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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

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

[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

[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.

Saudi Arabia needs nuclear power...

[patio11]

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

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 ?

[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.

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:Give it to them.

[Troed]

in a very monitored way

Why should they, for a second, accept that?

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?

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

[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

[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.

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

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.