by Ghassan Kadi
The “War On Syria” has stirred up a lot of talk about nuclear threats being made, and further south in Yemen, there are even reports that nuclear weapons have in fact been used. There has also been considerable controversy about this subject, with the promoters being quite adamant of the authenticity of their reports.
To qualify such reports however as hearsay, would be a gross understatement.
The world does not need nuclear arms at all. This is another gross understatement. The world does not need any arms at all; if humans and their governments behaved sanely and humanely. However, we must admit that on the positive flip side, the presence of nuclear weapons in the hands of superpowers has played a huge role in preventing and averting a major escalation during the Cold War period and beyond.
After the USA bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Stalin had no options other than to develop a Russian bomb. Can anyone just imagine what would have happened to the USSR if it didn’t develop its own nuclear power! And this has been the cutting edge restraining order for other nations, ending….at least thus far, with North Korea.
The nine states that are known to possess nuclear weapons are the United States, Russia, the UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel. All of them have developed their own technology. Admittedly, a great deal of espionage was involved as well as many under the table deals that facilitated the bomb-building creation for some countries, and there is no need to go into details here.
The bottom line is that nuclear bombs are not commodities that one can buy from regular arms suppliers and/or manufacturers.
Furthermore, it takes years to build the right facilities in order to put all the pieces in the puzzle together in order to make it possible to build a bomb. This is why the West was very concerned about Iran’s nuclear program and its development of uranium enrichment facilities, as this would be a prime prerequisite for building an A-bomb.
For a country like Saudi Arabia therefore, it would be unfathomable by any stretch of imagination that it has the skills, ability, or infrastructure to build an A-bomb. The only manner in which Saudi Arabia can possess the bomb is by buying it from a “friendly” and willing nation.
It is argued that Saudi Arabia has tried very hard to pressure Pakistan into supplying a bomb. It is further reported that in the eyes of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan’s A-bombs are Muslim bombs the development program of which has been sponsored by Saudi Arabia, and that the financial help given by the Saudis stipulates that should Saudi Arabia need a bomb or two, Pakistan must oblige. However, those same reports also stated that Pakistan has declined.
Pakistan would not put its neck out and sully its name in the international community and risk severe sanctions by supplying atom bombs to Saudi Arabia. It has even been reported that Pakistan refused to join the recently-formed anti-terror Saudi initiative, because according to Pakistan –as the report claims- the coalition is meant to be against Iran, and Pakistan would not engage in a war against another Muslim nation. If this report is indeed accurate, and if Pakistan refuses to engage in a conventional conflict with another Muslim nation, would it risk giving nukes to another nation with the full knowledge that they may get used against another Muslim nation?
The only two other wild cards that might supply nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia are North Korea and Israel. Israel would not do it in the fear of it falling in wrong hands, or in the fear of a regime change in Saudi Arabia that is hostile to Israel. This leaves North Korea, and the possibilities there are highly unlikely. The two countries are very distant from each other, and any clandestine meetings and negotiations leading up to the sale of a bomb would have surfaced in some way or another.
So does Saudi Arabia have any A-bombs? It cannot be ruled out, but it is very highly unlikely, and even if it did, it would not need to make a test as some outrageous reports claims. Only manufacturers test. Saudi Arabia is not a manufacturer of atom bombs and will never reach this level of technology, not in the foreseeable future at least.
Having worked and lived in Saudi Arabia some moons ago, having seen how Saudis splurge and think that they have bought themselves superiority, I can say that it is not at all unlikely that Saudi Arabia may think it has an A-Bomb, paid for one, and had it delivered, but in reality it is a dud. And in reality, they cannot test it. It only goes off once, and if they bought a few and paid hundreds of billions of dollars, they cannot test one of them on their turf. And if they bought more than one, had a sample tested for them by the vendor, they still cannot guarantee that what they brought home works, because no one, absolutely no one will sell nuclear weapons to the Saudis.
And even if the Saudis indeed bought nukes that work, how does this put them in any different position from nuclear powers who have huge arsenals but cannot and will not use them? If in an infinitesimal possibility Saudi Arabia does have an A-Bomb and uses it say on Tehran, it will turn itself into a nuclear target, face huge sanctions, and become regarded as a rogue pariah state of an extreme.
On the other side of the current nuclear debacle, Russia would not threaten any state with its nuclear power any more than any other nuclear-able state would. Turkey knows well that Russia has nuclear power and that if push comes to shove, under certain conditions, Russia may have to resort to using them. Let us pray this time will never come, but Russia does not “need” to make this statement. Furthermore, the conventional power of Russia by far exceeds that of Turkey and even in the event of a full-on scale war with Turkey, Russia does not need to resort to the use of nuclear power.
