one another. Back then wars meant only 1000s dead, there was no long lasting ecological or cultural damage. Take the case of now, and all the wars fought in the 2[01]st century. Mines abound everywhere, people are killed/affected by the millions, and its hard to see where its going to end. You may call me a troll, and I may be so but I have a point - each war is proving more costly and the way we are heading, it seems that people don't care a fuck about reality. The world will end sooner or later, and yeah I'll die the same. But trust me - we have at least one nuclear war ahead of us.

Re:Plan ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

Hm. It's been 11 months since I left my job, 8 months since I've been homeless, and 4 months since my laptop was stolen... and you're still here, and still making some of the most intelligent posts, and still getting slammed by the mods. Good to see they haven't killed you off yet.

Later,

SilverspurG

PS. Brush up on professionalism (I know... Your style is impact *g*). Check yourself on the following pitfalls:

> all caps
> cuss words
> sarcastic/sardonic jargon (eg. neocons, Zionists, fatwa, Iranian Supreme Leader, dick-sucking, empire-building fascists) ... sure it's fun to think in those terms but it's really just flamebait in a public post
> insults (eg. get a clue)
> use of quotes (eg. "regime change").

Re:Plan ahead

[Cpt_Kirks]

"MAD" does not work if the other side thinks dying is a good idea and doesn't give a rat's ass about their own population.

If the ABL is in position to hit a missle in the boost phase, rupture of the fuel tank is pretty workable. If the radioactive wreckage falls back on the launch country, boo-hoo.

If the wreckage lands on another country, you just made a new enemy. Still, it beats having the warhead reach it's target.

Stuff like the old SDI and the ABL work best as deterrents. If they think the missile won't reach the target, maybe they won't launch. However, if they are INSANE, deterrents lose their punch.

Re:Plan ahead

[YomikoReadman]

http://www.google.com/search?q=standard+missile&st art=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.m ozilla:en-US:official

I beg to differ. While this application is only for Theatre Missiles, which is what both the Iranians and the Koreans are currently developing, there is a scaled up version that has applications for ICBMs.

So, yes, you've missed quite a few development in RADAR tracking abilities. Although, with that said, you also seem to have missed out on AEGIS entirely.

Re:Plan ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure we didn't invade any countries for their oil. If we had we would be seeing returns on that investment by now. We're not.

We might have invaded for the wrong reasons, but don't make shit up just to make it look like you know what you're talking about.

If you don't like it when Bush gives us uninformed answers, half truths, or just flat out bullshit then don't fucking do it your self. You're no better.

Re:Plan ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

If not for oil, then why did we invade?

• Surely it was not because his father did not finished the job.
• It was not because there was a tyrant in control (far worse ones in the world).
• It was not because he had WMD.
• It was not because so many people were dieing in the country.
• And it was not because we had links indicating that Iraq was involved with Al Qaeda (we have known for a decade that Al Qaeda hates Sadaam as much as they hate us).
• It was not because they were behind the 911 attackes.

It was purely about oil and control. In fact, they are pumping LOADS of oil there and the bulk of it is going to American oil.

Please do not make things up nor ignore the facts. It makes you a FUDer for Bush.

What happen?

[Gricey]

Someone set us up the bomb.

Saudi Arabia needs nuclear power...

[patio11]

... because its not like they have a cheap, abundant source of power anywhere.

Re:Saudi Arabia needs nuclear power...

[Salvance]

Sure, they could use oil to power EVERYTHING, but why use their only resource for power? Over the next few decades, oil will almost certainly average $60 per barrel. Saudi Arabia produces it for $10 per barrel. Producing a barrel equivalent worth of nuclear power costs under $20 (at least in the Mid Atlantic U.S. region) ... which means that for every barrel worth of nuke power they can make, they provide themselves the opportunity to gain a $40+ profit on a real barrel of oil down the road.

Re:Saudi Arabia needs nuclear power...

[Mr. Flibble]

... because its not like they have a cheap, abundant source of power anywhere. /blockquote.

Removing oil from the ground, and processing it requires energy. Why would you want to burn some of the oil that produces your profits? Also, they know that the oil will eventually run out, and as the reserves get lower, the oil becomes harder to pump, and costs more to extract. This means decreasing profits.

Even Iran, which is an oil rich nation could become a net energy IMPORTER. Thus, they need other means of producing energy than just oil. So, while western nations don't want these countries to have the bomb, they both need nuclear power to keep their economies/countries going, and the simple fact is that the bomb gives them extra security.

We may not like that here in the west, but having a bomb keeps people from invading your country.

So, they need to generate power, and nuclear works, a side effect is that they can use this for defense.

Re:Saudi Arabia needs nuclear power...

[Anonymous Coward]

Any chance uranium producers decide to band together and sell uranium at 6x the production cost to OPEC members?

Re:Saudi Arabia needs nuclear power...

[b0s0z0ku]

Any chance uranium producers decide to band together and sell uranium at 6x the production cost to OPEC members?

So the OPEC countries will start reprocessing fuel and using breeder reactors to make more fuel.

-b.

Re:Saudi Arabia needs nuclear power...

[killjoe]

Oil is too valuable to be used internally and only getting more expensive. Why not minimize the use of oil internally so you can sell all your stock.

using oil is bad for the environment.

These countries need nuclear weapons in order to counter a threat from the US and israel. US has made it clear it claims ownership all oil supplies er I mean strategic resources anywhere in the world.

Personally I think they should get nuclear weapons before they get power plants, it's cheaper and quicker to go that route.

Re:Saudi Arabia needs nuclear power...

[turgid]

I wish I were on Mars right now.

World war's a-coming...

...Oh wait.

What's the point in manned space exploration?

Sarcasm is the lowest form of Humour. Heavy metal is the lowest form of music. We're all in the gutter but some of us are looking at the stars.

I am the lowest form of life.

Re:Saudi Arabia needs nuclear power...

[clekosrule]

I think the poster may have been referring to solar energy.

Re:Saudi Arabia needs nuclear power...

[Ant P.]

This is slashdot. People don't think here.

Re:Saudi Arabia needs nuclear power...

[noigmn]

Yes, but unlike the US and Australia, nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran are part of the Kyoto Protocol. Nuclear is an efficient way of lowering their greenhouse emissions. It is not safest and the best way in my view. But as much as we are paranoid about terrorists in the West (who have so far killed 0.001% of the American population), and not that scared of climate change, we should not extend our paranoia to stopping these measures by other countries who have agreed to be part of the Kyoto Protocol and the international community.

On the subject of bombs. If they really want to kill you, you can't stop them. Ban nuclear they will find another way. In the case of them actually building and delivering a nuclear bomb they would probably only get as far as hitting one US city or more likely with their missile technology get it shot down or found out before they even attempted to launch it.

Re:Saudi Arabia needs nuclear power...

[legirons]

"because its not like they have a cheap, abundant source of power anywhere."

So burning oil unnecessarily is a good thing?

Re:Saudi Arabia needs nuclear power...

[Goonie]

Uranium was being sold for around $10 per pound in 2001. It's now selling for around $60 per pound. So the world's uranium produces already are, in large part, selling uranium for at least six times its production cost.

Is this sustainable? No. New mines are going to come on stream over the next few years, and production is expanding at existing ones. But uranium producers are rolling in money at the moment.

Re:Saudi Arabia needs nuclear power...

[iamlucky13]

FYI, Saudi Arabia is the 19th highest CO2 emitter in the world, but is not obligated under Kyoto to reduce emissions like the US would be, because it is a "developing nation." In fact, it's emissions grew by 40% from 1993 to 2003.

The threat is not really the Saudi or Iranian (I hope) governments killing us with nuclear bombs. The threat is either them losing a few and someone else killing us with them, or more likely, them all killing each other (the greenies who. It's been quietly discussed for quite a few years that if one country over there developed a nuclear weapons program, others may very well follow suit so they can at least hide behind M.A.D. It happened right after WWII with NATO and the USSR, and we went "holy crap" and stepped back a bit. It happened just a couple years ago in India, followed by Pakistan in short order, and they went "holy crap" and stepped back a bit. It happened in Israel in the 60's, but for the most part their neighbors didn't have the resources to follow suit immediately, and thank goodness when the Iraqis tried in 1986, the Israelis eliminated the concern. If that hornet's nest of sectarian and political tension we call the Middle East actually does follow through in the development of nuclear weapons, they might very easily say "jihad" instead of "holy crap."

Another possible cause.

[Lethyos]

Perhaps in response to unbridled United States aggression in the region.

Re:Another possible cause.

[quanticle]

Given the fact that most of these countries' ruling classes are propped up by US money and arms, I somehow don't think they're as afraid of us as they are of their own people.

Re:Another possible cause.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps in response to unbridled United States aggression in the region.

Unbridled aggression would have involved our nuclear arsenal. Invading Iraq was stupid, but definitely bridled.

Re:Another possible cause.

[TheRaven64]

This move makes a lot of sense if it's motivated by US aggression. If Iran says 'we're building a nuclear capability' then the USA might well invade. If everyone in the region says it, then what can the USA do?

Re:Another possible cause.

[Anonymous Coward]

Amm .. not to be conspiratorial but isn't there somebody *cough* Israel *cough* that already has nukes and has no fear in using them ? This M.A.D business is getting a little out of hand.

G

Re:Another possible cause.

[Anonymous Coward]

Glass 'em?

Re:Another possible cause.

[cold fjord]

Perhaps in response to unbridled United States aggression in the region.

Obviously, because we all know that things in the Middle East are all sweetness and light when the United States isn't around, and that no Arab, Persian, or Muslim would ever kill a fellow, let alone a Jew.

Re:Another possible cause.

[Lethyos]

We are Israel. It is no secret that, in addition to direct involvement in Middle East conflicts, we provide rich funding the Israeli military. To the average Arab that either fears or is hell-bent on destroying the west, the two forces are indistinguishable.

Re:Another possible cause.

[Pink Tinkletini]

If you have a point to argue, linking to MEMRI doesn't help you establish credibility. They cherry-pick statements from the most radical, inflammatory people in the Muslim world, and then try to portray these viewpoints as if they were mainstream. It's like describing America by showing a montage of KKK rallies, Fred Phelps waving "GOD HATES FAGS," and lynchings in Wyoming—misleading, unhelpful, uninformative.

Re:Another possible cause.

[gotak]

Oh brother. The whole idea that it's Muslim against the west is complete bullocks. Look at Hamas and Fatah having a go at each other no need for America or Israel there. Oh and by the by King Hussein of Jordan was attacked by the Palestinian with Syrian support, apparently it's not important where their new homeland gets carved out of. His ass got saved when Israel sent some phantom jets to convince the Syrian tanks to turn around. Saddam attacked Kuwait and threatened the house of Saud. Interesting note that Bin Laden offered to go fight Saddam for Saudi Arabia. Too bad they didn't let him have a crack would have save the world a lot of trouble if Saddam mustard gassed him and his friends and Bush wouldn't have been able to say Iraq was aiding Bin Laden.

The thing is Iran's scaring these middle eastern states more then it's scaring America. Unlike the rest of the world Iran already used WMD against Iraq, and vice versa, in the Iran Iraq war. So clearly they are more willing to use WMD then other countries. After all in their fanatical war against the infidels innocent dead are just martyrs. They are scary scary people and their neighbors are scared.

Now if only there isn't this would thing about Nostradamus predicting WW3 starts in the middle east and kills everyone...

Re:Another possible cause.

[CommandNotFound]

Remember that the US provides almost $2B USD in aid to Egypt each year, almost as much as Israel, but I suspect Egypt has a much higher population than Israel. Also, Jordan receives about $500M USD per year. The numbers are in the congressional report here (PDF). Although, I imagine Isreal receives much more private foreign aid than what the federal US Govt provides.

Re:Another possible cause.

[quanticle]

I suppose it makes sense if they're afraid of the US withdrawing support and subsequently doing to them what we did to Saddam later on.

I still don't think the US has the capacity to invade Iran. Or rather, we have the capacity to invade, but we don't have the capacity to hold the country afterwards.

Re:Another possible cause.

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember that the US provides almost $2B USD in aid to Egypt each year, almost as much as Israel,

Most of that $2B USD is "military aid" and "aid to support security". If you wade through the doublespeak, that means building US bases for the benefit of US armed forces.

No other country in the world considers the establishment of a US base on non-US land to be foreign aid.

Re:Another possible cause.

[Anonymous Coward]

mods on crack?? how is that flaimebait??

FACIST USA!! GET THE FUCK OUT!

Middle Eastern nations ?

[Fruny]

Considering how Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia are all located to the West of Italy, with Morocco itself facing Spain, I honestly don't think they can or should be called Middle Eastern nations. Some people needs to review their geography a tiny little bit.

Re:Middle Eastern nations ?

[Anonymous Coward]

We say Middle Eastern because we can't call them what they are -- Islamic states.

Re:Middle Eastern nations ?

[thue]

There is a better label to apply than the obviously wrong "Middle Eastern". The mentioned countries are all "Arabic".

