Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   The good news: Pakistan will soon likely have less nuclear weapons. The bad news: because they are selling some of them to Saudi Arabia   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 57
    More: Scary, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, nuclear weapons, NPT, nuclear proliferation, Iranian nuclear program, Amos Yadlin, ballistic missiles  
•       •       •

3422 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Nov 2013 at 5:00 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



57 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-08 04:12:39 PM  
"Fewer" nuke-u-lar weapons.
 
2013-11-08 04:32:53 PM  
Isn't that a violation of international nuclear treaties?
 
2013-11-08 04:35:56 PM  

somedude210: Isn't that a violation of international nuclear treaties?


It's a real big no-no, that's for sure.
 
2013-11-08 04:47:33 PM  
Y'know what the Middle East needs more of? Nukes.

Said no one, ever.
 
2013-11-08 04:49:44 PM  
What? Why? Have they given up on selling nuclear technology, parts and secrets to Iran and Libya?

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-09-25/news/3020076 7_ 1_isi-report-nuclear-secrets-nuclear-technology

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/10432006/Pak is tan-ready-to-deliver-nuclear-weapons-to-Saudi-Arabia.html

http://www.corbettreport.com/nuclear-secrets-how-america-helped-paki st an-get-the-bomb/

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2013/05/201351012447964914.html

US helps Pakistan get the bomb. Pakistan helps Libya,.Iran and North Korea with nuclear techology, materials, and secrets. Pakistan helps Saudi Arabia get the bomb. Saudi Arabia continues to fund Al Qaeda and terrorist groups through "charities" and other funding channels.

US military policy used to be MAD. Now it's just insane.
 
2013-11-08 04:59:51 PM  
Speaking of Proliferation, has the USA ever ratified that Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons they signed when I was a teenager? Why, look, they seem to have done so, although they still "share" with a number of other countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nucl ea r_Weapons

Iran signed it, too. And ratified.

Only India, Pakistan, South Sudan and Israel are non-signataries to that treaty while North Korea withdrew to all intents and purposes and a number of other countries are question marks.
 
2013-11-08 05:02:25 PM  
Good news:  Pakistan is destroying its entire nuclear arsenal.  Bad news:  by dropping it on India.
 
2013-11-08 05:03:11 PM  
They're all US allies. What's the worst that could ever happen?
 
2013-11-08 05:05:03 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: "Fewer" nuke-u-lar weapons.


No, don't you see? The number of nukes will remain the same, they'll each just become less nukey.
 
2013-11-08 05:06:46 PM  
Oh, and the obligatory:

jaypgreene.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-11-08 05:09:51 PM  
So... They only intend to get nukes if and when Iran gets them?  Not News.
 
2013-11-08 05:12:03 PM  
brantgoose:

US helps Pakistan get the bomb. Pakistan helps Libya,.Iran and North Korea with nuclear techology, materials, and secrets. Pakistan helps Saudi Arabia get the bomb. Saudi Arabia continues to fund Al Qaeda and terrorist groups through "charities" and other funding channels.

US military policy used to be MAD. Now it's just insane.


It is about Iran. The US has essentially conceded that Iran will get a nuclear weapon. So that means that the only counterpoint is to give the Saudis one too. is it MAD.
 
2013-11-08 05:15:49 PM  
That's backwards subs.
 
2013-11-08 05:23:35 PM  

worlddan: It is about Iran. The US has essentially conceded that Iran will get a nuclear weapon. So that means that the only counterpoint is to give the Saudis one too. is it MAD.


The only bright spot, is that they will hopefully only have a limited number, and thus can only kill each other.. rather than the US policy of destroying the entire planet 10 times over at once should shiat pop off.
 
2013-11-08 05:24:03 PM  

somedude210: Isn't that a violation of international nuclear treaties?



No, i believe in the spirit of fairness, the treaty allows a country at least one nuclear weapon if it can afford it.