And why should Russia need to use nuclear bombs in Turkey if she indeed needed to make huge blasts when it has its FOAB (Father Of All Bombs); the biggest conventional bomb ever, much bigger than America’s MOAB (Mother OF All Bombs). The power of the FOAB is 44 T of TNT, in fact bigger than the smallest of A-bombs which are equivalent to 10 T of TNT, but with a stark difference, the FOAB does not create a nuclear fallout.
Even “dirty bombs” create fallout, and this is all that they are designed to do. The difference between an A-bomb and a dirty bomb is that the former is based on nuclear fission; ie a large atom splitting into two, releasing a lot of energy and radiation. What makes those explosions large is the fact that a critical mass needs to be reached for the chain reaction to happen. This stipulates a minimal size below which the explosion cannot happen. Dirty bombs are however different. A dirty bomb is just an ordinary bomb bundled around radioactive material with the intention of spreading radioactivity upon exploding but without any atomic fission. Dirty bombs are therefore rather easy to make, but as highly radioactive material is not easy to come by, the world has been fortunate enough not to see any dirty bombs being used anywhere. In other words, if certain rogue countries and organizations are finding it hard to make dirty bombs, they will find it many times harder to make or obtain real A-bombs.
In any effect, whether dirty bombs or A-bombs are detonated by terrorists or by regular armies, they will leave an unmistakable highly detectable trail of radiation that will be harder to hide than hiding an elephant inside a matchbox.
Reports of A-bombs being used in Sep-11, Yemen, Gaza and reports of nuclear threats made by Russia to Turkey are unrealistic and beneath the dignity of Russia, and Russia would not engage in such actions; to put it mildly.
We do live in a crazy world with insane people in charge of highly lethal weapons, and they are capable of committing the most heinous of war crimes, but we must be thankful that this is not happening. The use of nuclear weapons at anytime and anywhere, now or in the near future, is highly unlikely, and let us pray it stays this way. Indications clearly point in this direction. There is still some sanity prevailing.
So what is this? The title promises something about a “nuclear hoax”, and then all we get is the usual scary fairy tale. Misleading and disappointing. People looking for the real nuclear hoax story will find it on Anders Björkman’s homepage.
That’s not a hoax, that’s simply a joke.
Thanks. Plenty people think that compressing two pieces of metal wiith a neutron in between produces an a-bomb explosion – BOOM – killing thousands of people! When I tell them that it is impossible, many get upset. I cannot understand it.
And don´t forget: A lot of poeple were able to take photos and make films about this light speed explosions…
And now we are on flight to the gamma-quadrant.
No Anders. You are kidding yourself with this contention. I visited your webpage and found there is nothing present there to support the notion that a nuclear bomb will not explode as intended.
By the way, a nuclear bomb is not “two pieces of metal with a neutron in between”. That comment demonstrates you have little idea what you are talking about.
Hm, According US Department of Energy, by suddenly compressing two bits of uranium metal together at high pressure, a neutron in between will transform the uranium metal bits into something else releasing plenty energy in a FLASH. It takes nanoseconds.
It is all military secret. If you reveal the secret, you will be punished by DEATH.
But I do it anyway.
u r a joke, man.
any understanding of natural sciences in your case seems to be tending to zero.
I believe, you would make a great job in politics or in corporate media outlets.
i find the whole nuclear story to be suspicious. I will explain why, if the US created nuclear bombs in the 1940’s when a 250mb hard disk was the size of a small house it defies belief that similar weapons can not be formed today by highly advanced technically proficient societies.
Yes they may only be able to wipe out a city… Only….. But my. Phone has more computing power than the best they had to offer back then.
What on earth is to stop any nation with 1940s technology from building similar bombs?
Its a serious question, im interested in a serious answer.
