![[F]](13729_files/site.gif) New York Times on the Web Forums
 Science
Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a
nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a
"Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed
considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense
initiatives more successful? Can such an application of
science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable,
necessary or impossible?
Read Debates, a new
Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published
every Thursday.
  (13728 previous messages)
fredmoore
- 01:29pm Sep 18, 2003 EST (#
13729 of 13824)
Saudis consider nuclear weapons
By Ewen MacAskill in London and Ian Traynor in Vienna
September 19, 2003
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/18/1063625154122.html
Saudi Arabia has embarked on a strategic review that
includes acquiring nuclear weapons, in response to the
upheaval in the Middle East. This new threat of proliferation
in one of the most dangerous regions of the world comes on top
of a crisis over Iran's alleged nuclear program. A strategy
paper being considered at the highest levels in Riyadh sets
out three options:
To acquire a nuclear capability as a deterrent.
To maintain or enter into an alliance with an existing
nuclear power that would offer protection.
To try to reach a regional agreement on a nuclear-free
Middle East.
Until now, the assumption in Washington was that Saudi
Arabia was content to remain under the US nuclear umbrella.
But the relationship between the two countries has steadily
worsened since the September 11 attacks: 15 of the 19
terrorists were Saudi
"There has always been worries that the Saudis would go
down this path if provoked," Mr Albright said. "There is
growing US hostility which could lead to the removal of the US
umbrella and will the Saudis be intimidated by Iran? They've
got to be nervous."
*******
It would seem that all the money in the world cannot buy
the Saudis power, happiness or ... le Bomb. It can however buy
a whole mess of trouble. The Saudis must be very frustrated
... ...
I remember how Sadat turned Egypt's frustration at Israel
into positivity. Are the Saudis capable or willing to follow
that line?
What do you think Robert?
patthnyc
- 01:30pm Sep 18, 2003 EST (#
13730 of 13824)
". . . how fragile we are . . ." --
Sting
fred, any idea on which country the Saudhis will BUY their
nuclear weapons from -- could it be the USA?
patthnyc
- 01:33pm Sep 18, 2003 EST (#
13731 of 13824)
". . . how fragile we are . . ." --
Sting
9-11-2001 -- Come To London's Docklands -- Looking for
Weapons of Mass destruction? by Mark Steel
Independent September 4, 2003
I found the weapons of mass destruction. Next week they'll
be in London's Docklands, at a vast arms fair. Which sounds
almost quaint, as if it's like a record fair, and should be in
a school hall on a Sunday afternoon with obsessive collectors
flicking through items on a table and asking questions such
as: "This anti-personnel land mine on the Lockheed label - I
don't suppose you've ever come across one of the originals on
green vinyl?"
Instead, every imaginable object capable of destroying in a
massive way will be on display and on sale at the Defense
Systems and Equipment Exhibition [http://www.dsei.co.uk/],
where 1,000 arms companies will compete for business. And the
marvelous part is I don't have to commission any dossiers to
prove they're there, as the arms dealers have published their
own, proudly sexed up with notes such as: "Ample space for
full-size military aerospace mock-ups" and "The most recently
upgraded warships overlooking the hospitality suite".
If you claimed British Aerospace could launch a cruise
missile attack in 45 minutes, you'd be surrounded by salesmen
insisting it would only take 30 seconds. So they're bang to
rights. It's as if Saddam had placed radio adverts that went:
"Hurry, hurry, hurry to the chemical warehouse off the M25
where we've gone ANTHRAX CRAZY. Nerve gas £19.99 a canister,
deadly spores £5.99 a liter and nuclear weapons programs with
easy payment schemes and no interest for the first SIX
MONTHS."
The exhibition organizers proudly boast they'll have six
warships in the arena, with the smug tone of someone who has
arranged a film premiere bragging about who will be there.
It's as if they're saying: "Some showbiz events may have
Cameron Diaz and Kate Moss, but neither of them have ever
shelled a historic city flat in three days like these little
beauties."
The last time this fair took place was two years ago, when
it began on 11 September and carried on seamlessly, undaunted
by events elsewhere. There must be people who still say: "I'll
never for the rest of my life forget 11 September 2001. That's
the day I sold three Apache helicopters to the Hungarian air
force - I got pissed that night, I can tell you." Though to be
fair, when they heard 3,000 people had been killed, they
probably thought: "Amateurs."
One third of the world's governments have been invited, and
there's great excitement at the possibility of deals being
struck with regimes such as Syria, Turkey and Indonesia. The
excuse offered to any moral objection is the old favorite: "If
we didn't sell them arms, somebody else would." Which is
perhaps a line of Defense the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay
ought to try - "Oh, come on, if we didn't blow up your
embassies, somebody else would."
If pressed, arms dealers may try the other approach, which
is to claim that the tanks sold to Indonesia "aren't used for
repression". Presumably they use them for rolling pastry. When
it emerged that British Scorpion tanks were used by the
Indonesian army to attack Aceh separatists, the British
government explained that Indonesia had "promised" it
wouldn't. And how were we to know they'd break their promise?
This government could sell Vlad the Impaler a truck full of
impaling sticks, then say: "But he's promised not to use them
for impaling."
continued below . . .
(93 following messages)
   
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
| 
