"Saudi's decide to get nukes" Topic

Apparently, the Saudi's where not comforted by the current administration and have decided to ask Pakistan for nukes. Based on this, how does any Middle East campaign get adjusted? If I'm playing Saudi and Kuwaiti forces do I consider the nuclear option? As the Iranian side should I preempt my attack by a strategic nuclear strike? None of the listed countries have the capabilities of a special forces strike and I'm not sure about an air strike.

They already have them. They financed the Pakistani program and have always had a few sitting around in the "secure" nuke locker with "PROPERTY OF SAUDI ARABIA" stenciled on them.
So, it's just a matter of pickup and delivery.

Having them is one thing, using them another.

The Blow Back from using a Nuke will far out way any gain.

This assumes the "rational man" argument.

May the Blessings of the Bomb Almighty, and the Fellowship of the Holy Fallout, descend upon us all. This day and forever more.
-Menendez BtPotA

They already have the theological version of nukes in their Wahabi creed.

You can think of it as jihadi compost.

@RavenscraftCybernetics,

+1

@Don kyoteblue

I hope that is not a group attack against the Saudi Royal Family…

Not if you preface it with, "In my opinion".

Everyone wants nukes because nukes tends to mean you don't get invaded.

Given that Saudi Arabia's main exports are oil and jihadists, I imagine they aren't making friends.

@Weasel: hasn't stopped the Isrealis from having uninvited visitors…

So the next Mid East game will be "Nukes, Nukes! Everybody's Got Nuke's!!

The Game Fallout doesn't seem so far off now.

HazMat Burka's, Mullah MOPP gear--invest now!

New RPG-Gamma Jihad.

meant to be funny-ok, I'll assume the position.

I wonder who'll blink first, and press the button, since the old mantra, "use them or lose them" still seems to be applicable?

"They got nukes, We got nukes, All God's chillun got nukes!"

As the presumptions are that Iran is still in the process of getting the necessary material together to build nukes and that all the Saudis have to do is arrange delivery, the further presumption is that the Saudis being the more rational of the pair will nuke the ayatollahs just prior to the completion of the Iranian nuke(s).

Now one presumes the ayatollahs are aware of this and will dissemble as to their intentions and progress until the packages are ready for delivery or even on their way…

As to the House of Saud, bad cess to them.

Perhaps Ukraine would have fared better if they had kept their nukes and not relied on broken promises? I guess we should not be surprised when other nations take that as a lesson learned.

Lion – Well sure, and having nukes didn't prevent 9/11 either. But I haven;t seen any rows of Syrian tanks rolling across the border in a while :)

We assume Iran does not already have a nuke. Russia could have given them one or two. That said, I do not think Iran is that far away. The last intel said less than a year. How old was that piece?

and then, so what if the Sauds and Iran get them? This conversation has been up here many times. The answer is always the same. Neither get invaded by a major power. However, without nukes they cannot be taken in any practical sense, anyway. 1) They are both the center of a religious sect. Any such invader will start a holy war than will draw in 100s of millions of volunteers to defend them. 2) both have extremely hostile environments that will make in extremely difficult on the attacking army (deserts and/or mountains).

Then, can either use them in any manner without being utterly destroyed? No! It still is no. It will remain no. If they give them to terrorists or other 3rd parties they are easily traced back and it will be as if they used them themselves. If they use them, Israel, England and the US will flatten them with destruction a thousand times greater than they can give. Game over.

While plenty of nuts exist in the region the people in charge, the ones with the nukes are not idiots. They are playing a game of power, not suicide. Can't have power if you and your entire country are dead and glowing in the dark. MAD still works!

@Weasel: It ensured that no nation would claim credit for 9-11, anyway. I'm still wondering just how much $$ the House of Saud has given to the various Jihadi entities over the years, and how much of that was from the actual government coffers.

While plenty of nuts exist in the region the people in charge, the ones with the nukes are not idiots. They are playing a game of power, not suicide. Can't have power if you and your entire country are dead and glowing in the dark. MAD still works!

Problem is that the DAESHbag leadership is an apocalyptic suicide cult. Their stated goal is to bring about the end of the world! So their actions are not going to be rational in the way that even the Russians actions have been in the last few years.

With all the near detonations and accidents both the US and the Russian have had with their weapons, which would have basically blown themselves up, I really do believe that sooner or later one of these countries scrambling to become a nuclear power as well is going to end up incinerating themselves. Of course, someone else will get blamed for it and set off a whole string of problems.

Lion – From what I have understood, they use the lure of Jihad as a safety valve.
Disaffected and disenfranchised people who go to other countries to become jihadists are not agitating against the monarchy at home.

