There are currently, 92 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.|
page views since May 2005
Site established September 2000
Posted on February 25, 2011
Danny "Greasy" Belcher, Executive Director
Executive Director, Task Force Omega of KY Inc.
Vietnam Infantry Sgt. 68-69
"D" Troop 7th Sqdn. 1st Air Cav.
Del sent the following and I agree with him. OPEC has screwed us with the oil prices. Here is another thing they can use to raise the price of gasoline more. Another reason for the USA to drill more and get energy efficient.
OK, perfect, now more Middle East countries will be scrambling to get nukes, as was predicted long ago when it became clear that Iran was well on the path to getting them and it didn't seem anyone was going to take steps to stop them. Can't blame the Saudis or anyone else there for figuring they need their own nukes if they are to avoid being totally dominated by Iran. This proliferation was expected, and is the direct consequence of the inability of the West to do more than talk about working some kind of deal out with Iran. Again, we are living in a time as sad and dangerous as when the French and British watched the Nazis march into the Rhineland. We all know how that worked out finally... yet we have no leaders anywhere who have to vision and cujones to deal with the steadily growing threat.
I'm starting to think seriously about that storehouse of canned goods, weapons, and ammo. Maybe the bomb shelter too....
Saudi Nukes: The Game Is On
Posted 02/23/2011 06:57 PM ET
Mideast Arms Race: If you think surprise upheavals of long-stable Islamic regimes are scary, how does a nuclearized Saudi Arabia courtesy of France grab you? The fallout from Iran's nuclear program is arriving.
The kingdom of Saudi Arabia on Tuesday announced a deal with France to collaborate on the research, development and handling of nuclear materials — for peaceful purposes only, of course.
Why would the world's biggest oil exporter, the country with the most reserves on the globe, be investing in nuclear energy of all things? The Saudis' official reason is that they wish to reduce their country's consumption of oil and gas in the coming decades, good enviro-conscious players on the world stage that they are.
The truth, however, is that Saudi Arabia has been more than mildly interested in nuclear-weapons capability for a lot longer than most might realize.
In 1988, Los Angeles Times reporter Jim Mann revealed that an obscure U.S. official whose job was to keep track of airstrip construction around the world had recently "looked at a reconnaissance photo of the Saudi Arabian desert and noticed something extraordinary about a newly constructed airfield" — that the Saudis were installing Chinese CSS-2 intermediate-range missiles, which are designed to carry atom bombs.
With a range of about 1,500 miles, Saudi Arabia could use such rockets to attack Israel, India, Russia — or Iran.
Thomas Reed, a former U.S. government nuclear weapons designer, and Los Alamos physicist Danny Stillman note in their book "The Nuclear Express" that during 1999, the year after Pakistan's successful test detonations made it the world's seventh nuclear weapons power, "the Saudi minister of defense led a Saudi team in visiting the Pakistani uranium enrichment and missile complex at Kahuta" in the Punjab. The following year, notorious nuclear scientist/black market weapons smuggler Abdul Qadeer Khan visited Saudi Arabia.
And Saudi isn't the only Mideast Islamic regime jumping on the atomic bandwagon. Kuwait and Britain have signed two "memos of understanding" on "peaceful nuclear usage," reports the Kuwait News Agency. And Jordan and Turkey last week signed a pact agreeing to "the exchange of expertise" on nuclear reactors and exploration of uranium resources.
Perhaps paradoxically, this news of an accelerated Mideast nuclear arms race to accompany the spread of instability and unpredictability in the region comes as a key Saudi warns that the West's policy toward Tehran's nuclear program is a failure.
Calling for the Middle East to be a nuclear-free zone, Prince Turki Al Faisal, a former Saudi intelligence services director, told the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that sanctions would not stop Iran in its quest for nuclear weapons.
"The Middle East cannot afford the competition that a nuclear Iran would cause," the Saudi warned. At the same forum, Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a former State Department official, issued his own warning that "the technology is going a lot faster than any diplomacy" in Iran, which "will be able to have weapons long before any diplomacy has a chance to work."
The "timelines are quite short," Haass said, and "force is a serious option." But force is not a serious option in the thinking of the United States. Shockingly, however, unilateral nuclear disarmament is, as a bizarre way of trying to end Iran's nuclear program.
Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, in a book-length love letter to Barack Obama titled "The Promise," reveals that, according to Obama's National Security Council speechwriter Ben Rhodes, "the United States, Obama thought, couldn't effectively pressure Iran until we unilaterally reduced our own stockpile of nuclear weapons and began pushing forward again on arms talks with Russia."
So the New START treaty is really a scheme to stop Iran from getting nukes?
That seems to be the warped thinking of a White House that has allowed an Iranian nuclear program to begin an arms race that could spread nukes even to the homeland of Muhammad.
Average Score: 4.90|