Re:Middle Eastern nations ?

[Anonymous Coward]

See, most Americans don't know where Italy is. They don't know where Spain is. To them, any nation that is to the west of LA is "China". Any region to the east of North Carolina is the "Middle East".

Re:Middle Eastern nations ?

[Fruny]

Well, it's an excellent opportunity to learn.

Re:Middle Eastern nations ?

[hunterx11]

Actually, a much better term for them is "Maghreb," seeing as they aren't all Arabs, and seeing as there are plenty of non-Maghrebi Arabs. Also, "Arabic" is a language, not an ethnicity.

The Maghreb states comprise western North Africa, that is, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, and Mauritania.

Re:Middle Eastern nations ?

[Zocalo]

Actually, classing them as Arabic isn't much better either since the bulk of Morocco's population is Berber with only about 10% being "pure" Arabs, Algeria's genetic makeup is not too much different than that of Morocco and Libya is even named after a Berber tribe. A much more accurate term would be Islamic, but that's not especially a word people like hearing in close relation with the word nuclear these days, despite almost all of the listed governments having generally cordial political relations with the EU and US at present. Morocco is talking about membership of the EU and openly supported the Coalition in "Iraqi Freedom", and Libya seems to be trying very hard to make amends for past activities at present.

Re:Middle Eastern nations ?

[flyingfsck]

Well, for a public school education describing North Africa as the Middle East isn't too bad. It is only out by a few thousand kilometers...

Re:Middle Eastern nations ?

[Khalid]

Morocco has always been a pro West nation; you must be confusing with another middle eastern country. Morocco was even the first nation to recognize the US and has the oldest non-broken international friendship treaty with the United States. The Moroccan-American Treaty of Friendship has been in effect since 1786.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moroccan-American_Tre aty_of_Friendship

Re:Middle Eastern nations ?

[duplo1]

They most certainly are not Islamic states. They are North African states with muslim-majority populations, but the rule of law is not Islamic Sharia', so they can hardly be labeled Islamic States.

Re:Middle Eastern nations ?

[Plutonite]

All these states are "Arab" due to their having Arabic as the language of the state, not ethnic background. They are all members of the Arab League. Saying that they are "Islamic" is inaccurate, because Islam has varying roles in these governments, ranging from absolute to "legal flavoring" as in Egypt for e.g.

Re:Middle Eastern nations ?

[ghyd]

I think it's called North Africa.

Re:Middle Eastern nations ?

[Memnos]

Unless you were responding to something else, I believe the parent comment agreed with your point. Still, the Wikipedia reference was enlightening.

Re:Middle Eastern nations ?

[clacke]

Still east of Washington D.C., though. ;-)

Re:Middle Eastern nations ?

[tehcyder]

We say Middle Eastern because we can't call them what they are -- Islamic states.

Yes, that's right, Israel is absolutely an Islamic state. No, hold on, what was I trying to say?

Oh yes: you are a fucking idiot.

Re:Middle Eastern nations ?

[kbahey]

Actually, classing them as Arabic isn't much better either since the bulk of Morocco's population is Berber with only about 10% being "pure" Arabs, Algeria's genetic makeup is not too much different than that of Morocco

The term Arab and Arabic are different, although they are used interchangeably. Arab refers to ethnicity, and Arabic refers to language and culture. All of North Africa is Arabic by culture and language, and not by ethnicity. The countries have significant minorities of non-Arab speakers, but Arabic is spoken by most, and is also an official language. Those countries are members of the Arab league.

Libya is even named after a Berber tribe.

Actually, the name Libu comes from ancient times. It is recorded from the 2nd millenium BC in Egyptian annals as Ribu (since the ancient Egyptians converted the L to an R, like Japanese today). Identifying them as present day Berber is tenuous. Berber predecessors is more accurate, just like the Numidians a millenium afterwards.

Re:Middle Eastern nations ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice, the list includes every North-African country EXCEPT Libya. Is Libya the West's only remaining friend in the region?

[toggle sarcasm]

Yeah, the poster is right. Morocco is further from Iran than say, Thailand is. What's the threat to them?

Oh really

[Mikachu]

However, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, suggests that the sudden interest in nuclear technology is driven by the desire of the six nations to create a 'security hedge' in response to Iran's recent nuclear development program."

Hmm... YA THINK?

Re:Oh really

[njdj]

Well, let's see. Iran has not attacked any other nation, except in direct response to being attacked (by Iraq in 1980), for about the last thousand years. Doesn't seem like much of a threat to me.

On the other hand, there's a country much bigger than Iran which seems to bomb or invade a different country every 3 or 4 years ... Panama, Grenada, Libya, Sudan, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq just since 1980, and I've probably missed a couple. I think it might be a good idea to have a deterrent to being attacked by that country, don't you?

Re:Oh really

[Tarnum]

However, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, suggests that the sudden interest in nuclear technology is driven by the desire of the six nations to create a 'security hedge' in response to Iran's recent nuclear development program."

And Israel's nuclear development program. And USA's nuclear development program.

The M.A.D. doctrine is the only way to defend against the Dubyas of our world.

Re:Oh really

[Anonymous Coward]

Iran's new president describing Israel as a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the face of the earth".

Sounds like a peace loving country to me!

Re:Oh really

[TheRaven64]

Of the 7 (possibly 8) countries to have nuclear weapons, only one has ever used them aggressively. I think if that country started looking aggressive in my area, I'd want a nuclear deterrent too.

Re:Oh really

[Anonymous Coward]

You fail.

What he really said

Re:Oh really

[Anonymous Coward]

Of the 7 (possibly 8) countries to have nuclear weapons, only one has ever used them aggressively.

We used nuclear weapons to end a war that they started in an unprovoked surprise attack. There was no other way they would have surrended. If that was an aggressive use of nuclear weapons, what would a defensive one be?

Re:Oh really

[TheRaven64]

There was no other way they would have surrended.

Wow, someone hasn't read their history. Japan had already offered to surrender, but not to surrender unconditionally. The danger the USA wanted to avoid was Japan surrendering to Russia (the allies who were just poised to become enemies), who were poised to invade.

Re:Oh really

[CodeMasterPhilzar]

Yeah, particularly since Iran may be Muslim, but it is not Arab.

Why not just buy from U.S.?

[Salvance]

If these countries were truly looking for nuclear power, why not just buy light water reactors from the U.S.? Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt could easily obtain reactors from the U.S. given their allied status and being favored trading partners.

This would afford them the ability to develop their nuclear expertise to a certain degree, while also providing them cheap power. While it would be more expensive than oil power, it's not really a relevant comparison since the value of oil is in the market value, not the production cost. Since the market value is so much higher than the cost of producing nuclear power, it's a no brainer for them to pursue, particularly for power hungry operations like desalination.

Re:Why not just buy from U.S.?

[DigitalRaptor]

We haven't built a nuclear reactor in 20 years, and unfortunately don't plan to. Why would anyone buy from us?

Re:Why not just buy from U.S.?

[doit3d]

I do not think that would be wise, for I fear that may speed things up so that they can kill more people quicker. I really think that is what would happen. Historically, people in those regions have fought for thousands of years. I for one, do not ever see a democracy happening over there either. The law of the land over there is that the toughest SOB rules the land, and that SOB will do whatever it takes to do that, even if it means using things that go "Ka-Booooom," not just boom..... I think there are some people over there just crazy enough to do that.

I think it is in the worlds best interest that all nuclear countries keep their tech to themselves, rather than having such technology in a place so prone to violence. Eventually they will get nuclear tech, but why speed things up, they do have a large energy resource as it is. Bigger guns they do not need. They kill each other fine the way it is, without the worry of polluting the rest of the world with horrific radiological contaminants.

Re:Why not just buy from U.S.?

[ToddML]

Don't confuse the construction of domestic plants with companies like G.E. that build plants for worldwide use.

Re:Why not just buy from U.S.?

[MollyB]

Your comment reflects only the economic aspect of these countries' motivation. To buy anything from America is a political hot-potato for them, as showing their "independence" from the West is necessary to the "Arab street." (Forgive my verbal shorthand, please...)

Further, I think they like the ambiguity of having a home-grown system that they can refine in secret if they sense the need to do so. From what very little I know about the subject, light water reactors are not able to produce much weapons-grade material, making their "cost" a different calculation altogether.

Re:Why not just buy from U.S.?

[DigitalRaptor]

According to their own site GE is the last company in the U.S. making light water reactors.

There was a time the U.S. was the big man on campus for nuclear technology. I think that time has passed.

Re:Why not just buy from U.S.?

[Twiceblessedman]

Because Candu reactors from Canada are better?

Re:Why not just buy from U.S.?

[killjoe]

Yes arabs are not as rational as white people. Take for example saudi arabia. They have been involved in one war or another every five or six years as opposed to the US which has never been involved in any war in my lifetime and has never acted irrationally and agressively towards other nations.

Oh wait a minute. I think I have that mixed up..

Re:Why not just buy from U.S.?

[celerityfm]

Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt could easily obtain reactors from the U.S. given their allied status and being favored trading partners.

Maybe you missed the memo.. but Saudi Arabia is NOT considered an ally anymore! 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian- the operation was financed by Saudi Arabians, and members of the Saudi Arabian government knew about 9/11 and were very uncooperative in helping the United States investigate 9/11 in the aftermath (mostly to cover up their involvement). Furthermore- Saudi Arabia was one of few countries to recognize the Taliban government of Afghanistan and they were actually a major source of FUNDING for them!

The Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 said point blank that the September 11 attacks could have been prevented but for the Saudi Arabian government's lack of cooperation with US investigations during the lead up to 9/11. The reason for their lack of cooperation? Because they were involved!

The main leaders of the government of Saudi Arabia may want to be allies, but they are basically under tremendous internal strife with other powers in Saudi Arabia who are anti-US, and in the end their policies are tempered by this strife to our detriment.

They were our allies before, and because of this we gave them preferential treatment, overlooking transgressions and suspect citizens visiting the US, etc ... this preferential treatment was also cited as something that could have prevented 9/11!

Here are some choice quotes from Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 for your consideration below.

Looks like this guys article is coming true...

quotes:

"According to a U. S. Government official, it was clear from about 1996 that the Saudi Government would not cooperate with the United States on matters relating to Usama Bin Ladin. **REDACTED**, reemphasized the lack of Saudi cooperation and stated that there was little prospect of future cooperation regarding Bin Ladin. **REDACTED** told the Joint Inquiry that he believed the U.S. Government's hope of eventually obtaining Saudi cooperation was unrealistic because Saudi assistance to the U.S. Government on this matter is contrary to Saudi national interests. "

"The Treasury Department General Counsel testified at the July 23, 2002 hearing about the lack of Saudi cooperation: There is an almost intuitive sense, however, that things are not being volunteered. So I want to fully inform you about it, that we have to ask and we have to seek and we have to strive. I will give you one-and-a-half examples. The first is, after some period, the Saudis have agreed to the designation of a man named Julaydin, who is notoriously involved in all of this; and his designation will be public within the next 10 days. They came forward to us two weeks ago and said, okay, we think we should go forward with the designation and a freeze order against Mr. Julaydin. We asked, what do you have on him? Because they certainly know what we have on him, because we shared it as we tried to convince them that they ought to join us. The answer back was, nothing new. . . . . . . . I think that taxes credulity, or there is another motive we are not being told. "

"A number of U. S. Government officials complained to the Joint Inquiry about a lack of Saudi cooperation in terrorism investigations both before and after the September 11 attacks.**REDACTED**. A high-level U. S. Government officer cited greater Saudi cooperation when asked how the September 11 attacks might have been prevented. In May 2001, the U.S. Government became aware that an individual in Saudi Arabia was in contact with a senior al-Qa'ida operative and was most likely aware of an upcoming al- Qa'ida o

Re:Why not just buy from U.S.?

[bagsc]

They're not fools, which is why their nuclear team is building a joint venture with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries to stay competitive. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867 ,20676070-31037,00.html

Re:Why not just buy from U.S.?

[dbIII]

They don't want it for the electricity - if that was the case they would use a mature technology that works. There are some of promising leads in nuclear power that may eventaully deliver - but the nuclear industry has spent more on advertising than R&D for years. It may be cheap power someday, but calling it that now will just make people laugh at you or write you off as baing ignornat or a shill. Ask the taxpayers and electricity consumers of the UK how "cheap" nuclear power is - or if you can't be bothered I will tell you there is a very large subsidy.

Algeria with nuclear weapons would make us think North Korea are a cuddly and friendly regime.

Re:Why not just buy from U.S.?

[dbIII]

That is correct - need lots of plutonium as a byproduct for weapons developement? CANDU!

Thirty years ago Australia was considering buying one for exactly that reason but I think the US administration of the time talked the govenment out of starting a weapons program.

Re:Why not just buy from U.S.?

[DigitalRaptor]

Which only furthers my point: The U.S. has lost it, so even our last remaining nuclear power plant company, GE, isn't selling it's own products in the U.S. but is instead working with a Japanese firm to get their stuff sold here.