No nuclear weapons? Get a farking job, shiat-hole!
 
2013-11-08 05:27:43 PM  

miss diminutive: Y'know what the Middle East needs more of? Nukes.

Said no one, ever.

jdayhistory.weebly.com
I disagree. We should send over dozens on express shipment.
 
2013-11-08 05:30:49 PM  
Knowledge wants to be free.  Once nukes were invented, it was inevitable that more and more countries would have them.  All the wishing in the world won't change that.

That said, I'd be fine with nuking Saudi Arabia today.  Farking George Bush decided "We were attacked on 9-11 and I'm by god going to blow me up some muslims" and went and invaded Iraq, which wasn't involved.  Zero of the 9-11 hijackers were from Iraq.  Saudi Arabia ?  15 of the hijackers were Saudi's.  Fark 'em, nuke 'em, and when they complain about it, shoot the complainers.  We're a lot better off nuking them now than waiting until they get nukes and attack us again.
 
2013-11-08 05:33:27 PM  

somedude210: Isn't that a violation of international nuclear treaties?


You tell them that.  They have nuclear weapons.
 
2013-11-08 05:34:53 PM  

Son of Thunder: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: "Fewer" nuke-u-lar weapons.

No, don't you see? The number of nukes will remain the same, they'll each just become less nukey.


From the article, it actually means more nuclear weapons.

The claim in the article is that the Pakistanis are manufacturing nuke for the Saudis. Pakistan will have its count increased until they are delivered when it will go back to the original level.
 
2013-11-08 05:35:16 PM  
these brown people are not rational enough to have such weapons. this will end badly for all of us.

img.fark.net
 
2013-11-08 05:37:05 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: miss diminutive: Y'know what the Middle East needs more of? Nukes.

Said no one, ever.
[jdayhistory.weebly.com image 320x400]
I disagree. We should send over dozens on express shipment.


i.chzbgr.com
 
2013-11-08 05:37:52 PM  

Alonjar: worlddan: It is about Iran. The US has essentially conceded that Iran will get a nuclear weapon. So that means that the only counterpoint is to give the Saudis one too. is it MAD.

The only bright spot, is that they will hopefully only have a limited number, and thus can only kill each other.. rather than the US policy of destroying the entire planet 10 times over at once should shiat pop off.


Yeah, at this point we just write off a major chunk of a continent for a few decades and expect cancer rates to spike worldwide.

I must say, a Saudi/Iranian Nuclear War would certainly greatly reduce the give-a-damn we would have for the middle east.  Let them do the "Glass parking lot" dirty work and we would be able to just walk away from the issue.

As long as nobody tries to hit Israel, and the inevitable Israeli response happens.   How do you think Mecca would look as a glowing crater?
 
2013-11-08 05:44:45 PM  

brantgoose: US helps Pakistan get the bomb. Pakistan helps Libya,.Iran and North Korea with nuclear techology, materials, and secrets. Pakistan helps Saudi Arabia get the bomb. Saudi Arabia continues to fund Al Qaeda and terrorist groups through "charities" and other funding channels.


You forgot "whistleblower loses everything in his life".


Link
 
2013-11-08 05:45:37 PM  
Thank goodness it was those dern Iraqis who orchestrated 9/11 and not the Saudis. Nope, not a single Saudi involved in that... and definitely no connection to Al Qaeda ...nope.
 
2013-11-08 05:51:39 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: miss diminutive: Y'know what the Middle East needs more of? Nukes.

Said no one, ever.
[jdayhistory.weebly.com image 320x400]
I disagree. We should send over dozens on express shipment.


Yep. Murder millions because you hate the extremist government. Who only have power because the West had a massive hardon for farking with Middle Eastern politics for the entire 20th century, if not before.
 
2013-11-08 05:53:01 PM  

brantgoose: Speaking of Proliferation, has the USA ever ratified that Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons they signed when I was a teenager? Why, look, they seem to have done so, although they still "share" with a number of other countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nucl ea r_Weapons

Iran signed it, too. And ratified.

