Is Saudi Arabia a nuclear weapon state now?

[scholseys]

KSA acquiring nukes would be a threat to Mecca and Medina. All Muslims should reject this idea.

 

[al-Hasani]

KSA acquiring nukes would be a threat to Mecca and Medina. All Muslims should reject this idea.

KSA is the world's 13th biggest country. Nuclear sites could be built thousands of km away from Makkah and Madinah. In fact those two holy cities are located respectively about 1.200 and 1.400 km away from Israel which is the only nuclear state in the ME and which has several nuclear weapons at their disposal.

I guess that this is a threat too.

Nuclear energy is inevitable in KSA.

Besides Allah (swt) is protecting Makkah and Madinah and its people.

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

KSA acquiring nukes would be a threat to Mecca and Medina. All Muslims should reject this idea.

A threat to Mecca? LoL.

Does the same theory applies to Italy & the Vatican, given the fact that the US maintains a nuclear-sharing site nearby ...

 

[scholseys]

A threat to Mecca? LoL.

Does the same theory applies to Italy & the Vatican, given the fact that the US maintains a nuclear-sharing site nearby ...

As a Muslim I couldn't care less, it would be horrible if the Vatican were to be radioactive though; wouldn't want that to happen...

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

As a Muslim I couldn't care less, it would be horrible if the Vatican were to be radioactive though; wouldn't want that to happen...

No body said you shouldn't care. The fact of the matter is that the Saudis don't need nukes and all.

 

[alaungphaya]

So many crazy people around here.

 

[Saif al-Arab]

No, but we will eventually become one. Can not come soon enough. In fact I know for a fact that each new year new Saudi Arabian nuclear engineers and physicists are educated at home and abroad. If I had not chosen chemical engineering I would have pursued this field as well solely for the sake of helping the country to develop the necessary indigenous nuclear energy and weapons infrastructure.

A country like KSA should have nuclear weapons. We must pursue this goal at all costs and make the necessary sacrifices. In fact it should be a joint GCC project if not a joint Arab project. If Libya could almost do it almost 3 decades ago (!), KSA could relatively easily do it within 10 years if the right amount of investments and sacrifices were allocated.

We have some of the largest uranium reserves in KSA, the money, soon the expertise and not far from now (I predict) also very valid political etc. reasons to do so. Not to say that we will have a very developed nuclear energy sector within 1-2 decades.

Of course there will be Israel around but people forgot that the same Israel was willing to help the Shah develop a nuclear weapons program when Israel and Iran were lovers. I believe that KSA and Israel can come to an understanding on this front as well eventually/if pursued.

Or if we one day move away from the Western block (US) and align ourselves with China, we would likely have some kind of protection from them in case of hostile actions to prevent a nuclear program. As for possible sanctions, that can be survived as other countries have shown.

It is said (of course mostly by nuclear states themselves) that the Middle East should be a free WMD-zone (somehow forgetting Israel in the equation) but I am of the believe that nuclear proliferation would DECREASE and not increase the unrest/current conflicts. How many times have nuclear armed states gone to war against each other?

 

[AUz]

No, but we will eventually become one. Can not come soon enough. In fact I know for a fact that each new year new Saudi Arabian nuclear engineers and physicists are educated at home and abroad. If I had not chosen chemical engineering I would have pursued this field as well solely for the sake of helping the country to develop the necessary indigenous nuclear energy and weapons infrastructure.

A country like KSA should have nuclear weapons. We must pursue this goal at all costs and make the necessary sacrifices. In fact it should be a joint GCC project if not a joint Arab project. If Libya could almost do it almost 3 decades ago (!), KSA could relatively easily do it within 10 years if the right amount of investments and sacrifices were allocated.

We have some of the largest uranium reserves in KSA, the money, soon the expertise and not far from now (I predict) also very valid political etc. reasons to do so. Not to say that we will have a very developed nuclear energy sector within 1-2 decades.

Of course there will be Israel around but people forgot that the same Israel was willing to help the Shah develop a nuclear weapons program when Israel and Iran were lovers. I believe that KSA and Israel can come to an understanding on this front as well eventually/if pursued.

Or if we one day move away from the Western block (US) and align ourselves with China, we would likely have some kind of protection from them in case of hostile actions to prevent a nuclear program. As for possible sanctions, that can be survived as other countries have shown.

It is said (of course mostly by nuclear states themselves) that the Middle East should be a free WMD-zone (somehow forgetting Israel in the equation) but I am of the believe that nuclear proliferation would DECREASE and not increase the unrest/current conflicts. How many times have nuclear armed states gone to war against each other?

Let come out of your dreams.

