Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 44 of 44

Thread: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement warn

  1. #41
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    02-01-17 @ 09:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,667

    Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by Simpleχity View Post
    Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement warns ambassador



    "Watertight" agreement. Although Obama may overlook loopholes and disregard ambiguous language, other nations will definitely not ignore such shortcomings.

    Nuclear proliferation all across the volatile Middle East will almost certainly transpire unless the IAEA is allowed unfettered access to all declared and suspected nuclear facilities in Iran.
    Nations look after their vital interests. That the U.S. margin for error from Iranian cheating is much larger than that of Iran's neighbors, allows the U.S. to take many more risks, including a weak verification mechanism. Such risks, though, are intolerable to the states most directly exposed to the possible threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.

  2. #42
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 10:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Nations look after their vital interests. That the U.S. margin for error from Iranian cheating is much larger than that of Iran's neighbors, allows the U.S. to take many more risks, including a weak verification mechanism. Such risks, though, are intolerable to the states most directly exposed to the possible threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.
    That's even if a nuclear armed Iran is a risk. In a perfect world, we would all work together on nuclear eradication, but unfortunately, there's a couple dozen nations working toward that end, and quite naturally, none of them are nuclear powers. That said, there are foreign relations/affairs experts that argue the virtues of a nuclear armed Iran.

    http://www.cfr.org/world/why-iran-sh...et-bomb/p28610

    Why Iran Should Get the Bomb
    Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  3. #43
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    02-01-17 @ 09:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,667

    Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    That's even if a nuclear armed Iran is a risk. In a perfect world, we would all work together on nuclear eradication, but unfortunately, there's a couple dozen nations working toward that end, and quite naturally, none of them are nuclear powers. That said, there are foreign relations/affairs experts that argue the virtues of a nuclear armed Iran.

    Why Iran Should Get the Bomb - Council on Foreign Relations

    Why Iran Should Get the Bomb
    Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability
    IMO, Mr. Waltz's piece is highly speculative. Some excerpts:

    Waltz: Yet so far, every time another country has managed to shoulder its way into the nuclear club, the other members have always changed tack and decided to live with it. In fact...new nuclear states generally produce more regional and international stability, not less.

    Mr. Waltz is assuming that future outcomes will be identical to past ones. In sum, such an assumption ignores the different dynamics at play e.g., how rivals will view the development. Second, his analysis misses the exception of North Korea. North Korea has continued to play a destabilizing role and has not become a stabilizing entity since acquiring nuclear weapons. North Korea's conduct has not changed toward a materially more stabilizing role.

    Waltz: Although it is impossible to be certain of Iranian intentions, it is far more likely that if Iran desires nuclear weapons, it is for the purpose of providing for its own security, not to improve its offensive capabilities...

    This is speculation. He acknowledges that Iran's intentions are uncertain, yet makes a conclusion that assumes relative certainty.

    Waltz: Another oft-touted worry is that if Iran obtains the bomb, other states in the region will follow suit, leading to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. But the nuclear age is now almost 70 years old, and so far, fears of proliferation have proved to be unfounded.

    Again, he is assuming a perfect match between the past and future, while ignoring the intense rivalries that exist in the Middle East. The India-Pakistan rivalry is relevant. Back in 1965, Pakistan's Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto declared that if India built nuclear weapons, Pakistan would follow suit. India tested its first nuclear device in 1974. Pakistan developed nuclear weapons in the 1980s. Already, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have explicitly indicated that they would not be indifferent to a situation under which Iran could attain a nuclear weapons capability. The India-Pakistan case suggests that one should not automatically assume Egypt and/or Saudi Arabia are merely posturing.

    In sum, his piece is speculative. It misses a number of nuances in the historical record that undercut his thesis.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 06-09-15 at 01:27 PM.

  4. #44
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:03 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    35,826

    Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by Simpleχity View Post
    Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement warns ambassador



    "Watertight" agreement. Although Obama may overlook loopholes and disregard ambiguous language, other nations will definitely not ignore such shortcomings.

    Nuclear proliferation all across the volatile Middle East will almost certainly transpire unless the IAEA is allowed unfettered access to all declared and suspected nuclear facilities in Iran.
    "Could go nuclear"? They will go nuclear. No doubt about it. But so will others too.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

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