Israel does not officially have nukes, but it most likely does already posses them.. Saudi Arabia getting nukes would not be a good thing, they have too many connections to terrorist, I'd argue they would be worse than Iran. Perhaps the best solution to the Middle East situation is everyone builds walls and invest in anti-air to the point where people can track seagulls.

I think it'd suck if any more nations got nukes, because the more parties who get them, the more likely it is that some hothead is actually going to use them, but that's not even what the article says. The article you showed us[news.sky.com] is just saying Saudi Arabia is forming an alliance with Pakistan that will thus put it under the umbrella of Pakistan's nuclear armament. Nukes aren't being sent to them, and they aren't making their own, so ultimately Pakistan would be the one to decide which actions warrant a nuclear response.

Instead of fewer and fewer countries having nuclear weapons, more and more countries have nuclear weapons. We should have some too.

That is the big question.
The Nuclear umbrella, how long before they are sent to them whether under Pakistan Guard / trigger fingers or direct to Saudi Arabia, is the question in the air.

Trump and his brilliance of Strategy has shown the USA are not a guarantee of safety from Israel as can be seen on the attack in Qatar.
Israel attacking Syria then backing a faction within Syria.

Israel may become a self fulfilling prophecy of having to fight multiple nations. Would the US send assistance with the threat of Nuclear weapons on the table towards it?

I would not back any action assisting the US in any wars with the Middle East and take the European route of diplomacy with the coined phrase with the 'Islamic Nato' in regards to the Suez.

why israel included ?? it will force israel to show their nuclear system if they want join that

the rumor is saudie pay big $$$ in 80s to help pakistan to develop their nuke, the agreement is pakistan help saudie with nuke if situation go bad

Well as we've recently seen, one can comply with the IAEA for years and still have non-weaponized research facilities attacked for basically no reason other than American ♥♥♥♥ flexing.

That doesn't and shouldn't inspire confidence in the validity or relevance of supposed regulatory commissions. So there's strike one.

Whatever proliferation is happening now is largely the fault of the clear double standards. Big countries with nukes don't have to adhere to anything, and often play it off as "because we have nukes, you do what we say." Well that isn't going to make weaponizing them less attractive. Strike two.

The mentality of the current nuclear-armed countries doesn't help, either. When you don't respect the power of the weapons and instead treat nukes like toys, hoarding them and trying to keep any of the other kids on the playground from having them, that diminishes the severity of the entire issue and practically guarantees secretive proliferation. Strike three...


Part of me thinks the US actually wants this outcome; it wouldn't be the first time we provoked fear and potential conflict where none was necessary or warranted, without considering future consequences.

This is a direct consequence of a failed US foreign policy in the region. This makes the world less safe and nuclear exchanges more likely.

Only one way to stop this

Originally posted by OoOoOoooOOoOoorgle:

Well as we've recently seen, one can comply with the IAEA for years and still have non-weaponized research facilities attacked for basically no reason other than American ♥♥♥♥ flexing.

Yes. This and the fact, that Ukraine would not have been attacked, if it had kept its nuclear weapons but now got attacked despite having been guaranteed security in exchange for not having nukes, send a clear message to every state in this world: Only nuclear weapons will prevent you from being attacked.

Like I said, this is a failure of US foreign policy, that will result in more wars and potentially the first limited nuclear war in the intermediate future.

Damn.. we’re really good at optimizing the way to kill each other

Originally posted by Stingray_tm:

Originally posted by OoOoOoooOOoOoorgle:

Well as we've recently seen, one can comply with the IAEA for years and still have non-weaponized research facilities attacked for basically no reason other than American ♥♥♥♥ flexing.

Yes. This and the fact, that Ukraine would not have been attacked, if it had kept its nuclear weapons but now got attacked despite having been guaranteed security in exchange for not having nukes, send a clear message to every state in this world: Only nuclear weapons will prevent you from being attacked.

Like I said, this is a failure of US foreign policy, that will result in more wars and potentially the first limited nuclear war in the intermediate future.

The question I suppose is: Do we believe the US is stupid enough to actually want a nuclear war, in genuine yet idiotic belief that it could lead to an advantageous outcome for anybody?


...wait, don't answer that...

Hanlon's razor says "yep"

Originally posted by OoOoOoooOOoOoorgle:

The question I suppose is: Do we believe the US is stupid enough to actually want a nuclear war, in genuine yet idiotic belief that it could lead to an advantageous outcome for anybody?

No, the current US government is too stupid and arrogant to think, that there is anything they can't brute-force their way into. Trump actually believes, that he can negotiate his way into anything, despite proof that he can't.. He is a narcisist and he will never acccept a reality that he doesn't like. He just creates his own. He doesn't think, that his actions could lead to a nuclear war, because he thinks he never makes mistakes and always produces the perfect outcome.

Originally posted by steven1mac:

Israel does not officially have nukes

What in heavens name are you talking about? They've had a nuclear program since the 50s.

Originally posted by Senor Eppeb Beppers:

Originally posted by steven1mac:

Israel does not officially have nukes

What in heavens name are you talking about?

Israel doesn't say that they have nukes but they also don't say that they don't have nukes. Of course they do, but they do not officially acknowledge that and leave it ambiguous for various diplomatic reasons.

Fact of course is, that they have nukes, nobody in his right mind is doubting that. But not officually recognising that fact opens political options that you don't have, if you commit to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_of_deliberate_ambiguity

Just like Taiwan "officially" is not a sovereign country but of course it is one.

"Oy vey! The world is against me! I'm the victim! See how they persecure us? You're just jealous of our chosen status!"