Re:Why not just buy from U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you missed the memo.. but Saudi Arabia is NOT considered an ally anymore!

Maybe Bush should be re-read that memo. Of course, given his history with memos that were read to him, I wouldn't expect any positive action.

Re:Why not just buy from U.S.?

[AtomicBomb]

Yes and no. Light water reactor is very good at generating electricity. But, if the main interest is heat (e.g. for desalination plant or oil refinery), light water reactor may not be the best design. It is not safe enough to feed the coolant water to an external site, nor colocate a chemical plant with it. Pebble bed modular reactor is a more suitable design. Unfortunately, it is still largely on the drawing board....

Re:Why not just buy from U.S.?

[Ant P.]

Furthermore- Saudi Arabia was one of few countries to recognize the Taliban government of Afghanistan and they were actually a major source of FUNDING for them!

Guess which other country provided them with most of their weapons and training. Hint: it's not in the middle east.

Re:Why not just buy from U.S.?

[Reaperducer]

Freakin' Luxembourg! Always messing things up for everyone else!

Re:Why not just buy from U.S.?

[flyingfsck]

Because they could get a better deal from France or Russia?

Re:Why not just buy from U.S.?

[celerityfm]

caveat: I didn't mean to jump down the parent's throat as much as I feel that the whole Saudi Arabia thing is an issue that doesn't get enough attention... I'm sure the leadership over there is trying though.. but the bottom line is that they are definitely a challenge for us and shaky allies at best.

Re:Why not just buy from U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

and which country has actually used an atomic bomb .... USA
thanks for the laugh and nice troll

Re:Why not just buy from U.S.?

[legirons]

"If these countries were truly looking for nuclear power, why not just buy light water reactors from the U.S.?"

And there was me thinking that "protecting domestic jobs" was a good thing, from how you hear the US government describe it when they put "US sources only" on government purchasing programs...

Card

[toddhisattva]

The United States has an "Attack Iran, Free" card from the late 70s.

Time to use it.

Re:Card

[quanticle]

Sure, we may have a justification to attack Iran, but, given the amount of resources Iraq is tying up, I'm not sure we have the ability. I don't think we can stop Iran's nuclear progression with airstrikes alone.

Re:Card

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just the Israeli in ya talkin'

Re:Card

[nightfire-unique]

Sure, we may have a justification to attack Iran,

What is wrong with you? Will you not be satisfied until all of the world allies in a war of aggression against you?

Re:Card

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States has an "Attack Iran, Free" card from the late 70s.

Time to use it.

Maybe we better wait on that until we the full price on using our "Attack Iraq, Free" card? We might not be able to afford both, especially at the same time.

Then again, why worry? The Democrats will fix everything next week.

You all believe that, right?

Re:Card

[dbIII]

And that will be easier than Afganistan? I suggest paying attention to the world around you may be worthwhile before making such ridiculous suggestions.

Re:Card

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States has an "Attack Iran, Free" card from the late 70s.

Time to use it.

Hey President Bush. I didn't know you posted on slashdot.

Re:Card

[Andy Gardner]

Sure, we may have a justification to attack Iran, but, given the amount of resources Iraq is tying up, I'm not sure we have the ability.

Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. But first could you explain this justification? The rest of the rational thinking world and I are confused.

Re:Card

[Anonymous Coward]

"Attack Iran, Free"?

Wait a minute here...

It was Irans first elected prime minister who was removed from power by covert operations by the CIA in 1953. Great example of democracy to set for the world there, nice one!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Safavid_Empire.2 C_Shi.27a_Islam_and_Modern_Iran

Re:Card

[tehcyder]

The United States has an "Attack Iran, Free" card from the late 70s.

Yeah, but it's one they made themselves at home.

And here I thought...

[Anonymous Coward]

And here I thought they were one big happy Islamic family. "Allahu Akbar" my ass!

Bookie

[phaetonic]

So within 100 years, are we looking at a Persian Empire again, or maybe a Chinese Empire? You get 2:1 on your money with Chinese, and 3:1 if North Korea doesn't become a tribute state for China.

Re:Bookie

[quanticle]

Frankly, I agree. The Chinese these days seem to be doing everything right in terms of expanding their power and influence on the world stage.

They're focusing on growing their economy and ensuring that their colleges produce lots of scientists and engineers to ensure that they catch up technologically. Their military is huge and is becoming better equipped by the month, and, more importantly, its not bogged down in a faraway land. They've suppressed political dissent, allowing their leaders to ignore domestic problems and focus on China's international status.

In the long run the lack of democracy and rural resentment against urban elites will probably do them in, but, in the meantime, we'll probably see a good 30 to 40 years of Chinese domination of Asia.

Re:Bookie

[saridder]

ahh, suppressing political dissent. Always an admirable quality. In truth, China is a nation of Haves and Have Not's and is one of the most politically unstable countries in the developed world, their military is still decades behind most countries and they're not bogged down in faraway lands because their military can't get there. They can't even invade Taiwan.

Re:Bookie

[TheRaven64]

Not to mention buying America. Any idea how many US treasury bonds China has bought in the last few years? The only reason the US Dollar is worth anything at all (and it's not worth much these days) is that it suits China for it to have value.

Re:Bookie

[zptao]

You, sir, are an idiot. Invading Taiwan would be a political, not military objective. Taiwan is but a stones throw away from China, and not even the United States or Japan could protect them - it would need but half a day to throw landing forces and take over all the bases in the area. Not to mention that half the population is Chinese, not Malaysian in origin...

Re:Bookie

[saridder]

actually we are protecting them you fucking jackass. It took just one carrier to stop china in thier tracks in 1996 and not much has changed since then. We sell them subs and missles to keep them from being invaded and have a defense pack, else they'd be like Tibet today.

Re:Bookie

[saridder]

Spelled "pact" wrong above.

Here's data backing up my claims in case you try and make another trolling, uninformed, jackassed comment.

http://taiwansecurity.org/News/IHT-The-Balance-of- Power-Remains-in-Taiwan's-Favor.htm

"On July 19, the Pentagon released its annual report to the U.S. Congress on "The Military Power of the People's Republic of China," which it was required to do according to the provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2000...The report is clear that, until the end of the present decade, Beijing will not be able to defeat militarily even "a moderate-size adversary" and will not be able to project its sea power beyond coastal defense."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_T aiwan#Balance_of_power

"President Clinton, sent two aircraft carrier battle groups to the region, sailing them into the Taiwan Strait. The PRC, unable to track the ships' movements, and probably unwilling to escalate the conflict, quickly backed down..."

http://web.mit.edu/ssp/seminars/wed_archives_04spr ing/ross.htm

"...China today relies on missiles and fighter aircraft to threaten Taiwan. These weapons don't provide China a capability to bring Taiwan to its knees..."

http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?pare ntid=6671

http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&repo rt_id=333&language_id=1

Re:Bookie

[lilfields]

From my understanding, Japan holds more U.S. T-Notes than China; China really has little bearing on the U.S. dollar. If China was to lose favor with the U.S. dollar their economy would suffer just as America's would (as would Japan or the U.K.). That is the strange thing about currency markets and globalization. If Ben Bernanke and the Fed continue to raise rates, we will see more strength in the dollar; they see the economy as being "too hot" at least that would be why they would raise rates to decrease inflation. We'll just have to wait for the next CPI (Consumer Price Index) and PPI (Producer Price Index) numbers before they will decide what the next move is. I would like to see a stronger dollar myself, but I don't want stocks which generate a large volume of U.S. taxes to fall...making paying debts harder...it's really complicated.

Re:Bookie

[dbIII]

They can't even invade Taiwan.

Do they really want to invade Taiwan or do they just want to get concessions by threats every few years?

Re:Bookie

[dbIII]

The carrier was a symbol that there are a lot more where that came from. Anti-missile defence is still sci-fi (as events in Israel vs twenty year old second hand Iranian missiles should show) so one carrier would not last long if there was a war.

Re:Bookie

[dbIII]

Ah - national pride. Not being from either country but living in a country effectively allied with both I'll have to point out a couple of things. China already has the majority of US developed nuclear technology (that major spying incident in Los Alamos) in addition to their own, and keeps on buying the best of US military technology from Israel - sometimes even reselling it to Iran! China will trade with anybody which has increased it's influence in Africa and South America. A heavy handed diplomatic approach will just make people who take it look stupid, and military threats will be ignored just as Nixon's nuclear bombers flying about off Alaska to scare the USSR were ignored.

Re:Bookie

[quanticle]

I never said that suppressing dissent was a good thing. In fact, if you read till the end of my post you'll see that I forecast that the autocratic nature of China's government will only give the power in the short-to-medium term, at the expense of power over the long term.

Unless China opens up its political decision-making system, we'll never see a "Chinese century" like we saw an "American century".

Re:Bookie

[quanticle]

Like the sibling poster mentions, the US is China's #1 trade partner, and it would be economic suicide for them to try to destroy our economy, as they would be killing off their largest market. Its the economic version of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Re:Bookie

[saridder]

Exactly, but a carrier fleet would be. The US has a "swarm strategy" where if they see China preparing for war/war games, we will swarm the area with battle groups.

Not sure how much longer this strategy is going to work as the balance of power *is* shifting, but it's decades away from doing that - and only if US and Taiwan just keep the staus quo (which we won't do).

Re:Bookie

[saridder]

My mistake. Agreed 100%

Re:Bookie

[Andy Gardner]

Their military is huge and is becoming better equipped by the month, and, more importantly, its not bogged down in a faraway land. They've suppressed political dissent, allowing their leaders to ignore domestic problems and focus on China's international status.

I agree with you economic assessment but can you provide sources for this military claim? I don't think so because it is just incorrect. China's defense spending is on par with the UK, France, Japan etc. They haven't even developed a significant offensive military capacity. Of all the major powers they have been the least aggressive militarily. The threat from China isn't a military one it's the fact that they can't be intimidated.

In the long run the lack of democracy and rural resentment against urban elites will probably do them in, but, in the meantime, we'll probably see a good 30 to 40 years of Chinese domination of Asia.

That is almost laughable, they've been around for four thousand years but you only give them another forty tops?

Re:Bookie

[Dunbal]

The Chinese these days seem to be doing everything right in terms of expanding their power and influence on the world stage.

      Not to mention owning almost every supermarket and corner store in the Americas.

Re:Bookie

[Mad Marlin]

That is almost laughable, they've been around for four thousand years but you only give them another forty tops?

I would imagine that he was referring to their current Maoist communist regime, not all of China.

Re:Bookie

[quanticle]

I'm not saying that China as a nation-state will go away. I am saying that, unless they deal with the disparity between urban and rural areas, they'll be looking and severe civil unrest that will greatly diminish their ability to influence other countries in the region.

Re:Wow, it is close to an election or what?

[ScentCone]

BS political scare stories

Um... what, because when UK journalists report the story, it's Americans getting all excited? Or would you be trying to pretend that an actually disturbing development, field by Iran's posture, is somehow the US's fault, rather than being the regional scariness that it is?

We'll try to stay serene and calm

[Llywelyn]

When Alabama gets the bomb!

Re:We'll try to stay serene and calm

[Atlantis-Rising]

South Africa wants two, that's right-
One for the black and one for the white!

Re:We'll try to stay serene and calm

[IvyKing]

Israel getting tense, wants one in self-defense

Re:We'll try to stay serene and calm

[cold fjord]

South Africa wants two, that's right

South Africa already had nuclear weapons and gave them up.

Re:We'll try to stay serene and calm

[stunt_penguin]

Iranians, been taking classes, wants to drop one on their asses.

Re:We'll try to stay serene and calm

[TheRaven64]

According to the link, they began their nuclear program four years after the song was recorded.

Re:We'll try to stay serene and calm

[Anonymous Coward]

South Africa wants two, that's right-
One for the black and one for the white!

A fight! A fight!
A nigger and a white!
You're the nigger
and I'm the white!

Give it to them.

[headkase]

They're going to get nuclear technology anyway so the West should step-in with some initiative. Sell them the hardware for power plants and then in a very monitored way sell them the fuel as well. If we give them what they need (and they truly do as potable water is expected to be a major source of conflict in the 21st century) and monitor the fuel usage then, I think, there would be less of a risk of repurposing the fuel to weapons. While at the same time providing infrastructure that these countries need as they enter their industrial ages. When we went through our industrialization we wasted amazing quantities of fossil fuels, now as they catch-up these developing countries can go straight to nuclear avoiding our first-run mistakes.
Why don't they use fossil fuels to power their desalination plants? Probably because in the future that oil will be worth more selling as lubricants and plastics as supplies run low than the cost of nuclear fuel.

Re:Give it to them.

[Troed]

in a very monitored way

Why should they, for a second, accept that?

Re:Give it to them.

[b0s0z0ku]

Sell them the hardware for power plants and then in a very monitored way sell them the fuel as well. If we give them what they need (and they truly do as potable water is expected to be a major source of conflict in the 21st century) and monitor the fuel usage then, I think, there would be less of a risk of repurposing the fuel to weapons.