Lets take something much more doable.. Chemical and Biological testing.. Only a like a dozen countries have the capabilities to do work on the most dangerous of these. I am not talking about weapons but just research and development like in medicine and industrial productions. Those pretty much are the very same countries which also have nuclear technologies.. Although like a dirty bomb pretty much every country has the capability to make chemical or biological weapons that kill people. And by the same token, the capability of not dying yourself while developing something is also why some technology is beyond the capabilities of most. Even countries like the US and the soviets who are the top tier in chemical and biological research have lost containment a few times. It did not kill massive number of people but it did kill.. And like how madam curie died by her research into nuclear technology, most die off at points in their research.. Hence saving us the bother to trying to disarm them. Although Israel is a special case, in the case of Pakistan the help given by many western and Chinese for their nuclear development shows that even a relatively large and educated country does not have the needed infrastructure without big brothers providing assistance when needed. So it s not just money which the Saudi’s provided as needed but the Europeans who allowed their technology to be stolen and the US knowingly allowed it to happen and the Chinese providing the exact same blueprints the soviets had given them. The Iranian and Indian development also happened only because westerners had provided the basic technology to jump start the process. And if not for the world wide effort this would never have happened. Even the US by itself did not have the capability and neither did the Germans. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it is impossible to put it back… So first is to create a chemical and biological lab setup that can deal with such advanced research and if they don’t even have those then nuclear anything would be far beyond their knowledge level. Iran is not in the top tier in this field but they do have advanced facilities for such things. Also your civilization matters a lot. Iranians have developed a lot of the US technological capabilities. Now we can also say Serbians have also do they too could.. And I am sure they could given the funds but since they could not even buy a S300 to protect themselves I doubt they would spend a million times the cost of an S300..
I think many countries including brazil, south Africa maybe even Argentina and such countries have the technological infrastructure to start research and development into it. But that does not mean they have the funds or will be allowed to do it. You do need to advance to a large industrial base in all these fields to get to that level where you can actually show something. Japan, Taiwan and South Korea might be the only ones with the money to go through with it if not for the US. I think India was the only one who did not splurge on this as they were after thorium nuclear energy and the weapons were just a by product of that development. And even here the direct cause of this was the USA. Sanctions and threats made the situation with China and Pakistan an extensional threat and they are the only country still developing this dead end research so I think that was the primary goal of the project now that Germany and the US have given up on it.
India has more than double the amount of thorium that the rest of the world has combined.
That’s why they’re interested, lol.
Because has little to do with computing power. Read about the Manhattan Project.
Ok but neither reply goes anywhere close to answering the question.its a simple question.
What is to stop any country with 1940’s technology from building a few bombs?
Simple answers could be. No interest, not enough money., no access to crucial components. No scientists capable for example .But im talking specifics not vague generalisations and of course, evidence to support the assertion.
What is it that prevented Iran say? Does anyone think they have not the technology to match anything available in 1940? And it which case, what are they missing?
What is to stop any country with 1940’s technology from building a few bombs?
The Manhattan project was 100,000 people over 4 years plus a large amount of infrastructure. Something that cannot be completely hidden and accomplished in total secrecy with todays surveillance tech.
Both Syria and Iran have had nuclear facilities destroyed by Israel, and I believe Israel assassinated a number of Iranian scientists.
You need a reactor. You need specialist steel. You need a delivery mechanism. It is not as if most countries can even make a hard drive or an iPhone – I don’t know a single country in the Middle East that can make a hard drive.
Sadly not true – direct from yellowcake to U235 concentrate via electrophoresis – it has been done, or so I was told by a retired GE engineer – who did it.
done in algae medium, takes a warehouse. big one. and a small lab. takes years to accumulate enough poot for even one.
slow process, not a viable route for mass production, but workable. and public, like most “secrets”
delivery via donkey
nasty evil infernal and useless, god’s joke on man…
might be able to hide calutrons though, Saddam did and almost made it.
corrupt things, I don’t want to talk about them, pure poison, the entire business, from power reactors to to bombs, evil incarnate…
Excellent question that none of the responders has attempted let alone managed to answer, instead dodging the question and side-tracking to completely unrelated stuff like harddrives or smartphones.
Neither a reactor nor special steel were necessary to build the “Little Boy” bomb, so that objection goes right out the window.
All you need for an “atomic bomb” is critical mass. Phantastic physics does the rest.
Need 100,000 people working in secrecy, like on the Manhattan Project? Let me tell you something: I have 100,000 people working smack dab in the middle of Germany on a secret flying saucer project, in underground facilities and innocuous looking wind turbine factories, and we’re soon going to be ready for Rrrock’n’Rrroll and destroy all Evil by firing swastika-powered gravitational blitzwaves at its manifestations around the world. Guess you didn’t know that, right?!
Hahahaha! And that’s precisely how the Manhattan Project was kept secret.
Just another moon landing, only the video footage is so much less convincing.
But then there’s man’s fascination with gigantic power such as seen in volcanos or tsunamis … which in former times led us to believe in terrible almighty gods … a psychologic predisposition which is exploited by the hoaxers. To wit, there are many people who do want to stand in awe before something, and the atomic bomb accommodates that need in our materialistic and disenchanted world.
