Pak may provide nukes to Saudi: Report

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=273336

WASHINGTON: Despite denials from both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, Arnaud de Borchgrave, Editor at Large for The Washington Times has stuck to his story that Crown Prince Abdullah and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf had reached a secret agreement on nuclear weapons during the former’s visit to Islamabad.


Under this agreement, he says, Pakistan's nuclear arsenal would provide the Saudis "a nuclear ‘deterrent’ in case of need."


Initially, quoting what he regarded as unimpeachable Pakistani sources, de Borchgrave had written that Pakistan would provide nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia to forge nuclear weapons. He now says Pakistan will provide its nuclear arsenal itself to protect Saudi Arabia in case of need.


The reasons for Riyadh's need for such a protection are its worries about the future of the royal House of Saud; Iran's nuclear ambitions and Israel's monopoly of nuclear weapons in the Middle East.
<snip>

SA is getting more complex by the hour.

[bemildred]

1. Something is up.

SA is a busy subject.
I've read some fairly hair-raising tin-foil hatty stuff
the last couple days with SA smack in the middle of it too.

The WT is not an ideal source though, so I dunno if I buy this
particular piece of crap.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

2. This was the Times of India, not Washingtomn Times....

[The Magistrate]

3. That, Sir

Is an even more suspect source in this regard. Rather like expecting Novak to have the inside scoop on the Democratic National Committee.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

5. To be honest, I have not read any critical papers or articles about the

India times and have probably visited their sight less than a few dozen times. Usually reading what seems to be compilations of AP, AFP & Reuters edited from a Pakistani viewpoint. Nothing so far has seemed glaringly incorrect as far as information provided.

So, I have no way to dispute your claim with any voracity and must assume that you must have the skinny of the Paki Paper?

[The Magistrate]

8. Given The Hostility Between The Two Lands, Sir

It is my custom to exercise caution towards newspaper reports in one concerning the other. A variety of reasons for this will surely occur to you on short reflection.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

9. It is already a practise of mine. And please don't call me "sir."

I ain't noble born.

Cheers

[Ernesto]

10. Give em hell Bill

[liberalmike27]

6. Sad Thing

The sad thing is, the whole rush to get Nukes is based on worry as to whether we will attack them or not, and most countries want them to prevent our occupation. A lot of republicans won't admit this, but we've had a pretty bad record since WWII, the last "good" war.

But I don't think we have to worry about Bush attacking Saudi Arabia, I mean 15 of the hijackers were from there. Is that really the oddest thing, attacking those from other countries than the majority.

Also the Bin Ladens are great friends with Bush.

Also Saudi's have around 2 Trillion invested in our stock market, not to mention the tumult in the oil market.

[bemildred]

4. Quote

"Arnaud de Borchgrave, Editor at Large for The Washington Times has stuck to his story"

But, no offense intended, and I hope none taken.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

7. DOH! LOL.... I'm scanning too quickly!

Puts it into a different light for me. I agree with your assetions abt the Washington Times, and certainly no offense was presumed.

Cheers

[reorg]

12. The Guardian on 9/18/03: Saudis consider nuclear bomb

Saudis consider nuclear bomb

Ewen MacAskill and Ian Traynor in Vienna
Thursday September 18, 2003
The Guardian

Saudi Arabia, in response to the current upheaval in the Middle East, has embarked on a strategic review that includes acquiring nuclear weapons, the Guardian has learned.

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 programme.

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 having a nuclear-free Middle East.

(...)

United Nations officials and nuclear arms analysts said the Saudi review reflected profound insecurities generated by the volatility in the Middle East, Riyadh's estrangement with Washington and the weakening of its reliance on the US nuclear umbrella.

...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1044380,00.html



EDITED BY ADMIN FOR COPYRIGHT REASONS

[Vitruvius]

11. Saudi Arabia paid for much of Pakistan's nuclear program because

the Saudis understood that they might one day have to defend their oil. Accordingly, it was understood by both parties AND the Reagan-Bush Adminstration that the Saudis would get some of the bombs under the table. In fact, it's a mistake to speak of the "Pakastani" nuclear program; the Saudis were silent partners from the very beginning.

Accordingly, Saudi Arabia has had a modest nuclear arsenal for years -- same as Pakistan. And somebody just issued a gentle reminder... Both Saudi Arabia and Israel are unofficial members of the nuclear club -- and it has served both well...

P.S: Trust de Borchgrave to recycle 20-year-old news as a scoop.