We (the USA) have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. We also have the tendency to invade countries and meddle in their internal affairs. So far, we haven't used our nukes, but neither has anyone else simply because the consequences would be too large to make it practical in warfare. Isn't our "preventing proliferation" just a case of the pot calling the kettle black?!

-b.

Re:Give it to them.

[caffeine_high]

I agree. If the only way these countries can get uranium is in prepared fuel rods only to be replaced in exchange for spent fuel rods they would get their nuclear power with much lower risk of nuclear weapons production.

Re:Give it to them.

[maxume]

Lack of choice.

You would do well to read up on what 'commodity' and 'fungible' mean before you worry yourself too much more about the US trying to control the world's oil.

Re:Give it to them.

[Reaperducer]

We (the USA) have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.

Actually, Russia has a far larger nuclear arsenal. If you believe Wikipedia, at least. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_nations

Re:Give it to them.

[Shawn is an Asshole]

So far, we haven't used our nukes, but neither has anyone else simply because the consequences would be too large to make it practical in warfare

So I guess Japan bombed themselves?

Re:Give it to them.

[Dunbal]

If the only way these countries can get uranium is in prepared fuel rods only to be replaced in exchange for spent fuel rods

      Only the country proposing this has a long history of breaking treaties oh I'm sorry, interpreting treaties differently, and why the hell should they put themselves in a dependent position?

Re:Give it to them.

[caffeine_high]

I'm an Australian. I would like to see a number of countries selling fuel rods including Australia as a major supplier of the raw product. For this to work the producers just have to only sell fuel rods and refuse to sell unprocessed uranium. If there is a competitive market for the supply of fuel rods and the storage of the nuclear waste countries will safe that their is ready supply for peaceful purposes.

Re:Give it to them.

[headkase]

Because they're nice. Very nice. Because the USA and Russia should commit to a great humanitarian project: The Joint Space Defence Command. It's primary purpose is to detect and neutralize any ballistic missile attacks regardless of origin and destination.
So a super Star Wars program - high enery lasers, kinetic, ECM, and anything else that works. Now how about this for a protocol: on launch detection:completely neutralize launch -> respond:high altitude nuke over aggresor nation. With the result being the complete disruption of most of their electrical grid (excepting hardened or off electronics) so most of their power grid is down for quite a while.
And because they want nuclear technology now not in 35 years when everyone has it so there's a bit of leverage in reaching an agreement with fuel accounting firmly in place (for as long as you can). So address the root of the problem, a space defence would solve politically the problems associated with nuclear proliferation. The fact of the matter is that proliferation is going to happen eventually - maybe sooner or later than you'd expect. Once MAD risk is mitigated then the consequence of more open usage of nuclear materials wouldn't set off the alarms it does today.
Still put radiation detectors everywhere inside your borders though.
Nuclear is the way to go for everything, no matter where you go you can mine uranium as it is a naturally occuring element. You'd be lucky to find fossil fuels anywhere. And until anti-matter becomes practical nuclear power is what is going to make spaceships go. So nuclear systems research would be an awesome investment.

But what do I know, I'm just posting on Slashdot.

Re:Give it to them.

[b0s0z0ku]

So I guess Japan bombed themselves?

"used our nukes" best be qualified with "after WW II"

-b.

just small dividend from "axis of evil" decl.

[buulu]

At least now Bush can afford to pay the national debt ... what a genius that man is!

Israel has nuclear weapons

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, Israel has nuclear weapons already.

Considering the recent events in Lebanon, who can guarantee that Israel is not going to use them?

Re:Wow, it is close to an election or what?

[MillionthMonkey]

Enough with the BS political scare stories. Yes, you Americans want to get all excited about your coming election, but can you spare us the drama?

Oh yeah? Saddam Hussein, a former head of state, is about to get sentenced to death just in time for our election.

Just tell me who's gotten a death sentence right before the elections in your piddly little country! Certainly no former foreign heads of state I'll imagine!

<img src="styrofoam_index_finger.gif"/> USA! USA! <img src="bush_flag_eagle.gif"/>

High Energy from Small Powers: Inevitable

[istartedi]

As technology improves and new discoveries are made, it seems inevitable that high energy technology will be available to small powers. I'm not nearly as concerned about a country having nukes as I am about irresponsable companies having them, or insane neighbors using some sort of device that, say... accumulates easily fusile material in a small package, and cheaply. No, such technology doesn't exist now; but it seems inevitable that the cost of nuclear tech will go down.

Right now, it's pretty cheap for my neighbor to make a fertilizer bomb and take out my entire block. This is pretty much the practical limit of Insane Nutjob Technology (INT). INT is already advanced to a stage that, if you went back to the middle ages, would make a small army jealous.

When INT advances to the point where it can take out an entire city, that's a serious problem. When terrorist armed with INT can scale up enough to destroy the planet, it could end civilization.

This was one of the interesting things about Star Trek that made it less than utopian--INT had progressed to the point where INs could take out entire planets. Fortunately, there was at least one new planet every week.

We may not have that luxury. When INT can take out a significant portion of the planet, that is indeed what might happen, until INT destroys enough of civilization to reduce the power of INT to manageable levels again (no internet, no bomb-making manuals, INT is decremented), or until humanity is destroyed.

Hell no!

[Anonymous Coward]

No nukes in Arab countries. Arab are crazy. All terrorists are Arabs, anyone wonder why?
Arab is very unstable place, its wars all the frigging time down there, all the time people down there are having wars with each other and killing each other, they're like cavemen. Their society sucks, they have sick shit like religious laws, they have dumb stuff like Islam laws. People who cheat on their partner get stoned to death, homosexuals get stoned to death, you cant have sex before you marry, wtf, its a sick place!

If the crazy Arab countries gets nukes, then the world will a be less safe place. You say something bad about Muslims, Islam, or their holy crook Muhammad, then they go bananas with their nukes. They don't understand press freedom.

Re:Hell no!

[realitybath1]

You say something bad about Muslims, Islam, or their holy crook Muhammad, then they go bananas with their nukes. I don't recall the Pakistanis using their nukes.

You forgot the rest of the poem

[1053r]

...
Then Iran and N.K. get the bomb and we're all screwed
Because martyrs get 72 virgins in the nude
ahmadinejad says he's not insane
what about when they bombed spain?

Kim jong il says "I want a nuclear power plant"
Good ol GW says "No you can't"
He says it's so we won't have to live in fear
Don't we have a double standard here?

We all know there were weapons in Iraq
Blix just couldn't find them because he was wack
He was probably over there smokin crack
While drinking whiskey and playing blackjack

Killing our freedoms, one by one
is something the government thinks is fun
American citizens can own a gun
but give iran a nuke and armageddon's begun

The democrats were right, we knew all along
that we shouldn't vote in a politician with no schlong
(or if you want you can call it a dong)
We see everyday george bush is wrong

Impose sanctions on the axis of evil
because dictators are such weevils
To kill soldiers and get cheap oil,
is "definately not the reason we're on iraq soil"

Now we're just two days before an election
The G.O.P isn't liking the rejection
"Our party is without a flaw"
(by the way: "no timetable for withdrawal")

Kerry was criticizing the president, you see
maybe luckier next time you will be
do your homework, study hard,
and you won't get stuck in the national gaurd

(I ran out of ideas, would any /.ers like to keep the rhyme going for me?)

Re:You forgot the rest of the poem

[jb.hl.com]

If there are any Slashdotters who could carry on those rhymes, could they please not, because reading the parent has made me lose the will to live. Thanks.

Re:You forgot the rest of the poem

[MindStalker]

Kim jong il says "I want a nuclear power plant"
Good ol GW says "No you can't"

Umm they have a nuclear power plant, we gave them one, and have offered them more in the past.

Re:You forgot the rest of the poem

[Anonymous Coward]

I died inside a little ='(

Re:You forgot the rest of the poem

[tehcyder]

If there are any Slashdotters who could carry on those rhymes

Any Slashdotter, most children and quite a few cats could carry on those rhymes.

Re:You forgot the rest of the poem

[jb.hl.com]

I think it's a little insulting to cats and children to put them on the same level as Slashdotters.

Non-proliferation is failing

[cold fjord]

The European lead negotiations with Iran are failing to produce meaningful results. That is bad enough given the threatening language from the Iranian leadership, and their President's state of mind.

Now it looks like the Sunni vs Shia / Arab vs Persian rivalries, are about to take a much more dangerous form, not to mention the Arab/Muslim conflict with Israel. What is even more disturbing is that the restraints that contained the cold war don't seem to apply. We might end up with a nuclear Jihad.

Re:Non-proliferation is failing

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, why shouldn't those A-rabs be afraid of Israel?

If some random terrorist blew-up a "suitcase nuke" in Tel Aviv -- and no connection to any state is found -- how does anyone know how Israel would respond? Maybe they'd nuke every surrounding Arab/Muslim capital? (Not as far-fetched as you think -- given a known predilection toward race-based collective-punishment.) There's no way to be sure -- but you reduce the chances of being hit if you have a deterrent.

Before you tell me that Israel is a "peace-loving nation," "the only democracy in the Middle East" -- I'll remind you that they have supported their fair share of atrocities, e,g.:
      * supplying weapons and intelligence systems to Guatemala -- aiding the genocide that occurred there.
      * helping Apartheid South Africa acquire nuclear weapons -- and possibly helping them test one. (SA is the same country that was attem to develop advanced bioweapons to selectivey kill-off black people.)

These alliances w/ the "wrong side" of struggles around the world are not aberrations in Israel's history -- but directly correlated to who they are, how their state was created, and how they view themselves.

Bang a Gong, we are on!

[Dr. Eggman]

Host: Yes, what the Iron sheik is trying to do is spice up his Napalm Suprise with some irradiated sand!
Guest 1: Oh! That'll be really good! I can't wait to see how this turns out!
Guest 2: I love the smell of napalm in the morning!
All: *Laughs*

Re:Bang a Gong, we are on!

[goldragon]

god, i wish i had some mod points right now! thanks for my biggest laugh today!

I can't say that I'm surprised

[Dark Paladin]

If there's anything the recent events in Iraq versus North Korea have demonstrated, it's "those who have nukes don't get invaded". It's the ultimate self-defense mechanism, it would seem.

Re:I can't say that I'm surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a rather short sighted evaluation. There's a much better reason no one has invaded N. Korea, and it has nothing to do with their nuclear "arsenal".

First off, you can't assume that having a nuclear weapon on the same level of N Korea grants you any sort of protection. If the US wanted to invade Korea, they wouldn't hesitate. N Korea has no viable deployment method that could launch from within their borders and land a payload of any sort within US borders. They just don't have the range. They could reach as far as Japan, which I'm sure JP isn't happy about, but you can't prevent an invasion by threatening to bomb the wrong country. That means that their only option for using their nukes as defense is to bomb their own landscape with them, hopefully killing some invading troops in the process. Given the technology level of their current nukes, they are low yield with high concentration of fallout, which means that any bombing of their own landscape would do nothing but result in slabs of charred dirt that is unusable for inhabitation or farming for the next 50 years at a minimum. Effectively, using their "arsenal" of nukes on their own land would be self inflicted genocide.

Yes, nukes are powerful weapons, but no one fears the country that has bombs with no deployment technology. The cold war was a scary time because there were two nations that had several thousand nuclear weapons with ranged deployment capabilities via intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarines, and stealth bombers. Either Russia or the US could have placed a nuke anywhere on the planet in under an hour. An ability like this provides protection against invasion. Merely having some warheads does not. I've yet to see North Korea create any sort of deployment technology that can match that effectiveness. Until they do, their nukes are token "we got big dick too" banners with no purpose other than to make Kim Jong-il feel like he has some sort of soapbox to stand on so he can be "taken seriously".

The real reason no one has invaded North Korea or even Iran over these issues is completely because of the situation in Iraq. The world's population can only mentally accept one war at any given time. Starting a new scuffle before the current one ends is political suicide, and a certain way to prevent an office holder's political party from regaining that office for quite some time.

Re:I can't say that I'm surprised

[cold fjord]

North Korea exploded a nuclear device with an unusually small yield just over three weeks ago, and there is no indication that it was a weapon quality device. So, maybe their "nuclear weapons" have kept them "safe" for three weeks now. As an added benefit, that nuclear explosion is going to be keeping them "safe" from invasions of fine wine, cheese, meats, and various other luxury and military goods banned by the UN. This does leave a mystery though, and maybe you can help. Although they are currently in a cease fire, the UN Forces in South Korea (including the US forces) have been technically at war for more than 50 years now with North Korea. What stopped them from invading for the last 50 years? Any ideas? Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons yet, why hasn't the US invaded them yet? It looks to me like it was their nuclear weapons programs that have brought them into conflict with the US/US/Europe. Saddam was probably further along with building a nuclear bomb than Iran, but it didn't help him. In fact, it caused the Israelis to bomb him, setting the program back for years. Wouldn't it be ironic if it was their nuclear weapons programs that caused them to be invaded or bombed?

Re:I can't say that I'm surprised

[Dunbal]

but no one fears the country that has bombs with no deployment technology.