Only India, Pakistan, South Sudan and Israel are non-signataries to that treaty while North Korea withdrew to all intents and purposes and a number of other countries are question marks.


There was a small thing called the Iranian Revolution in 1979 that sent the government in Iran that had signed NPT out of power and I have yet to see any thing that the current Iranian government ever signed NPT.
 
2013-11-08 05:55:32 PM  
I, for one, wouldn't buy anything so expensive without first taking a test drive or at least seeing a live demo.
 
2013-11-08 05:55:40 PM  

insano: Thank goodness it was those dern Iraqis who orchestrated 9/11 and not the Saudis. Nope, not a single Saudi involved in that... and definitely no connection to Al Qaeda ...nope.



As long as the greedy moderates hold power, it's all moot.  They have oil, we buy oil, they hold major economic sway in the world. Once the jihad muslin nutters overthrow the current meglomaniacs, all bets are off.

PS, bit of historical perspective here.  The Saudis told Bin Laden to f*ck off when he offered to oust Saddam from Kuwait, hence his jihad for allowing infidels on their sacred shiathole of a country.  Yes, he's Saudi, I know. But he was on the outside looking in and the moderates said f*ck off. His family had/has wealth but no political power because they're radical muslims, not greedy ones.
 
2013-11-08 05:57:38 PM  

somedude210: Isn't that a violation of international nuclear treaties?


i31.tinypic.com

/obligatory
 
2013-11-08 05:59:29 PM  

LordJiro: Lt. Cheese Weasel: miss diminutive: Y'know what the Middle East needs more of? Nukes.

Said no one, ever.
[jdayhistory.weebly.com image 320x400]
I disagree. We should send over dozens on express shipment.

Yep. Murder millions because you hate the extremist government. Who only have power because the West had a massive hardon for farking with Middle Eastern politics for the entire 20th century, if not before.


Actually, the governments are the least of my concerns in the Middle East. It is the extremist segments of the population that are the threat.

Far more likely than any government using nukes is non-government groups acquiring and using them from an unstable government.
 
2013-11-08 06:00:33 PM  
The only winning move is not to play.
 
2013-11-08 06:07:29 PM  

BitwiseShift: I, for one, wouldn't buy anything so expensive without first taking a test drive or at least seeing a live demo.


Haven't you been reading the nutjob news lately?  There was an underwater nuke set off not that long ago in the Atlantic.  There was your test run
 
2013-11-08 06:16:59 PM  
I really believe that the "Nuclear Free Middle East" is Saudi Arabia's preferred option, here. But of course they need to have a response ready in case Iran does start deploying nuclear weapons. With this not-really-an-agreement thing with Pakistan, they have the best of both worlds. They aren't racing to deploy nukes themselves, so they're not pushing Iran in that direction. But if they "need" them, for bargaining/posturing purposes, they're available relatively quickly. Meanwhile, a few more nuclear warheads in Pakistan doesn't do much to change the situation there - the world is in no more danger of one of those weapons falling into the wrong hands. It's not *great*, in that Pakistan's nuclear stockpile isn't as secure as the other nuclear powers might like, but it's better to have those weapons in as few locations as possible.
 
2013-11-08 06:20:09 PM  
This is pretty much what was predicted if the US ever became perceived as a questionable ally. Which it has.
 
2013-11-08 06:23:35 PM  
This will surely speed up the Rapture timeline and soon Jesus will be back!
 
2013-11-08 06:25:19 PM  
Because I'm a pessimist, I can see them accidentally setting one of these things off and destroying/affecting Mecca and their holy rock. When this happens, every radical Islamist and no too few of the rest will go nuts and seek vengeance on the infidels, whoever they may decide that will be. That's when the rest will come in to use.
 
2013-11-08 06:26:00 PM  

miss diminutive: Y'know what the Middle East needs more of? Nukes.