Problem is that the DAESHbag leadership is an apocalyptic suicide cult.

Well, according to a former French President, a world leader with access to nukes was looking forward to stopping Gog and Magog in the Middle East not that long ago and thankfully they didn't go nuclear to hasten the end of the world…

That's enough for a Google search if you're curious, but the rest of that discussion should go in the Fez.

Just pointing out the double standard when talking about Islamic eschatological worldviews and ignoring a substantial sect in the west that is dominated by a imminent apocalyptic worldview.

Just pointing out the double standard when talking about Islamic eschatological worldviews and ignoring a substantial sect in the west that is dominated by a imminent apocalyptic worldview.

Except that the overwhelming majority of Christians are not apocalyptic types.

The Christian imminent apocalypse types tend to be small groups of less than 10k, not 100+k like DAESH.

link
link

Not according the Pew Research

I don't want to get too deeply into Fez territory, but there is a double standard in US/Western news sources and TMP about eschatological beliefs of Christians and Muslim, in which Christian beliefs are taken as a matter of fact/best light possible since they represent large slices of western society whereas Muslim beliefs are seen as inherently sinister since they "don't belong" in Middle America (census data notwithstanding).

Except that Evangelical Christians are not the majority belief type among Christians, your own citation shows that!

Lion, where did I talk about Evangelicals? The only point that I raised is that media and many participants here on TMP are overemphasizing eschatological (belief in the end of the world) beliefs of Muslims while underplaying Christian eschatology. This point still stands.

Besides, as for Evangelicals, according to Pew, they account for the largest "flavour" of Christianity in the US at just over 25% of the population in the most recent Pew survey published a few weeks ago.
link

Furthermore, the two links that I have posted don't have values for the share of population in the USA.

41 percent of 25% of the US population is certainly more than a few tens of thousands right?

Martin, I 100% agree. My biggest concern when it comes to Nukes isn't Iran, but our own nuts. The US Air force has had issues with our Christian nuts getting a bit to close for comfort to our weapons and we have had serious security and operational issues within the Air force nuke units.

Lion's comment "Problem is that the DAESHbag leadership is an apocalyptic suicide cult. Their stated goal is to bring about the end of the world! So their actions are not going to be rational in the way that even the Russians actions have been in the last few years."

I covered that already. These scum bags, while scary to the grossly incompetent Iraqi army, hasn't shown itself to have the slightest technical ability to employ manpads or any kind of modern anti-air weapon, much less a highly advanced weapon like a nuke. They don't even have a old air freight plane to put it in, much less a real bomber. However, this doesn't matter. If they do use a bomb, the supplier will get traced and cease to exist within the day. So, the rule still applies. The Saudis will use Isis to cause mischief, but will not risk their own necks over them, no matter what Isis wishes they could do.

Where is the ISIS apocalypse talk coming from? Dont they want to restablish a "modern" caliphate over as much territory as they can?
Ive not seen any references by them to a muslim rapture.

Where is the ISIS apocalypse talk coming from? Dont they want to restablish a "modern" caliphate over as much territory as they can?
Ive not seen any references by them to a muslim rapture.

FWIW: link

Iran's leadership shares the same desire for armageddon.

"We assume Iran does not already have a nuke".

I don't make that assumption, and many others don't either, since even the President has admitted they could produce them in 3 months (some say as little as 3 weeks), AND, most believe they have enough material now to produce 12 – 18 warheads.

The smart money is they already have built a few, and have them hidden away in deep, underground, secret bunkers, ready to be attached to those ballistic missiles they're working on.

No country in the history of the world has built ballistic missiles without having nuclear warheads to go in them.

I heard a report one time, a few days ago, that ISIS is now seeking to procure/purchase nuclear warheads.

Interestingly, I've not heard that mentioned again, but I was out of touch with the news for a few days.

No country in the history of the world has built ballistic missiles without having nuclear warheads to go in them.

Germany's V2/A4: Insert Tom Leher's Werner von Braun song here
Iraq Al Hussein/scud: 200+ used in Iran-Irak war
South Korea's Hyunmoo: NPT Country as far as I know.

I'm sure I'm missing a few, but I chose those with range greater than 300km for the sake of the argument.

I heard a report one time, a few days ago, that ISIS is now seeking to procure/purchase nuclear warheads.

And I'm sure that Al Quaida has been wanting one for a while. What's your point? Alternative theory, it could be a warhawk plant à la Dick Cheney feeding false/politically distorted data to Judith Miller and then quoting Judith Miller in interview as if she were an independent journalist rather than his personal stenographer.