      Then tell my why the US feared Iraq and Afghanistan? These countries don't even have bombs. Why attack, if not from fear?

I'm not worried

[gelfling]

They've all proved themselves to be calm levelheaded and rational when it comes to the strategic employment of military and economic resources. Plus, they're at least as enlightened if not moreso than the pinnacle of western culture. Their educational systems are world class, their level of social mobility and tolerance is excellent and political systems are open, transparent, democratic and have sterling checks and balances.If anything we should simply give them all nukes.

Re:I'm not worried

[Anonymous Coward]

I realize you're being sarcastic, but some people really do subscribe to that. I've read a couple of books about Islam in the past month. Real interesting stuff.

Myth. The Qur'an teaches believers to take up arms only in self-defense.

Fact. The Qur'an says once hostilities have begun, Muslims should wage war furiously. The problem is, as far as Islam is concerned, everything that doesn't help their own cause is considered war against Islam. So they are *always* justified to "retaliate". (When in reality, by any sane person's standards, Muslims are the ones starting the conflict.)

(Sure, Christians believe in soul winning, but ultimately the Christian attitude is "take it or leave it.")

Muslims, on the other hand, believe it is their divine duty to force their religion on everyone else ... so they can save you from "The Fire of Jahannum." If the Kuffaar [non believers] do not allow the spread of Islam, it is considered an act of war. Thus, Muslims are entitled to slit your throat, cut your head off, fly airplanes into buildings killing thousands of innocent, non militants, all in the name of "self-defense." Here then is another illustration of how elastic and essentially meaningless the concept of fighting only in self-defense has become.

What's more, later portions of the Qur'an nullify the self-defense point. Islamic theology divides the Qur'an into "Meccan" and "Medinan" suras. The Meccan ones comes from the first segment of Muhammad's career as a prophet, when he simply called the Meccans to Islam.

Later, after he had fled to Medina, his positions hardened. The Medinan suras are filled with matters of law and ritual and exhortations to jihad warfare against unbelievers. The relatively tolerant verses date from the Meccan period, while those with a more violent and intolerant edge are mostly from Medina.

Why does this distinction matter? Because of the Islamic doctrine of abrogation (naskh.) This is the idea that Allah can change or cancel what he tells Muslims. Because the Medinan suras came after the Meccan suras, the Medinan suras override any conflicting verses presented in the Meccan suras. So all the ideas of tolerance and peacefulness are effectively canceled.

Myth - "Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists."

This is the mother of all politically correct myths about Islam. Yet its persistence and resilience in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary, both from Islamic theology and today's newspapers, is not simply due to naive multiculturalism and cynical duplicity. Islam is only a peaceful religion in the sense that peace will come when everyone in the world is Muslim. But until such time, Muslims will wage war on anyone and everyone.

Violent jihad warfare against unbelievers is not a heretical doctrine held by a tiny minority of extremists. It is a constant element of mainstream Islamic theology. Islamic law contains instructions for the minutest details of individual behavior, as well as regulations on the structuring of government and relations between states. It also contains unmistakable affirmations of the centrality of jihad warfare against unbelievers.

This is true of all four principal schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence, the Maliki, Hanafi, Hanbali, and Shafi'i, to which the great majority of Muslims worldwide belong. These schools formulated laws centuries ago regarding the importance of jihad and the ways in which it was to be practiced; however, that doesn't mean that these laws are ancient history and have been superseded by more recent rulings.

It is a commonly accepted principle in the Islamic world that the "gates of ijtihad" have been closed for centuries. (The gates of ijtihad refers to the free inquiry into the Qur'an and Islamic tradition in order to discover Allah's rulings.) In other words, Islamic teaching on principal matters has long been settled and is not to be called into
question.

What abo

Re:I'm not worried

[ColdWetDog]

Who in the hell are you talking about?

Holland?

reason for iranian nuclear development

[sjofi]

response to Iran's recent nuclear development program

and why would iran want to develop nuclear arsenal? probly has nothing to do with the fact that its surrounded on two sides by unstable third world countries with nuclear weapons and on the third side they have a country which is occupied by nation with the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet and that said nation has been threatening to attack (and has in fact supported attacks to) iran since the 70s.

Re:reason for iranian nuclear development

[DigiShaman]

With Iran, the reason is pure religious. In fact, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad feels that the fall of Israel is a religious necessity to call forth the 12th imam.

Given the current state of affairs, I would say that Israel *will* get nuked. In return, Iran will fall too in the same manor. If you're living in either country, I'd get the hell outta Dodge and fast.

If Iran wants to be blown up in their own suicidal blaze of glory, let them. Just get it over with and stop fucking with the rest of the world. Radical Islam is a cancer to all human civilization and endeavors. Communism follows a close second, but I digress.

Fear my google-fu!

[weteko]

Tom Lehrer, "Who's Next" First we got the bomb and that was good Because we love peace and motherhood Then Russia got the bomb but that's OK Because the blance of power's maintained that way Who's next? France got the bomb but don't you grieve Because they're on our side, I believe China got the bomb but have no fears Because they can't wipe us out for at least five years Who's next? Then Indonesia claimed that they Were gonna get one any day South Africa wants two, that's right One for the black and one for the white Who's next? Egypt's gonna get one too Just to use on you-know-who So Israel's getting tense Wants one in self-defense "'The Lord's our Shepherd,' says the Psalm But just in case, we better get a bomb!" Who's next? Luxembourg is next to go And who knows, maybe Monaco We'll try to stay serene and calm When Alabama gets the bomb Who's next? Who's next? Who's next? Who's next?

Re:Fear my google-fu!

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. The idiot can't write HTML!!!!11!!!111!!!!

Re:Fear my google-fu!

[weteko]

Can't write it, can't be bothered. Pick on - stick with it.

Hmmm..

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose this has nothing to do with the recent posting in Arabic on a US goverment website on 'How to construct your very own atom bomb, and get around possible setbacks as a middle eastern country'. This research was nicked from pre-Gulf war Iraq and supposedly contains much more information and details than is available though shadly online sources.

Nah.

Re:Wow, it is close to an election or what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Never thought of it like that before. Cool stuff, huh? Gotta love USA!

Hahh...The US is in trouble!

[bogaboga]

Under the terms of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), every state however good or bad, rogue or not, has the right to pursue nuclear ambitions for "peaceful" purposes. Now, this does not mean that some of the technology could be used for non-peaceful purposes.

When it comes to non peaceful purposes like the nuclear bomb, the US does not have an answer! So our government will try to deny nuclear know how to countries it perceives as a threat.

Remember our president refers to "Nuclear" as "Nucilar"! What does not help the situation is the fact that our government continues to hang onto its nuclear arsenal, while boasting that it will develop so called "mini-nukes", and it does not want others to have the same technology! Guys, we're damned! We continue to be whipped in IRAQ and the impending nuclear madness or race does not help matters.

BOOM!

[PixelScuba]

(And possible LAST post!)

Good thing the administration is responding ...

[monopole]

By uploading detailed nuclear bomb plans to the web in Arabic:
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/ 03/1811235

Nuclear Power

[UnixSphere]

They have nuclear technology.......so what? It's better for everyone to have it so no one will use it, if that makes sense. Would the US have bombed Japan if the Japanese had the same type of technology? These countries are realizing Nuclear Technology is power, it's a currency just as good as money itself.

Re:Nuclear Power

[blixel]

so what? It's better for everyone to have it so no one will use it, if that makes sense. Would the US have bombed Japan if the Japanese had the same type of technology?

wow - you so don't understand the mindset of jihadists.

Re:Nuclear Power

[Anonymous Coward]

By your same attitude... every person should has a tank in his garage. Because nobody would be stupid enough to use it. Forgetting the fact there's CRAZY PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT WOULDNT CARE... Not to mention an increased risk of MISTAKES. Look at Cherynobol. You really think that out of say 50 or so 3rd world country with nukes that how many would have an oops melt down?

Proliferation IS NOT THE FREAKING ANSWER. Morons like you are whats wrong with this world.

Re:Nuclear Power

[dragonturtle69]

No. If Japan had a nuclear bomb in 1941, they would have used it first, their military believing that they were clever enough to pull off a pre-emptive stike.

Iran used its Card already

[Anonymous Coward]

Iran had an "attack USA card" WE GAVE THEM which they used to kidnap a few Americans in the 70s.
Don't forget the few deals that were made 70s to prolong the problem (with some of the SAME people involved that run things today, USA and IRAN.)

Blowback, look it up.

Not a new development

[hunterx11]

Morocco had already begun work years ago on a nuclear power plant at Tan-Tan as a pilot project for a possible large-scale nuclear desalination project. They were primarily received support from China; however, Chinese interest in assisting Morocco floundered, and since Hu Jintao came to power, he has shown no desire to complete it.

To be quite honest

[PingXao]

No nation or other group can seriously try to play mediator in the region re. nuclear weapons without confronting the elephant in the room. Israel must be made to acknowledge its stable of nukes. You can't tell nations they cannot have nukes while Israel is sitting right there in the middle of the lot with its unofficial nuclear arsenal.

Any non-proliferation efforts are doomed to fail in the middle east unless Israel owns up to what they have. To turn a blind eye to their nuclear capability while preaching to other countries about what they can and cannot do is rank hypocrisy.

Re:To be quite honest

[sd.fhasldff]

Why does Israel need to acknowledge they have nukes? Everybody knows it. What possible difference could it make?

The fundamental problem with nuclear weapons is that they are relatively easy to make. The (remote) delivery system is the hard part.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to make a nuke...

Re:To be quite honest

[x_codingmonkey_x]

Yeah you need be Nuclear scientist

Re:To be quite honest

[Chabil Ha']

I don't think it's a matter of admitting them, nor is their position justification for their enemies to have them either. The whole idea of having nuclear technology is that you're sane enough not use them. You throw the $jihad variable in there and you unbalance the whole equation of nuclear technology.

Israel has them, without a doubt, but they know that they wouldn't use them simply because I don't think that they would nuke the land that Abraham promised them. However, the Islamic point of view may feel justified to do it, not because they think Abraham promised it to *them*, but because it would eradicate the infidel in a very decisive manner.

If you look at the political landscape surrounding Communism and Democracy (USSR & USA), we weren't playing our cold war based on religion, it was based on political ideal. We both knew we had the weapons and had a hair trigger on them, but we both knew and didn't want realize the consequences for using them, simply because we had sane people behind the button.

I can't say the same in this situation.

Re:To be quite honest

[Anonymous Coward]

Any non-proliferation efforts are doomed to fail in the middle east unless Israel owns up to what they have. To turn a blind eye to their nuclear capability while preaching to other countries about what they can and cannot do is rank hypocrisy.

Sounds like another nation that's in the news alot these days.

Re:To be quite honest

[rohan972]

Israel hasn't sworn to the destruction of any other states or ethnic groups.

Re:To be quite honest

[sasha328]

THat's such a simplistic view.

You obviously don't have access or don't read the Israeli newspapers. Just like there are a lot of Moslems wanting the remove the "new-comer" Israelis, there are also many Jews in Israel who also advocate removing (some have used exterminate) the "Arabs" (that's their way of refering to the "natives" also known as Palestinians).

Re:To be quite honest

[rohan972]

While you are correct that I haven't read the Israeli newspapers, I have assumed that there would be some Jews that would see things that way. However, it doesn't seem to me to have been the predominant attitude in (Modern) Israel and if I understand correctly, it seems likely that the ones who do think like that would want to remove Palestinians from Israel (even by extermination) and therefore are very unlikely to use nukes in the pursuit of this goal. I don't percieve any such reluctance on the Muslim states part to nuke Israel. Even the radical muslims wouldn't be likely to nuke Jerusalem though, for obvious reasons.

Perhaps my view is not quite so simplistic as you thought?

Re:To be quite honest

[anaesthetica]

I agree that Israel's non-declaratory nuclear status is a problem. Everyone knows, and the uncertainty created by the non-declaration heightens the security dilemma of Israel's neighbors.

That being said, I don't think the recent declaration of Middle Eastern powers to engage in cooperation on nuclear research is aimed at Israel. Middle Eastern powers have tolerated an unofficially nuclear Israel for decades and there has been no significant shift in the balance of power between Israel and its neighbors which would account for this sudden declaration. Israel's Arab neighbors even went to war against Israel in 1973, knowing full-well that Israel was armed with nuclear weapons--didn't seem to make a difference.

The development which I believe is the proximate cause of the Arab states' move to engage in nuclear development is quite clearly the degeneration of negotiations surrounding Iran's nuclear program. The Arab-Iranian conflict is several hundred years old, spans numerous historical empires, and shows little sign of abating. In historical terms, it has been far bloodier, and far more significant, than the Arab-Israeli conflict, easily. The two key states among the six total are Egypt and Saudi Arabia--they're the only two with the proper resources and level of development to sustain such operations. The other four are probably just 'value added' for this cooperative coalition.

