Rob

Quote: Originally Posted by The UK Times Six Arab states join rush to go nuclear By Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, UAE and Saudi Arabia seek atom technology THE SPECTRE of a nuclear race in the Middle East was raised yesterday when six Arab states announced that they were embarking on programmes to master atomic technology. The move, which follows the failure by the West to curb Iran’s controversial nuclear programme, could see a rapid spread of nuclear reactors in one of the world’s most unstable regions, stretching from the Gulf to the Levant and into North Africa. The countries involved were named by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Saudi Arabia. Tunisia and the UAE have also shown interest. All want to build civilian nuclear energy programmes, as they are permitted to under international law. But the sudden rush to nuclear power has raised suspicions that the real intention is to acquire nuclear technology which could be used for the first Arab atomic bomb. “Some Middle East states, including Egypt, Morocco, Algeria and Saudi Arabia, have shown initial interest [in using] nuclear power primarily for desalination purposes,” Tomihiro Taniguch, the deputy director-general of the IAEA, told the business weekly Middle East Economic Digest. He said that they had held preliminary discussions with the governments and that the IAEA’s technical advisory programme would be offered to them to help with studies into creating power plants. Mark Fitzpatrick, an expert on nuclear proliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said that it was clear that the sudden drive for nuclear expertise was to provide the Arabs with a “security hedge”. “If Iran was not on the path to a nuclear weapons capability you would probably not see this sudden rush [in the Arab world],” he said. The announcement by the six nations is a stunning reversal of policy in the Arab world, which had until recently been pressing for a nuclear free Middle East, where only Israel has nuclear weapons. Egypt and other North African states can argue with some justification that they need cheap, safe energy for their expanding economies and growing populations at a time of high oil prices. The case will be much harder for Saudi Arabia, which sits on the world’s largest oil reserves. Earlier this year Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Foreign Minister, told The Times that his country opposed the spread of nuclear power and weapons in the Arab world. Since then, however, the Iranians have accelerated their nuclear power and enrichment programmes.

*Sigh*

Well, it looks like the world really is going to go down the crapper. Guess I'm going to have to speed up my plans to save up enough money to immigrate to someplace nice and out of the way.

MasterP, you got a spare bedroom down there?

I figured that New Zealand would probably be one of the last first-world countries to go.

Time to just slide away and let time forget all about you.

__________________

$SOLID$ Necro

Hmm..Time for a bit of "Sabotage" maybe?

(Just kidding)


Another "Chernobyl" like accident will happen at some point probably in one of these countries that are doing the "Me Too" deal, and will make them realise it's nothing to screw around with!

__________________

Nerdz

I wonder how much it is to buy a house on the moon these days...Ive heard its verry cheap and its a buyers market.

Sigh, Its the Cold war all over again. Guess its finally time to face the reds, after all, we could run from them forever..But seriously, Why the race for nuclear war? Lets put that money to something more usefull, like a colony on mars or on the moon? We might as well go live on the sun if your all going to build nukes..

Another possiblity- They build the nukes, they nuke each other, thus making it freeland. Everyone (in the middle east) will most likely be dead- OR flee to the US or some other country..) and the land will probably be either left alone- or be mined for oil- even though the place has turned into a nuclear waste site..

So chose your poison, Will the human race die from nuclear war, a plague, an asteroid, global warming Or some other un godly act.

__________________

eascarface

Uggh. And to think I get to move over there next year.

__________________

Hibiki

EMP them all.

kipman725

Quote: Originally Posted by Hibiki EMP them all.

which with current tech involves setting off nukes in the upper atnosphere

__________________

Pharaoh

I have worked in Egypt and the quality standards there leave a lot to be desired.
Most of the arab people I met wanted to cheap out and short cut every step of the job
and safety was not high on their list of importance either.

This can not be a good thing it is only a matter of time before a small country vaporizes it's own self.

__________________

MasterP

Shocking.... absoluely shocking....

NZ might be a safe bet indeed

We are totally anti-nuke in this neck of the woods - we don't even let nuclear powered vessels come into our waters!!
Hydroelectric energy is the preferred flavour over here

*starts digging an emergency bunker*

*...with a spare set of bedrooms*

__________________

Lokie

I'll take the couch......

joecoin

Quote: Originally Posted by Pharaoh This can not be a good thing it is only a matter of time before a small country vaporizes it's own self.

Is that a typo? Don't you mean "This can be a good thing"?

__________________

Iateronmly

I'm all for letting them have nuclear reactors. Honestly, I think the US should really get back into the market of selling the supplies for nuclear power plant parts. We could actually help take care of our trade deficit with those middle eastern countries for a few years depending on what percentage they want to go to nuclear for their power needs. We also have a lot of folks in the US very well trained in the area that could be very hirable internationally. If we stop with the "nuclear is a bad thing" attitude, and embrace nuclear power as a supply - we could probably nix a few problems ahead of time. There is very viable technology out there with little waste compared to that associated with nuclear power production from the 1960s-1970s - countries that develop it on their own without the advances made over the last few decades are at the same place we were back then.