Saudis won't be "allowed" to build credible nuclear weapons and missile programs. Your only hope is that Iran somehow gets nuclear weapons, and it gives you folks an excuse to do so. But then again, U.S has to maintain domination of the region--Iran will be strengthened conventionally (sanctions uplifted) but they won't be allowed to go nuclear. All in all, Saudi-Iran-Turkey will be kept same in size, as to now one dominant power could rise in the Middle East---so that the super power continues to dominate the region. International Relations 101.

Saudis need to indigenous capabilities and industrialized society without losing their identity. That should be the focus. Nukes are a bygone thing now. Saudis can't have it.

Also, lets be real, you guys are ruled by one family and situation can go down anytime (We saw in Libya, Syria, Iraq etc). You need a stable political system to be even considering nuclear weapons.

 

[Saif al-Arab]

Let come out of your dreams.

Saudis won't be "allowed" to build credible nuclear weapons and missile programs. Your only hope is that Iran somehow gets nuclear weapons, and it gives you folks an excuse to do so. But then again, U.S has to maintain domination of the region--Iran will be strengthened conventionally (sanctions uplifted) but they won't be allowed to go nuclear. All in all, Saudi-Iran-Turkey will be kept same in size, as to now one dominant power could rise in the Middle East---so that the super power continues to dominate the region. International Relations 101.

Saudis need to indigenous capabilities and industrialized society without losing their identity. That should be the focus. Nukes are a bygone thing now. Saudis can't have it.

Also, lets be real, you guys are ruled by one family and situation can go down anytime (We saw in Libya, Syria, Iraq etc). You need a stable political system to be even considering nuclear weapons.

We can't have them somehow because you said so? In less than 2 decades KSA will have a very sophisticated nuclear energy infrastructure and quite possibly become a nuclear threshold state. By then nobody will be able to stop us. What would the US do? Invade KSA and make every invasion of any Muslims lands look like a joke in comparison?

As for stability, KSA has been a constant for 80 + years as the only country in the Middle East and Muslim world. If that is not stability I do not know what is and believe me, everyone and their dog has tried to stir trouble up without success. We have always been surrounded by instability.

If much poorer, much less important, much less strategic and eventually much less developed countries were on the course to develop nuclear weapons (I only need to mention Libya and partially Iraq to make my point) let alone North Korea (lol) can, so will KSA. in 20 years time KSA will be a threshold nuclear state which will be sufficient. In case of a great/existential threat, nuclear weapons could/will be developed.

As for political changes, they will come naturally and with time. That much is evident.

Besides nuclear armed Middle Eastern states would likely decrease instability not increase it and I am fine with Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Iraq etc. having nuclear weapons as well.

It is within our rights to pursue nuclear energy (which in the case of KSA will happen in joint cooperation with France, Japan, South Korea, China, Russia etc.) and nuclear weapons (if necessary) as long as we do not threaten the international community. We cannot be denied this right forever or anyone else for that matter. Especially not when our direct neighbor (in case of KSA), Israel, possesses them and have possessed them for decades.

@The SC

 

[The SC]

We can't have them somehow because you said so? In less than 2 decades KSA will have a very sophisticated nuclear energy infrastructure and quite possibly become a nuclear threshold state. By then nobody will be able to stop us. What would the US do? Invade KSA and make every invasion of any Muslims lands look like a joke in comparison?

As for stability, KSA has been a constant for 80 + years as the only country in the Middle East and Muslim world. If that is not stability I do not know what is and believe me, everyone and their dog has tried to stir trouble up without success. We have always been surrounded by instability.

If much poorer, much less important, much less strategic and eventually much less developed countries were on the course to develop nuclear weapons (I only need to mention Libya and partially Iraq to make my point) let alone North Korea (lol) can, so will KSA. in 20 years time KSA will be a threshold nuclear state which will be sufficient. In case of a great/existential threat, nuclear weapons could/will be developed.

As for political changes, they will come naturally and with time. That much is evident.

Besides nuclear armed Middle Eastern states would likely decrease instability not increase it and I am fine with Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Iraq etc. having nuclear weapons as well.

It is within our rights to pursue nuclear energy (which in the case of KSA will happen in joint cooperation with France, Japan, South Korea, China, Russia etc.) and nuclear weapons (if necessary) as long as we do not threaten the international community. We cannot be denied this right forever or anyone else for that matter. Especially not when our direct neighbor (in case of KSA), Israel, possesses them and have possessed them for decades.

@The SC

Very well said..KSA is stable, strong and on the right path for civilian nuclear energy among many other advanced technologies and sciences, not to forget the social field..
KSA should get stronger on medium / long range missiles as a deterrent for itself while maintaining the Pakistani nuclear umbrella for Al Haramein, that is enough for now..To go outright nuclear is not in the interests of Saudi Arabia, at least for now..A powerful and strong well disciplined military, along with a powerful and strong deterrent a.k.a long / medium range sophisticated Ballistic and cruise missiles with high precision and powerful warheads made in KSA should do for now..