That the United States and Europe have winked at Israel's nuclear forces, tolerated Pakistan's, and moved to accept India's must only strengthen Iran's resolve to acquire nuclear weapons. Why should Iran's principal ideological enemy (Israel) and underdeveloped, basket-case neighbor (Pakistan) have nukes, while Iran, with a 2500-year history of successive empires, culture, civilization, etc, be denied such weapons? Hard for the U.S. and Europe to make a convincing case against their acquisition when arrayed against the historical and geostrategic panorama Iran faces.

Re:To be quite honest

[Anonymous Coward]

You should be careful you're basically suggesting Arabs aren't as rational as white people. Can you provide evidence for your theory that political leaders in the middle east are less sane than anywhere else in the world?

I don't know what's scarier your point of view or the fact that this sort of generalization is beginning to get modded Insightful.

Re:To be quite honest

[sd.fhasldff]

Yeah you need be Nuclear scientist

Actually, no, you'd probably be a lot better of being an engineer. And this is speaking as a physicist myself, although admittedly not a nuclear physicist.

Rocketry aside, building a nuclear bomb is almost solely an engineering challenge. The nuclear physics involved are extremely well-understood and not very difficult. Sure, you might not know EXACTLY how much and what kind of damage your bomb would cause (underground testing helps solve that), but so what? You're a little off on the yield. Compared to having or not having a nuke, that's a minor issue.

Re:To be quite honest

[Andy Gardner]

Israel hasn't sworn to the destruction of any other states or ethnic groups.

And who has exactly?

Re:To be quite honest

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you provide evidence for your theory that political leaders in the middle east are less sane than anywhere else in the world?

You mean aside from the fact that the majority of the middle east is a 3rd-world shithole ruled by either absolute monarchies or despots, and even the more "modern" areas are filled with misogyny, oppression, Jew-hatred and other Islamic nuttyness? You multi-culti nutjobs crack me up...

Re:To be quite honest

[rohan972]

Israel hasn't sworn to the destruction of any other states or ethnic groups.

And who has exactly?

Hezbollah (defacto government of South Lebanon, supported by Iran, Syria), Hamas (currently forms the majority party of the Palestinian National Authority according to wikipedia). Various muslim organisations, whose governments do not seem to condemn them. Consider that if a political group in the US advocated the destruction of Canada and the government did not condemn it, they would be percieved to support it.

Which of the muslim states would support Israel against such attacks? Any?

An anonymous quote I think is not very far from the truth: If the Arabs (Moslems) put down their weapons today there would be no more violence. If the Israelis put down their weapons today there would be no more Israel.

Re:To be quite honest

[DigiShaman]

Iran --> "Wipe Israel off the face of the map"

Re:To be quite honest

[Chabil Ha']

Consider this:

The idea of a suicide bomber was created in the Middle East. It is quite easy to find someone who is willing to strap a bomb to themselves, climb on board an Israeli bus full of civilians, and detonate it. Would this same person have any reservation driving a four door sedan with a nuke in the trunk and detonate it? I would daresay no. Why? Because instead of killing only ~20 people on a bus, now you can kill 500,000+ in a densely populated city. I mean what is next after a suicide conventional bomb? How can you do much 'better' than that without making the leap to a nuclear device? Let's face it, a conventional bomb packed with nails is passé, but a nuke, that's really up there as far as shock value, don't you think?

Re:To be quite honest

[Andy Gardner]

Interesting, can you please provide a source for a Muslim state swearing the destruction of Israel.

Re:To be quite honest

[Andy Gardner]

Iran --> "Wipe Israel off the face of the map"

Incorrect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_a nd_Israel

Re:To be quite honest

[rohan972]

Interesting, can you please provide a source for a Muslim state swearing the destruction of Israel.

Well, if you read my post, you'll see that I specifically did not state that, but since you asked: At a conference in Tehran on Wednesday entitled "The World without Zionism," President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

Now, I haven't made an in depth study of middle eastern politics, but from what I observe, it seems to me that muslim states generally do not announce a desire for the destruction of Israel, but are highly tolerant/supportive of political groups (usually known as terrorist groups, I am deliberately not using this term) who do have this stated objective (as I outlined in my previous post). They get the diplomatic benefits of seeming moderate, but if western governments were so tolerant of hate groups, they are seen to be supporting them (which no doubt is sometimes the case). The groups that do announce their intention to destroy Israel often have very significant political influence in their countries, even to the extent of being a "state within a state" as Hezbollah, for example, has been referred to.

Re:To be quite honest

[Dunbal]

The whole idea of having nuclear technology is that you're sane enough not use them. You throw the $jihad variable in there and you unbalance the whole equation

      So basically the reason they can't have nuclear weapons is that muslims are insane enough to use them? Who knows, I mean atomic weapons have been used on humans before. I don't think Harry Truman was a muslim though.

      If you fall into the generalization that "all muslims" are insane because of a few crazy people, well we could generalize all day, about a lot of things. Why haven't the muslim nations attacked the West conventionally? Or refused to sell them oil? Those would be insane things to do.

      No actually I believe they have acted in quite a sane manner because they've brought their political differences (right or wrong - pick a side) to the world's attention, shaken the entire United States, and NO ONE has been able to do ANYTHING to stop it. Insane?

      And I'm not even Muslim. Fancy that. This is going to go on until people learn to RESPECT their differences and TRUST one another. Lack of trust breeds, well, MORE lack of trust. The US doesn't trust Iran to have nukes. They're probably right. But why should Iran trust a country that has a habit of renegging on almost every single treaty they have signed, since Cowboy and Indian times, and invaded oh, let's see, how many sovereign countries now - to "topple a dictatorship"? The latest joke is they don't even pay attention to the United Nations anymore - except to clean up the mess. Why bother with the UN at all?

      I agree that the more nukes there are, the higher the chance that something awful will happen. But if nukes mean that a country will no longer be pushed around by the US, you can bet that every nation capable of making them will try their hardest.

      And by the way, whose foreign policy has been insane, lately?

      The legions did not stop the barbarians from destroying Rome, and B-1's and M1A1's will not protect the US. If they continue to impose their will on the world, the world will destroy them as well. Empires come, and empires go. You go and fight your "terrorists", and let me know when you find one.

Re:To be quite honest

[Memnos]

Yup, yer' right. You need to know how to very quickly combine two sub-critical masses of Ur-235 (or secondarily a whole bunch of bits of Pu-244 with a lot of good timing, if you want an implosor, which they won't bother with) preferably with an initiator such as Polonium so the reaction starts properly. Perhaps some Tritium-Boost(tr) to speed up the alpha-time (make sure to compressively fill the Tritium-Boost Tank(tr) at the receiving end of your gunshot-type fissor at the last minute to avoid degradation, rust, or spoilage -- it's not covered under the warranty), and your choice of a tamper-reflector based on your personal taste.

And if you're going to go the extra step and fuse Hydrogen, you might need to focus the neutrons properly into the really nasty deuterium/tritium stuff. A bit of lucite or polystyrene helps here if applied properly. Oh and don't forget to surround the core with lithium-deuteride and Ur-238 to get the most bang for your buck. It's not that hard, unless you actually try to do it. Then it does get to be a bitch.

Re:To be quite honest

[Andy Gardner]

Well, if you read my post, you'll see that I specifically did not state that, but since you asked: At a conference in Tehran on Wednesday entitled "The World without Zionism," President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

Now, I haven't made an in depth study of middle eastern politics...

You clearly didn't make an in depth study of your quote either because it's wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_a nd_Israel

Re:To be quite honest

[rachit]

> The idea of a suicide bomber was created in the Middle East.

Have you heard of Japanese kamikaze pilots?

I'm sure there are even more prior examples of "suicide bombers" if you go back far enough.

Re:To be quite honest

[PHPfanboy]

You are jumping semantic hoops. Perhaps you would be happier if he said he was interested in a "final solution of the Jewish Problem" - then at least we'd be able to tell he was only trying to help, not cause any harm...

Seriously, if you lived in the region you'd be **very** concerned. If you want to go into Talmudic dissection of his words you can, but I think (and so does almost anyone else) it's quite clear from Iranian foreign policy and military investment what the intent is.

Ahmadinejad repeatedly comes out with things like this. If he's not linguistically spot-on as you suggest, you may agree that it's an unusual subject to keep speaking about.

Re:To be quite honest

[cold fjord]

You should venture beyone Wikipedia.

World leaders condemned the Iranian President's remarks, no doubt after checking with their diplomatic services for translations and meaning.

Iran leader defends Israel remark

While most Muslim and Arab capitals have remained silent on the president's remarks, a few have spoken out - including Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat.

"Palestinians recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist and I reject his comments," he told the BBC News website.

"What we need to be talking about is adding the state of Palestine to the map and not wiping Israel from the map," he said.

Egypt, which has signed a peace treaty with Israel, also rejected the Iranian line.

"In principle, we are way beyond this type of political rhetoric that shows the weakness of the Iranian government," said an official at the Egyptian embassy in London.

Turkey's prime minister called on the Iranian president "to display political moderation".

Even if you want to want to quibble over the subtle shades of meaning in a speech, this seems pretty clear:

"Israel Should Be Wiped Off the Map" was the slogan draped on a Shahab-3 ballistic missile during a military parade in Tehran a month ago. World L eaders Condemn Iranian's Call to Wipe Israel 'Off the Map'

Iran president: Wipe Israel off map

Harking back to language used by of the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel, the hard-line president also called Israel a "fabricated" entity......

On Wednesday Ahmadinejad said "there is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world. As the Imam (Khomeini) said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

The Guardian's hair-splitting is here. I would encourage reading at least some of the comments.

Re:To be quite honest

[slashmojo]

Interesting, can you please provide a source for a Muslim state swearing the destruction of Israel.

Well ignoring the numerous wars conducted by arab/muslim states against israel which would appear to me to be a fairly clear case of 'actions speaking louder than words' and indicating a desire to destroy israel..

It is the sworn, written, publicly declared aim of hamas to reclaim all of what is now israel 'from the river jordan to the sea'. Hamas is the elected government of palestine. It was also previously part of the palestinian charter during arafats day but was (at least in theory) removed.

Iran and in particular Ahmadinejad, frequently calls for, praises the idea of and clearly dreams about the destruction of the 'zionist entity', 'regime', 'disgraceful stain' or whatever other way they choose to call it without actually using the name 'israel' - these are all a matter of public record and no spin posted on a wiki page will change that.

Lets not forget that 'the holocaust never happened' as far as he is concerned, that even if it somehow did that it was a euro issue and so europe should provide for a 'zionist state' instead - thereby again removing the 'disgraceful stain' from its current location.

Also just to show the mentality of the 'lunatic regime' in iran - they recently announced the winner of their holocaust cartoon competition (now an annual event). Any mosques or embassies being torched as a result?

Iran having nukes is just a bad idea all around since the likelihood of them actually being used is uncomfortably high and that would really ruin the cruising season in the mediterranean for a long time.

Re:To be quite honest

[rohan972]

You clearly didn't make an in depth study of your quote either because it's wrong.

Well, since I was answering your request: "can you please provide a source for a Muslim state swearing the destruction of Israel." ...

And the link you gave states: Ahmadinejad ... denounced attempts to normalise relations with Israel, condemning all Muslim leaders who accept the existence of Israel as "acknowledging a surrender and defeat of the Islamic world."

... I fail to see your point. If there is a significant difference between condemning those who accept the existence of Israel and advocating destruction of Israel I do not see it. The reinterpretation of "Israel must be wiped off the map" is not really significant, even if accurate. You have also completely failed to address the point I made (twice) that even if Islamic states don't declare their desire for the destruction of Israel, their apparent reluctance to condemn organisations in their juristiction that do declare intent to destroy Israel indicates support. At least, such actions (or lack of them) would be interpreted that way in the west.

While you're at it though, do you have any creative reinterpretations of Ahmadinejad's comment: "Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," he said. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."

Do you really think he is not advocating the destruction of Israel? Seriously?

Re:To be quite honest

[BgJonson79]

Well, it depends on if the other nations signed the NNTP. Israel didn't, so how can you punish someone for breaking a treaty they never ratified?

Re:To be quite honest

[nkv]

It was a "technique" used a lot earlier actually. The Tamil tigers pioneered the concealed bomb vest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_tigers#Suicide_ bombers

Re:To be quite honest

[khallow]

No nation or other group can seriously try to play mediator in the region re. nuclear weapons without confronting the elephant in the room. Israel must be made to acknowledge its stable of nukes. You can't tell nations they cannot have nukes while Israel is sitting right there in the middle of the lot with its unofficial nuclear arsenal.

Why? The reason the nuclear arms race has been so muted in the first place is because Israel has not acknowledged its nuclear weapons. Frankly, the efforts of Iraq and Iran to acquire nuclear weapons has proven to be more of a spur, because those efforts are too public.

To turn a blind eye to their nuclear capability while preaching to other countries about what they can and cannot do is rank hypocrisy.

You make hypocrisy sound like it's a bad thing.

