[Lord Hysteria]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
You're seriously deluded if you think that. Hahahahahha. There's no way in hell the US will ever give Saudi nuclear weapons. It's taken weapons away from South Korea whose neighbor has nuclear weapons.

But the Saudis have Pakistan ...

[Lord Hysteria]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Yup but the United States (and it's ally EU) can severely damage Pakistan and Saudi Arabia more so if they transfer nuclear weapons.

I was thinking provision of technology and resources. The Saudis pumped billions into Pakistan before 1998 to allow them to go nuclear ...

Frankly, some part of me is surprised they are not nuclear yet ...

[Lord Hysteria]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
True and I do fear that it's possible that Pakistan could deploy weapons if Iran weaponizes. The Saudi wouldn't help Pakistan without some greater motive. But, Pakistan aren't the most reliable nations, look at how they undermined US's role in Afghanistan although unlike Afghanistan, Pakistan doesn't have a vested interest in Iran probably be more faithful .

Pakistan is a country that can't keep going the way it is. It has always had a relationship with the CIA and with over a dozen Islamist groups since the 1980s under military rule with a paranoia against India. In 2006, Pakistan was caught red-handed smuggling the components of a nuclear-bomb to Libya, MI6 & CIA produced evidence of Pakistan selling nuclear technology to Iran for cash; and North Korea in exchange for its extensive ballistic missile programme. AQ-Khan was obviously the scapegoat, and the CIA didn't mind too much. After all, the Americans under Bush allowed Pakistan to offer the Taliban sanctuary in Pakistan. Two years ago, Pakistan had over a hundred nuclear weapons and they don't seem to think that's enough of a deterent for India!

Pakistan's relationship with Iran goes through Afghanistan, and is almost the same as the US with Pakistan. Pakistan has supported, and continues to support, Islamist Afghan groups that are anti-Shia. The group Lashkar Jhangvi is well-known to attack Shias. In 2010, Iran hanged Jundollah leader Abdolmalek Rigi. Pakistan allowed him to setup base in 2001 and carry out guerrilla attacks against Iran. But remember Iran sees Pakistan as prostituting itself for the great Satan, and often doing little against attacks directed at Iran. The IRGC and Quds Forces spend millions on training and weapons against the United States, and to break the ISI monopoly on the Taliban. I can remember that one year after 9/11, Iran provided several al-Qaeda and bin Laden family members refuge, and refused to hand some members over to America. Iran is close with Hazaras - the Afghan shias. It is engaged in a war against America with a neighbour nuclear country that sometimes appears to be a CIA appendage

Iran and Pakistan are paranoid nations. And between them, but to a larger extent Iran, everything is at stake. Iran is needed to secure withdrawal from Afghanistan (as with Iraq), stabilise Pakistan & the rest of the Middle East, not blocking the Israeli-Palestinian peace process etc ... It was caught trying to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington. It supports Syrian president al-Assad in the Arab spring (as it did with Qaddafi), and not to mention the power struggle between the Iranian President and Supreme Leader ...

[4RealBlud]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8Jg4...eature=related

Sorry for the long wait, forgot totally about it. Its 1hr 20 if u have the time. Enjoy

[anarchism101]

(Original post by Lord Hysteria)
I was thinking provision of technology and resources. The Saudis pumped billions into Pakistan before 1998 to allow them to go nuclear ...

Frankly, some part of me is surprised they are not nuclear yet ...

Two reasons. Firstly Pakistan has no energy reserves, whereas the Saudis have half the world's oil. Secondly the Pakistani government is much more open to manipulation than the Saudi one.

Let me put it this way; if a country has nukes, they can decide they don't like following Washington's orders any more. If Pakistan did that (and it has a couple of times) the US wouldn't exactly be happy, but it's not the end of the world. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is the crown jewel of the empire. In Pakistan, there are numerous ways the US could push out or weaken a regime it didn't like and replace it with a pro-US faction. Saudi Arabia on the other hand, being a totalitarian theocracy and absolute monarchy, has no realistic alternative regimes to the House of Saud, unless you see an Al-Qaeda government as a realistic alternative, which the US obviously don't.

[Lord Hysteria]

(Original post by anarchism101)
Two reasons. Firstly Pakistan has no energy reserves, whereas the Saudis have half the world's oil. Secondly the Pakistani government is much more open to manipulation than the Saudi one.

Let me put it this way; if a country has nukes, they can decide they don't like following Washington's orders any more. If Pakistan did that (and it has a couple of times) the US wouldn't exactly be happy, but it's not the end of the world. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is the crown jewel of the empire. In Pakistan, there are numerous ways the US could push out or weaken a regime it didn't like and replace it with a pro-US faction. Saudi Arabia on the other hand, being a totalitarian theocracy and absolute monarchy, has no realistic alternative regimes to the House of Saud, unless you see an Al-Qaeda government as a realistic alternative, which the US obviously don't.

Pakistan has large natural gas reserves and Saudi Arabian oil reserves amount to approx. 16-20% of world total. Could you please lucubrate on your point involving energy?