We have two real options.

1) Help them, and by doing so reduce the chance they'll cause a large ecological disaster with unneeded waste being generated/stuff that could be turned into dirty bombs. By helping them, they might not also mind us keeping a few folks around making sure it's all running right. Reduce the feeling we're repressing them technology wise, and nix their feeling of resentment toward the US. Also after they realize how much it costs to run a reactor to supply power efficiently without risk of melt downs, they might think hard and fast about how much it'd cost to develop a nuclear weapons program that won't end with bad consequences.

2) We tell them not to, they take a stab at it on their own. We have a lot higher risk of all the things we don't want to happen, to happen.


Personally - I'd like to see the US, and many US companies that have many great patents that haven't had a chance to be put to use make some money from it all. Back in the day we used to lease nuclear material in the forms of rods to foreign nations for their power plants, we didn't have nations glorifying it back then either. Sure it's a little simplistic of a conclusion, very akin to "We didn't have a drug problem before we made it taboo and everyone got interested in what they shouldn't have." But it's worth thinking about. If a nation wants it bad enough, anyone can do it. So we can help them do it right, or we can sit back and wait for another nation's leader to use it as a beacon to his nation's population as a rallying point of how it over-came "international oppression".

__________________

eascarface

That was defiantly one of the most thought out and knowledgeable posts I've seen. Edit: You'll have to wait a while, I can't rep you at the moment.

__________________

Iateronmly

Quote: Originally Posted by eascarface That was defiantly one of the most thought out and knowledgeable posts I've seen. Edit: You'll have to wait a while, I can't rep you at the moment.

No problem. I also don't mind if someone disagrees with me, but we really are getting on the far end of anxiety ridden anymore in the world. We have MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) - they know it too. Nuclear power/nuclear weapons is posturing, 100% status symbol for a nation anymore it seems. It's the global equivilant to two frat boys bouncing chests at a bar over image. Personally I'm a preditor, and never understood things like that to well. In a bar fight I'll smile, shake your hand, brush off your shirt for you and hit you upside the head with a bar stool for getting a feel on my girlfriend after you turn around. That said - I notice it a lot in international relations again, when I'd only seen it in history books from the 1940-1960s. It continued til the end of the Cold War but wasn't an active part of international diplomacy IMO like then.

The only way I can really see to get rid of the stupid global view of having that atom harnessed being the same as being a star quarter back of a team is to demystify it. It makes a really BIG boom, takes out lots of stuff, and turns what's it hits into inhospitable terrain for years. The only use for it military wise is to destroy, defeating secondary. Reason the US and the USSR ramped up and produced so much, we're big land masses and to take out each other entirely would take quite a few. I doubt we'll pay off the reminents of the US's cold war build up before I die - which is rather funny in a way, all our cold war nuclear warheads will be worthless by then too.

Now here's the thing - the USSR and the USA actually were able to produce enough to have a good chance at mutual destruction. Do you think the middle east in it's entirety can scrap up the materials to create an arsonal like we have/had to accomplish the same thing? They could carpet bomb the US's west and east coasts, and we still have enough ICBMs around the world to turn them into a parking lot and still have 50%+ of our population while none of them would exist. Rather dark outlook I know, reason I don't really worry about it - there are great absurdities in human history that if you look back you wonder how anyone was stupid enough to attempt it. Nuclear warfare is an absurdity that can't be stumbled upon as a new idea though - everyone knows of it's very real consequences.

Folks claim - maybe they won't attack the US, but they (radical Muslim extremists) will take out Israel. Not likely, as radical Muslim extremists want the death of Israel so they can take back claim to their holy sites (same as Jews, and Christians claim as their own too) - to use nuclear weapons on Israel would mean destroying historial remains of the religion that they fight over. Kinda hard to see that one happening. It's all just 100% pure posturing, no one wants to feel 2nd class, everyone wants that stupid jacket to show the world they're hot **** too.

__________________

Nerdz

I agree with lat, I Do wish there were more Nuclear Power stations in the US, It would stop most of the emmisions from coal plants from reaching the atmosphere. Granted, There maybe a 1 in a million chance that it will end up like chernobyl or 3 Mile Island in the US (well 3 Mile island wasnt that bad..)(Likn to google results for 3 Mile island) But I think the cost still outweighs the benefits, they might just have to redesign the nuclear reactors to be more safe.

*Just a note* Depleted Uranium from reactors is U-239 (from U-235), This can be used in a nuclear weapon, But The process needed might be hard to come by (If you hit it with a nuetron, It decays over some short period of time to plutonium 239. However, Since a nuclear reactor releases nuetrons, P-239 Can Also be used in a reactor As a source of Fuel. The Only problem is the extremely long halflife, which is around 20 thousand years. Once P-239 is spent, its practically useless.

__________________

IcEMage

Quote: Originally Posted by Lokie I'll take the couch......

Dibs on the bathtub

__________________