Re:To be quite honest

[cortex]

If you fall into the generalization that "all muslims" are insane because of a few crazy people, well we could generalize all day, about a lot of things. Why haven't the muslim nations attacked the West conventionally? Or refused to sell them oil? Those would be insane things to do.

No actually I believe they have acted in quite a sane manner because they've brought their political differences (right or wrong - pick a side) to the world's attention, shaken the entire United States, and NO ONE has been able to do ANYTHING to stop it. Insane?

And I'm not even Muslim. Fancy that. This is going to go on until people learn to RESPECT their differences and TRUST one another.

"Muslims" appear insane to me mostly not because of their reaction to the Israel or the US, but rather because of their apparent hatred of one another - and this appears to involve more than a "a few crazy people". I am much more concerned about a nuclear incident occurring between Islamic states (or between two factions within the same country) than I am about a nuclear attack against the US. I think that you are correct that we will continue to see strife and conflict in the Islamic world until people learn to respect their differences and trust on another, but this also and perhaps more importantly applies to groups within the Muslim world (Sunni - Shia, Men - Women, Arab - Persian, ...).

Re:To be quite honest

[cortex]

Israel hasn't sworn to the destruction of any other states or ethnic groups.

And who has exactly?


How about this:

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News /2004/05/28/476115.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=41229

http://www.poe-news.com/stories.php?poeurlid=41572

Re:To be quite honest

[Citizen of Earth]

No nation or other group can seriously try to play mediator in the region re. nuclear weapons without confronting the elephant in the room.

You just need to spell out the rules of the game clearly. Only stable first-world democracies can be trusted with possessing nuclear weapons. All other forms of government are illegitimate criminal mafias that cannot be trusted with anything.

Re:To be quite honest

[Citizen of Earth]

we weren't playing our cold war based on religion, it was based on political ideal.

There's not really a great deal of distinction between ideology and religion. Absolute beliefs of any kind are very dangerous things that have killed countless hundreds of millions of people. The best we can do is accept rationality as being a "good bet".

Saudi Arabia, eh?

[Quantam]

Maybe we should vote for prop 87 :P

(prop 87 is a California proposition that would fund alternate energy sources research; supported by such names as Bill Clinton and Al Gore)

Ignoratio elenchi.

[Lethyos]

Fishing for herring much these days?

I made no mention of who Arabs are or are not off killing. What I was alluding to was the fact that the US has invaded Iraq, one of our allies has invaded Lebanon, and we are currently threatening military action against Iran. In addition to that, some reputable sources seem to think these are but three countries on a laundry list of targets. If you were the government of a country in the Middle East, you would feel threatened. When governments feel threatened, they build weapons in response.

Re:High Energy from Small Powers: Inevitable

[dbIII]

Right now, it's pretty cheap for my neighbor to make a fertilizer bomb and take out my entire block

But not as easy as you would think - AnFO is used a lot in mining operations because it is very hard to set off unless you really want to.

Strictly controlling knowlege as you suggest is a civilisation destroying idea and needs totalitarian regimes to carry it out.

Big Worry: End of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

[reporter]

Until 2006, the Western nations had an effective regimen for controlling the spread of nuclear weapons. That regimen is called the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). The idea behind the NPT is that its signatories agree to 2 main points: (1) if a nation does not have nuclear weapons, then it will not develop them and (2) if a nation has already built such weapons, then it will not export them or their technology. In exchange for committing to these points, the existing nuclear powers will give (outright) nuclear technology to the signatories to help them to develop nuclear power for peaceful uses. A third, implied but very important, point about the NPT is that its signatories make no judgment about the "goodness" or "badness" of a government. In this way, even notorious governments would agree to commit to the NPT.

What happened in 2006? Washington agreed to bend the rules in order to cater to Indian ruthlessness. New Delhi gave an ultimatum to Washington. The Indians would support the strategic American objectives of promoting human rights and democracy if and only if Washington (1) gives nuclear technology to New Delhi (in violation of the NPT) and (2) significantly increases the number of Indian H-1B workers allowed to enter the USA.

Given the paucity of supporters (due to the Iraq fiasco), Washington was eager to buy new friends in order to deal effectively with Beijing. So, Washington agreed to all the Indian demands.

Note that the Indians have refused to sign the NPT. Moreover, New Delhi has agressively developed nuclear weapons and is willing to sell nuclear technology to anyone.

Unfortunately, catering to Indian ruthlessness significantly weakened the American position on stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Seeing how Washington kowtowed to the Indians, both the Iranians and the North Koreans are refusing to end their nuclear-weapons programs. Many other nations (including current signatories of the NPT) are now seeking such weapons.

The NPT died in 2006, and Washington killed it.

During 1993 - 2000, American foreign policy was exemplary. During 2001 - 2006, American foreign policy has been a series of grave missteps, miscalculations, and outright stupidity. What happened?

Balancing

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called Balancing and it has been going on since the beginning of time. I wouldn't worry about it too much. It has nothing to do with balancing against the United States. I wish more people understood what is going on in the Middle East but it is a dynamic that has little to do with the US and lots to do with Israel and the domestic politics of Arab nations.

Not really.

[slapyslapslap]

It's more like, "those who's next door neighbor and closest ally is China don't get invaded".

Re:High Energy from Small Powers: Inevitable

[istartedi]

Huh? I didn't say anything about controlling knowledge at all. It never ceases to amaze me what people will infer from a Slashdot posting. You can't really do that anyway; at least not for very long. Somebody always squeals eventually. Pretty much anybody who wants to know how to build a nuke can find out. It's accumulating fissile material that's the hard and expensive part. If the cost of accumulating fissile material comes down, or if a cheap method of accumulating deuterium and fusing it without a fission trigger is found, the cat's out of the bag. Who knows, maybe such a method is already languishing as a closely-guarded secret in some government research lab, and we've had leaks in the past. I wouldn't say that keeping information like that secret requires a totalitarian regime. Shit, if the US knows how to make fusion bombs for $500/megaton, keeping that information locked up as long as possible is decidedly *liberating*, not oppressive.

Needs

[MBHkewl]

With Egypt having a population of about 80 million, Saudi Arabia (KSA) with a population of 27 million & UAE with a lot of businesses booming there (especially in Dubai), they all need a decent source of power.
And even though KSA has large oil wells, it's not even remotely enough to power the whole country. I've been there twice, and outside the main cities, it's a miserable situation over there: Poverty is too common. One would think with such huge oil wells, the citizens would be financially comfortable (like the case of people in Kuwait), but that's not the case.

I still think it's a concern for neighbouring countries, like Kuwait, to have KSA running nuclear reactors. They still have some terrorists running around and it would be a catastrophe if they bombed a plant!

Re:Needs

[Dunbal]

it would be a catastrophe if they bombed a plant!

      Yes because a whole swath of uninhabitable desert would become, er, uninhabitable...

LOL it's Israel of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Unbelievable how brainwashed you fucking tards are.

Fighting spirit

[amightywind]

Remember our president refers to "Nuclear" as "Nucilar"!

You are so stupid you can't even make a predictable joke. Try nookyoulur.

Guys, we're damned! We continue to be whipped in IRAQ and the impending nuclear madness or race does not help matters.

With fighting spirit like that how can we lose? Have you choosen your muslim name yet?

Re:Fighting spirit

[Dunbal]

With fighting spirit like that how can we lose? Have you choosen your muslim name yet?

      You don't seem to understand that the US is actually creating more terrorists daily, do you? This isn't a war against an "enemy", with your guys against my guys. This is an invasion of a sovereign country, contrary to international law, against the UN security council's wishes, with deception used as an excuse to justify it. And a president who doesn't have the courage to step down and admit that he created a royal fuck up and destabilized the entire world. Did you enjoy $3 per gallon of gasoline?

      If you feel so strongly that you have to "stop terrorism", why aren't you over there? Gulf War I was the first major armed conflict for the US since Vietnam, and there was so much hoopla about welcoming home the troops, and how criticizing the millitary was a major morale blast during Vietnam. But you know something? The people aren't stupid and they know when something is not right. Iraq is not right. Don't talk to me about "not supporting our boys in Iraq". You can get as patriotic as you want, but it still doesn't make it right. The troops aren't to blame, yet they are the ones dying. And they will continue to do so until the US realizes that it can't win a war against an enemy that doesn't exist.

while you are spending billons on lasers

[circletimessquare]

someone else is spending a couple of hundred on lead to line a shipping container headed for the port of baltimore. remember, the most complicated technology that enabled 9/11 was box cutters. a lot of people look to technology to provide them with security for problems which are essentially nontechnological in nature. in other words, your lasers are useless and a waste of time and you are looking for your security solutions in the wrong place

Re:while you are spending billons on lasers

[WindBourne]

Your right about that. Do you have a solution for that? The problem is that we can stop all nukes that are brought in under normal conditions. In fact, even far more repressive regimes such as USSR, Nazi Germany, Communist china have not been able to stop such inflow.

But the real issue here is that the military is not concerned with USA security. They job is protect our shores from direct attacks as well as fight a war elsewhere when needed. For that, the ABL works for what the military does.

For what you describe (terrorist attack on our shores), DHS is the group. The problem is that DHS is a disfunctional group who are doing a lot of inhouse fighting and is staffed by idiots. I am hoping that once W. is gone, it will either be re-done up correctly or disbanded. As it is, "browney" was just the tip of the iceberg of incompetence.

you are making an assumption

[circletimessquare]

M.A.D. only only when:

1. the two sides in a conflict are clearly defined entities, like nation states. if the old ussr nuked new york city, you can be sure moscow would cease to exist as well

but say a smuggled nuclear bomb went off in baltimore. ok: who put it there? in the name of whom was that bomb set off? how can you threaten with mutually certain nuclear annhilation a cause or group that has no clearly defined identity? so a nuke goes off in baltimore, killing millions... and you reply by smart bombing a madrassa in kandahar? does that work?

2. the two sides in a conflict are both interested in their continued existence. the old ussr fought for the cause of communism, which, however flawed, was an ideology that cared for the well-being of russian children. russians loved their children too

but when you look at an ideology that embraces suicide bombing, and people flying airplanes into skyscrapers, you are talking about a group of individuals who aren't fighting for life, they are fighting for their status within a religious hierarchy. they value their standing in their religious pantheon more than they value their own lives, or even the lives of their loved ones, and even the lives of their fellow muslims. this is a hierarchy that celebrates martyrdom over life, that celebrates sacrificing oneself, and other people, kafirs and even other good muslims, even devout sharia muslims (see recent suicide bombing of fellow conservative muslims in afghanistan). these are people who do also love their children, but the love for their children does not equate with a desire to see them, live any more than a desire to see them martyred, even agains their will or foreknowledge, according to recent suicide bombings of fellow muslims, nevermind kafir

how does M.A.D. work with that kind of ideology? it doesn't

Re:you are making an assumption

[scotch]

You make some good points, however, you give the impression that "dying for your country" is a nobility exclusive to Muslim thought. Our volunteer military is built on the tradition of self sacrifice - the soldier's idea that his potential death can serve the greater good. The Extremist Muslim suicide bomber is just the point-man in a much larger operation in which most people don't die. Just like western military structures. You make a distinction between our cultures that does not exist.

You are right that MAD does not work without identification of the combatant and the potential, selective, and total extermination of the same. A war against "terrorism" is an insufficient identification of enemy combatants. Nation State works after a fasion, as does racial or religious genocide, neither of which:

• - preserves the lives of innocents
• - is a commitment the American people are willing to make
• - I advocate in the slightest.

HTH, HAND

Re:you are making an assumption

[ultranova]

You make some good points, however, you give the impression that "dying for your country" is a nobility exclusive to Muslim thought. Our volunteer military is built on the tradition of self sacrifice - the soldier's idea that his potential death can serve the greater good.

The suicide bombers aren't dying for their country or for the greater good. They are killing themselves because they believe that doing so will get them a reward in the afterlife. The act of dying while to take infidels with them is what's important to them, not the consequences of the act.

You make a distinction between our cultures that does not exist.

No. He's making a distinction between members of a cult - which most terrorist organizations can be justly called - preaching suicide and murder and soldiers. It's not a cultural difference, for there are evil people and morons who follow them anywhere; it's a difference between roles.

Re:you are making an assumption

[KDR_11k]

The suicide bombers aren't dying for their country or for the greater good. They are killing themselves because they believe that doing so will get them a reward in the afterlife.

And guess who implanted that thought into their minds? Whether you drill your soldiers to shoot at people or run to them and explode doesn't really matter, the commanders aren't going to join the battle themselves either way and indoctrination makes sure the grunts won't complain about that. The commanders don't want to "kill the infidels" since that makes no sense and they know they can't do that with suicide bombers, their goal is political power and suicide bombers cause political pressure by making the population feel uneasy (the terror part of terrorism) and demanding certain actions. So far the commanders of Al Qaeda were pretty successful at making the US waste huge amounts of money on pointless wars and greatly decreasing confidence in their government (and AFAIK caused an economic depression after the WTC strike, too). Not only that, the chaos made the oil prices go up and SURPRISE SURPRISE, the commander of Al Qaeda is related to a family of oil barons. So for a bit of money for propaganda they managed to increase their oil profits big time, destroy the USA's public image and get rid of an enemy ruler (Hussein) as a bonus.