Pakistan is a military state run by a small group of military generals & ex-ISI officials. When the US Admiral Mike Mullen travels to Pakistan to try to change Pakistan's position on something, he doesn't go to Zardari (President) or Gilani (PM), but instead to General Kayani (Head of the Pakistani Army). The President and Prime Minister are terrified of Kayani. In fact, on almost every single important issue Mullen goes straight to Kayani ... and leaves Obama to smile and shake-hands with Zardari. In 2008, after Admiral Mullen had flown in to talk about the Haqqani network, Michael Hayden (CIA director) after the Mumbai attack demanded that Pakistan dismantle Lashkar Tiba. They went to Kayani and he refused.

We're still in Afghanistan today because of Pakistan. Pakistani government can put an end to the Taliban insurgency, but still see it as a strategic asset. The problem, as I delineated above, is that this course of action can only go so far. It places Pakistani security increasingly in the hands of the Taliban. And who, as a political challenger in Pakistan, is going to put a stand against the army's strategy? I am not sure who is manipulating, and who is being manipulated ...

[iSoftie]

(Original post by Sly Blade)
oil? But in all seriousness the main cause of aggression is oil trade routes and Iran is threatening to close them. (my view)

I'm agreeing with this! See Iran apparently is now a Rogue State and this is all bull****! I heard they've been funding money to bomb London 2012 and probably wipe out the Israeli athletes (this was from the Sunday Times).
It's ALL crap.
Israel has like 200+ nukes and defences that zap a nuke straight outta' the sky! It doesn't need help! Let Iran build it's defences and achieve it's nuclear programme. It's ridiculous as well the Mossad are committing crimes by sniping/assassinating scientists but this is alright because precious "Israel" is a weak country...

I tell you what: if Israel wanted to it could make USA and a few allies declare war on every single Muslim country within the next week.
And I like Ahmadinejad he's cool! Did you see his interview with Larry (or Steven?) King? He actually owned him I'll link it to you if you want. (You do know Mr. King is jewish so he obviously is biased, but then again Ahmadinejad is an arab so that doesn't work out).

EDIT:
Sad gullible sheeple neg this.

[JonathanNorth]

If someone is pointing a gun to your friends head you aren't going to attack them. [North Korea - South Korea]

If you can prevent someone from pointing the gun at your friend in the first place then you might try to stop them. [Israel - Iran]

I don't necessarily agree with that, but that is how the US looks at the Israel - Iran situation.

[pr0view]

Ill just leave this here...

[Super Cicero]

(Original post by iSoftie)
Israel has like 200+ nukes and defences that zap a nuke straight outta' the sky! It doesn't need help! Let Iran build it's defences and achieve it's nuclear programme. It's ridiculous as well the Mossad are committing crimes by sniping/assassinating scientists but this is alright because precious "Israel" is a weak country...

I tell you what: if Israel wanted to it could make USA and a few allies declare war on every single Muslim country within the next week.
And I like Ahmadinejad he's cool! Did you see his interview with Larry (or Steven?) King? He actually owned him I'll link it to you if you want. (You do know Mr. King is jewish so he obviously is biased, but then again Ahmadinejad is an arab so that doesn't work out).

OMG... Firstly, neither Israel nor the US nor any other country has the capability to zap incoming nukes straight out of the sky. SDI ("Star Wars") has been heavily researched by America since the Reagan era, but it is not capable of defending anyone successfully from an incoming massive nuclear attack.

Secondly, if Israel is currently unable to persuade the US to attack Iran, then I highly doubt it would be able to "make" the US invade all muslim countries. Also, Israel urged America not to attack Iraq in 2003 because it considered (correctly) Iran to be the greater threat, but the US ignored Israel and invaded Iraq anyway.

Finally, Ahmadinejad is a Persian not an Arab.

[iSoftie]

(Original post by Super Cicero)
OMG... Firstly, neither Israel nor the US nor any other country has the capability to zap incoming nukes straight out of the sky. SDI ("Star Wars") has been heavily researched by America since the Reagan era, but it is not capable of defending anyone successfully from an incoming massive nuclear attack.

Secondly, if Israel is currently unable to persuade the US to attack Iran, then I highly doubt it would be able to "make" the US invade all muslim countries. Also, Israel urged America not to attack Iraq in 2003 because it considered (correctly) Iran to be the greater threat, but the US ignored Israel and invaded Iraq anyway.

Finally, Ahmadinejad is a Persian not an Arab.

Ahh well, still a Muslim, so he shall side with his brothers...
Anyway, so wait should we all invade Iran because Israel thinks it's a threat?

Hmm... Seems legit.

[realmfighter]

With top Iranian leaders and generals openly saying Israel must not exist, any sign of them getting a nuclear weapon of any kind must lead to military intervention. There are no two ways about it.

[lambert1]

(Original post by realmfighter)
With top Iranian leaders and generals openly saying Israel must not exist, any sign of them getting a nuclear weapon of any kind must lead to military intervention. There are no two ways about it.

The US was saying the Soviet Union should not exist for 50 years.