Said no one, ever.


Says me, now.
 
2013-11-08 06:29:27 PM  
www.hangthebankers.com


The committee highlighted Mr Obama's efforts to support international bodies and promote nuclear disarmament.
 
2013-11-08 06:43:08 PM  
FEWER!!!

/ffffffffffuuuuuuuuu
 
2013-11-08 07:12:51 PM  
assets.sbnation.com
 
2013-11-08 07:15:25 PM  

JuggleGeek: Knowledge wants to be free.  Once nukes were invented, it was inevitable that more and more countries would have them.  All the wishing in the world won't change that.

That said, I'd be fine with nuking Saudi Arabia today.  Farking George Bush decided "We were attacked on 9-11 and I'm by god going to blow me up some muslims" and went and invaded Iraq, which wasn't involved.  Zero of the 9-11 hijackers were from Iraq.  Saudi Arabia ?  15 of the hijackers were Saudi's.  Fark 'em, nuke 'em, and when they complain about it, shoot the complainers.  We're a lot better off nuking them now than waiting until they get nukes and attack us again.


They have so much goddamn money (from us, no less) I expect they probably have some Russian 'surplus' already stashed. I do not want the Saudis pissed at us, whether we have superior military power or not. I also don't want to give them anymore money though, so let's spend some on R&D for stuff, eh?
 
2013-11-08 07:25:18 PM  

dywed88: LordJiro: Lt. Cheese Weasel: miss diminutive: Y'know what the Middle East needs more of? Nukes.

Said no one, ever.
[jdayhistory.weebly.com image 320x400]
I disagree. We should send over dozens on express shipment.

Yep. Murder millions because you hate the extremist government. Who only have power because the West had a massive hardon for farking with Middle Eastern politics for the entire 20th century, if not before.

Actually, the governments are the least of my concerns in the Middle East. It is the extremist segments of the population that are the threat.

Far more likely than any government using nukes is non-government groups acquiring and using them from an unstable government.


It's comforting to know somebody is paying attention.
 
2013-11-08 07:29:23 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: insano: Thank goodness it was those dern Iraqis who orchestrated 9/11 and not the Saudis. Nope, not a single Saudi involved in that... and definitely no connection to Al Qaeda ...nope.


As long as the greedy moderates hold power, it's all moot.  They have oil, we buy oil, they hold major economic sway in the world. Once the jihad muslin nutters overthrow the current meglomaniacs, all bets are off.

PS, bit of historical perspective here.  The Saudis told Bin Laden to f*ck off when he offered to oust Saddam from Kuwait, hence his jihad for allowing infidels on their sacred shiathole of a country.  Yes, he's Saudi, I know. But he was on the outside looking in and the moderates said f*ck off. His family had/has wealth but no political power because they're radical muslims, not greedy ones.


Historical perspective?  How about a rational perspective, Bin Laden was going to "oust Saddam from Kuwait" how, exactly?  And even if he could, you're going to want a lunatic in charge. Maybe this is why the Saudis to fark off.
 
2013-11-08 07:29:53 PM  
Of the Islamic countries that you wouldn't want having nuclear weapons, Pakistan is high on that list. Of those you can be pretty sure won't ever use them in anger, I'm guessing the Saudis and the Jordanians would be on that list. I've no problem with this. Anything to keep them away from the Taliban.
 
2013-11-08 07:35:42 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: miss diminutive: Y'know what the Middle East needs more of? Nukes.

Said no one, ever.

I disagree. We should send over dozens on express shipment.


Good to know you support the wholesale killing of women and children.

It makes using them as human shields seem positively humane.
 
2013-11-08 07:40:24 PM  

worlddan: brantgoose:

US helps Pakistan get the bomb. Pakistan helps Libya,.Iran and North Korea with nuclear techology, materials, and secrets. Pakistan helps Saudi Arabia get the bomb. Saudi Arabia continues to fund Al Qaeda and terrorist groups through "charities" and other funding channels.