Middle Eastern Nuclear Race

[xhamulnazgul]

After reading about the middle eastern countries forming an alliance to become "nuclear powered" for "desalination of water" and watching Speed Racer box set this is what i came up with... Here they come Here comes Middle Eastern Nuclear Racers They're demons on nukes They're demons and they're gonna be chasin' after nuclear superiority. They're gainin' on you so you better look alive. They're busy revvin' up a powerful Mushroom Cloud. And when the odds are against em And there's dangerous work to do You bet your life Middle Eastern Nuclear Racers Will see it through. Go Middle Eastern Nuclear Racers Go Middle Eastern Nuclear Racers Go Middle Eastern Nuclear Racers, Go! They're off and flyin' as they shoot the warhead around the world They're jammin' down the nuclear weapondry like they're never comin' back Adventure's waitin' just ahead. Go Middle Eastern Nuclear Racers Go Middle Eastern Nuclear Racers Go Middle Eastern Nuclear Racers, Go!

Mod +5, Pedantic

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a life? Say something perhaps a bit more topical even?

Israel used as a scapegoat, again

[amightywind]

No nation or other group can seriously try to play mediator in the region re. nuclear weapons without confronting the elephant in the room. Israel must be made to acknowledge its stable of nukes. You can't tell nations they cannot have nukes while Israel is sitting right there in the middle of the lot with its unofficial nuclear arsenal.

Israel, the elephant in the room? Less than 1% of the area of the muslim countries, 6 million in population compared to over 1 billion. You are either disengenuous or very stupid! The notion that Israeli nukes are anything other than defensive is ridiculous. What are they going to do, invade Saudi Arabia? Once again we see Israel used as a scapegoat for civilizations in conflict. The issue in Israel is recalcitrant migrants squatting on traditional Israeli lands.

Any non-proliferation efforts are doomed to fail in the middle east unless Israel owns up to what they have. To turn a blind eye to their nuclear capability while preaching to other countries about what they can and cannot do is rank hypocrisy.

Non-proliferation has failed because the western democracies lack the collective the will (as expressed by the UN) to enforce it. The security council is dead. Indeed, members of the security council China and Russia are actively engaged in nuclear proliferation. Russia is teaching Iran to master the fuel cycle. Pakistan and North Korea built bombs of Chinese design. The western democracies should realise this and create new security structures excluding Russia and China. They should also predicate trade with them based on there compliance with them. Openness has done nothing but embolden them.

Re:Israel used as a scapegoat, again

[Anonymous Coward]

Awwwww poor, poor misunderstood Israel.....with their cluster bombs and white phosphorus.

Re:Israel used as a scapegoat, again

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think Israel's problems are "recalcitrant migrants squatting on traditional Israeli lands" (note: they've been squatting there for at least a thousand years), do you advocate all Americans of non-native American decent leaving the U.S. ? After all, they're just "recalcitrant migrants squatting on traditional Native American lands", and they've only been squatting for about 400 years, with the bulk of them squatting only for about 150 years.

Re:High Energy from Small Powers: Inevitable

[dbIII]

Huh? I didn't say anything about controlling knowledge at all.

until INT destroys enough of civilization to reduce the power of INT to manageable levels again (no internet, no bomb-making manuals,

If you don't mean what you write then write something else.

they caused the problems first

[cheekyboy]

Who built 100000 freeways, got rid of good public transport?

You need fast rail and light rail everywhere, and not every 40mins, but every 10, with good security too. Why not
have police stations inside train stations, double benefit.

Re:High Energy from Small Powers: Inevitable

[istartedi]

Control of information by a totalitarian regime has NOTHING to do with lack of information due to destruction of the network infrastructure.

If I were wrong, I would (and have many times in the past) stand corrected; but I'm right this time. You aren't making the proper inference. There is no ammendment I can make to my original statement to prevent you from making an improper inference. If I were to carefully phrase all my postings so as to cover all improper inferences that might be made, it would probably take me 10 paragraphs just to make sure I had the proper meaning of "is". End rant.

WW III wouldn't be free

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether you think the US should attack Iran or not, doing so will most certainly [b]not[/b] be free.

Ask a better question, make a better statement.

[Anonymous Coward]

When did radical Islam begin and why?

I would point to what became the Palestine question and note the significant events of 1881 and all years subsequent.

Given your conclusions drawn from an ersatz pro-western propaganda documentary I would recommend avoiding the poison and sticking to pre 1970 history books for background. The record of world events was somewhat more honest back then, with opinions derived likewise.

Moreover, when parsing information in the formulation of opinion it has become increasingly important to deconstruct events to their root source and then take into consideration the inherent bias of perspective.

When that is done you will invariably come to understand that radical Islam is a symptom and not the disease.

In my study I'm often left to ponder, why in the course of written human history has the Jewish population fared so poorly in their relationships with other peoples? It is a unique distinction shared by no other group given frequency, magnitude or duration of negative events throughout time.

It would require suspension of reason and logic to view the events of today other than the latest chapter in a seemingly perpetual Jewish conflict of cultures.

Re:mod parent up

[noigmn]

what the subject says

Re:High Energy from Small Powers: Inevitable

[dbIII]

I thought you meant something else. It takes destruction and repression of people to destroy information - not just destruction of objects.

open secret

[lrhegeba]

Doesn't exactly come as a surprise. And make no mistake, for some of these countries a nuclear power plant will only be the first step on the road to nuclear weapons.
Saudi-Arabia has already for some time tried to get their hands on atomic weapons. For more details read this. They also financed Pakistan and exchanged scientists. The former Saudi defense minister Prince Sultan met with the father of the Pakistani A-bomb Quadir Khan in May 1999 at his nuclear reasearch labs. Crown prince Abdallah offered cheap oil in exchange for nuclear weapons at a state visit end of 2003 (washington post reported on this end of 2003).
nukes need a delivery mechanism, so they try to take care of that too. In All-Sulayil they erected launching silos, allegedly they already have some pakistani Ghauri-rockets. For sure they already possess middle-range (2500 km) Dong-Feng-3. In May 2005 Saudi-Arabia asked the IAEO to "limi" their inspections, at June 16 2005 they signed an agreement to the effect that there will be no surprise inspections.
In my eyes Saudia-Arabia having nukes would be much more dangerous than Iran. Iran never waged war or was as aggressor starting a war (though financing terrorist and supporting groups taking hostages) and is in this region a 20th century country - good infrastructure, good education and NO monarchy/dictatorship with an absolutist leader/sheik/king. Saudi-Arabia in contrast spreads hate, finances terrorists on a large scale - of these guys i would be afraid.

Arab is not a gene

[sita]

Actually, classing them as Arabic isn't much better either since the bulk of Morocco's population is Berberr with only about 10% being "pure" Arabs, Algeria's genetic makeup is not too much different than that of Morocco and Libya is even named after a Berber tribe.

Of course the Arab armies did not supplant the existing populations, they subdued them and taught them a new language. This is much the same as the Romans did. France and Romania didn't get "their genes" from Rome, but they learned the language of the conqueror (and it can go fast -- Dacia was a Roman province for about one hundred years).

Being Arab is more of a linguistical and cultural thing. It is above all an identity thing, meaning that it is the Arab themselves who get to decide if they are Arab or not. It seems to me that being Arab is so cool that you can stretch this language and cultural thing quite a bit, which is why countries like Mauretania and Somalia like to think of themselves as Arab countries.

(Arab country usual means "member of the Arab League", but that would mean that there is at least some elite in the country thinking of themselves as Arabs).

The disclaimer: IANAA

CNESTEN's Triga Mark II etc...

[cpghost]

To be more precise, Morocco's CNESTEN is also operating a (US) Triga Mark II research reactor near Rabat with full knowledge of and support by the US administration; research that's mainly medical and geared towards operating a commercial power plant that should be built south of Casablanca. It's not yet clear which firms (US, french, russian, ...) will get the contract, but it's common public knowledge there.

Pirates of the Carribbean

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the quote when the blacksmith kid threatens Jack Sparrow
blacksmith kid: "I could defeat you in any fair fight!"
jack sparrow: "Well that's not much of an incentive for me to fight fair now is it"

lol what

[tietokone-olmi]

Algeria is in the Middle East now? Holy freaking crap! That means all of Europe, except maybe Portugal and Iceland, are in the Middle East too!

Because they want local expertise not colonising

[fantomas]

"If these countries were truly looking for nuclear power, why not just buy light water reactors from the U.S.?"

Because they want to develop local expertise? Develop a local knowledge base and scientific programme that can then undertake indigenous innovation (whether for good or bad).

Re:Big Worry: End of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Tre

[PaneerParantha]

New Delhi has agressively developed nuclear weapons and is willing to sell nuclear technology to anyone.

This is false. India has not and is not selling nuke tech to any country. You are probably mistaking it with Pakistan. Most of you don't know the difference between India and Pakistan. You guys think IndiaPakistan is one country.

Islamists' visceral hate for Jews and Christians

[amightywind]

You don't seem to understand that the US is actually creating more terrorists daily, do you?

No I don't. The radicals have a visceral hate for Jews and Christians. We could be nice and let them and watch them reestablish the caliphate. They are looking for a fight. I propose we give it to them.

This isn't a war against an "enemy", with your guys against my guys. This is an invasion of a sovereign country, contrary to international law, against the UN security council's wishes, with deception used as an excuse to justify it. And a president who doesn't have the courage to step down and admit that he created a royal fuck up and destabilized the entire world.

Yes, we did invade a sovereign country in massive violation of a previous armistice. The UN was thoroughly corrupted by the oil for food scam. It could not be relied on for action. The enemy isn't organised and uniformed because traditional warfare is suicide versus the US. Guerilla tactics are the only way. Even if Iraq disolves into civil war and is partitioned, Saddam is gone. He is due to hang. So I think the Iraq operation has been a great success.

Did you enjoy $3 per gallon of gasoline?

The price run up in gas has as much to do with hedge funds speculation inflating the price of gas futures as with the geopolitical threat to supply. Terrorist states like Iran need to sell oil. They can only prop up the price through fear for so long. Now that those futures positions are unravelling we are enjoying below equilibrium prices. I paid $2.04/gal to fill up my SUV today.

Why not just burn oil?

[Overzeetop]

You're sitting on the richest oil fields in the world, and you need nuclear power plants? Don't get me wrong - nuclear can be very efficient, but the only reason nuclear power is cost effective in most places is because fossil fuels need to be imported.

Re:Why not just burn oil?

[Peeteriz]

Well, they clearly aren't striving to get electricity in 2007 - if they want to start developing nuclear power now, then this means that they are aiming for electricity production at 2030-2040+. Which (by pure coincidence of course), is the general timeframe when the current oilfields (their oilfields) will be running out, and the remaining oil production will be in places like Russia and North America (faraway, expensive oilfields for them).

Is it North Africa or is it Middle East?!?!?!?!!?

[Anonymous Coward]

For Your Information, Algeria, Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco are located in Africa, not Middle East, STUPID. Or, is Africa supposed to be laborously carrying ugly, backward labels all the time. Perhaps nuclear technology should not be a capability of the African continents, that's maybe why the reporter categorizes those nations under middle east. Education!

The middle east is spreading. Be afraid...

[elmurado]

The Middle East now includes Morocco and Algeria and Tunisia? Next it will include India and Pakistan I guess....

Bowing to the mob

[amightywind]

If you think Israel's problems are "recalcitrant migrants squatting on traditional Israeli lands" (note: they've been squatting there for at least a thousand years), do you advocate all Americans of non-native American decent leaving the U.S. ?

No. It makes so sense for the greatest civilization on earth to gratuitously abdicate to a brutal stone age culture out of a misguided sense of fairness. To expect Israel to relinquish Judea and Samarra to mob of terrorists is equally inane. The Arabs living there would be much better off elsewhere in Arabia.

The real reasons ...

[kbahey]

The real reasons here is not to have a hedge against Iran.

It is actually emulating Iran's nuclear ambitions for two purposes:

- Gain support locally among the populace

Almost all the Middle East regimes are hated by their citizens, being despotic, dictatorial, and unelected (at least not in the proper sense). By acting tough, they shed the image of being weaklings by emulating the strong men of the past (e.g. Gamal Abdel Nasser, and more recently Saddam). By having a "national rallying point" around nuclear technology, they divert from political repression, economic failure and all the other internal problems.

- Prevent potential USA attacks

They have the belief that owning nuclear technology will prevent the USA from attacking them (seeing that the USA did not attack North Korea or Iran, but attacked Iraq and Afghanistan). Whether this is true or not, it is seen that way by many ...

- Raise the issue of Double standards

By raising the issue of why Israel is allowed to gain nukes while the other cannot. This is a valid point to raise, although just going about making nukes is not the best way to raise it.

Iran here acts as a catalyst for this, by the others trying to emulate them, not as much for being feared to be a nuclear threat in the region.

See more here, with some more links.