US military policy used to be MAD. Now it's just insane.

It is about Iran. The US has essentially conceded that Iran will get a nuclear weapon. So that means that the only counterpoint is to give the Saudis one too. is it MAD.


no it's about balance of power and feeding the MIC. We have to supply arms to both sides to keep the relative balance. Folks who don;t like their neigbors will ALWAYS fight and will ALWAYS need weaponry. Might as well have them from the likes of Raytheon, Lockheed, General Dynamics etc.

By suppling arms we can control the technological sophistication and the proliferation as well. The worst thing that can happen to the arms market is to allow these countries have their own version of MIC and starts  mass producing advanced weaponry.
Not only will we not reap the financial benefits but it will also make the world inherently more dangerous.
 
2013-11-08 07:52:27 PM  

zimbomba63: Lt. Cheese Weasel: insano: Thank goodness it was those dern Iraqis who orchestrated 9/11 and not the Saudis. Nope, not a single Saudi involved in that... and definitely no connection to Al Qaeda ...nope.


As long as the greedy moderates hold power, it's all moot.  They have oil, we buy oil, they hold major economic sway in the world. Once the jihad muslin nutters overthrow the current meglomaniacs, all bets are off.

PS, bit of historical perspective here.  The Saudis told Bin Laden to f*ck off when he offered to oust Saddam from Kuwait, hence his jihad for allowing infidels on their sacred shiathole of a country.  Yes, he's Saudi, I know. But he was on the outside looking in and the moderates said f*ck off. His family had/has wealth but no political power because they're radical muslims, not greedy ones.

Historical perspective?  How about a rational perspective, Bin Laden was going to "oust Saddam from Kuwait" how, exactly?  And even if he could, you're going to want a lunatic in charge. Maybe this is why the Saudis to fark off.


Well at least you understand things, that's a start.  The Saudis were rational as well.  There was no way a ragtag bunch of mujahadine bozos were going to get Saddam out. They knew it. World Police takes over, America F*ck Yeah.! It's not a fault of the Saudis for being realists and protecting their interests.  They do it still to this day.
 
2013-11-08 08:07:33 PM  
Thanks, Obama?
 
2013-11-08 08:17:31 PM  

worlddan: brantgoose:

US helps Pakistan get the bomb. Pakistan helps Libya,.Iran and North Korea with nuclear techology, materials, and secrets. Pakistan helps Saudi Arabia get the bomb. Saudi Arabia continues to fund Al Qaeda and terrorist groups through "charities" and other funding channels.

US military policy used to be MAD. Now it's just insane.

It is about Iran. The US has essentially conceded that Iran will get a nuclear weapon. So that means that the only counterpoint is to give the Saudis one too. is it MAD.


You're quite right - and it's realpolitik in it's finest essence.
Let's face it - the nuclear genie is out of the bottle, and while we are posturing and pontificating, we also need to act pragmatically.
 
2013-11-08 09:04:43 PM  

r1niceboy: Of the Islamic countries that you wouldn't want having nuclear weapons, Pakistan is high on that list. Of those you can be pretty sure won't ever use them in anger, I'm guessing the Saudis and the Jordanians would be on that list. I've no problem with this. Anything to keep them away from the Taliban.


Oh, Pakistan having nuclear weapons is far more worrisome to me than Iran having them. With the military and government often at odds (and both with elements aligned with the Taliban and other extremists), they seem to be the best candidate to "lose" a bomb or go into a civil war where one faction might use them out of desperation.

I don't think the Saudi's are too good either. The strong radical factions in the country are definitely something to worry about.

That said the risk I see from either of them or Iran having nukes is so miniscule at this time that I won't actually worry. Just like North Korea, it is about diplomatic bargaining chips and an insurance policy if they are invaded.
 
Displayed 50 of 57 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report