The answer to your question is in the first comment on this page.
I should have put on my sun glasses before reading this comment. The glare from your tin-foil hat is blinding.
I think a welding helmet is required. The glare is most intense.
The world does not need nuclear arms at all. This is another gross understatement. The world does not need any arms at all.
Lol says the follower of mohammad whose actions are perfect & must be emulated.
The Brits worked with the Yanks during the war, to develop the Bomb, with the understanding that they would get the details. At the end of the war, the americans repudiated this agreement.
I had a small(VERY) part in britains bomb.
Brits stole the secrets from Europeans as they steal from Europe still today with their 5 Eyes spy net work of industrailand commercial espinioge.
English are pirate race and nothing more,
Michael Rossiter’s The Spy Who Changed The World, which is quite a charming love story, argues that Klaus Fuchs, the mathematical physicist, worked out the details of a nuclear bomb in Britain in the 1930s. Britain persuaded the United States to develop it, but the United States then cut Britain out of the loop. All the while, Fuchs was working for the Soviet Union. So mutual deterrence was in place from the inception – he was working for Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union.
“Building an A-bomb” is, I’m sorry to say, technically trivial. Nobody that’s tried has failed to get a bang on their first try. Simple designs do not need testing. Technical approaches to isotope separation permit some very clever and cunning methods to producing “poot” that do not require large industrial plants – some of these have not, so far as I am aware, been tried – but they would certainly work. The Pu in stolen MOX “fuel” can be separated by any bright (and suicidal!) kid who’s a chemistry buff, for example. GE had a pilot plant in down-town Oakland where U235 was separated via electrophoresis – in the 1950’s! And there are several more known and more or less public methods that offer some “privacy”,
Yes, maybe the Saudis are bluffing, I do hope so. But let us not whistle past the graveyard – the damn gadgets are only going to multiply.
Szilard ought not to have written that letter. Uncle Albert ought not to have signed it.
These things are infernal. Evil. And quite real.
Saker implies the logic will prevail. Alas, would that this was so! I myself see little evidence of logic in what passes for politics these days.
I wish I could agree with Saker. I can not.
If building one is as trivial as you claim, why do only 9 nations possess nukes and not 130? Certainly there are other countries that would want one.
Its the obtaining of the material u-235 from u-238 that is the major difficulty. The Oak Ridge Plant in Tennesse was setup in WWII to seperate u-235 from u-238. Took years to get enough for several bombs. The u-235 (thin boy) bomb was dropped on Hiroshima without any testing.
The testing at white sands was for the plutomium bomb (fat boy) which required much more engineering but plutomium was much easier to obtain ( Hanford Washington).
For a bomb made with u-235 to work you need a ‘gun’ of some sort to fire a sub-critcal mass of u-235 at another fix block of sub-critical u-235. When first ‘bullet’ mass collides with the 2nd block you have a fission explosion (hiroshima). Easy to build but almost impossible to obtain the u-235.
spherical implosion of U235 works just fine. thin man used about 75 pounds, far more than implosion with christie core. check coster mullin’s book on the antique bombs…
I read “implosion with Christie core” as “implosion with Chris Christie.”
Fair enough, brother Don
> because I was speaking of one (or two maybe). A production capability to mass-produce is another critter. Can’t hide that…
> a-bombs are pretty useless gadgets if you only have one or two
> the fellas that have a multitude of these infernal gadgets want to prevent competition, and they play rough!
> I said technically trivial, not simply trivial. they are simple to build – but it is suicidal, the builders are sure to self-contaminate and die. Most people are not that stupid or that evil.
> “posses” is a tricky word – the Germans have dozens on “loan”, so do the Turks, and then the Italians and the Japanese – oh anywhere there’s a US base, pretty much…
But do not take my word on the matter, please! Instead read R. Rhodes and Ted Taylor and do some study directly from real experts. Actually the remark about nobody ever failing to get a bang on the first try is from Taylor – and he ought to know!
A young Irishman has inspired me by being completely politically incorrect..by not worrying about the fine definitions of the Capital words.and breaking all the rules..and even appearing really young and extremeley arrogant…but still nice and honest – he openly admits..he is a kid – look at him and his girl
He is far too young to do this
But no one else did
His name so far as I am aware is Cathal Haughian
and i would love to meet this kid
He writes like this (no kid writes like this – except he does)
These are words from 1982…but I promise you – we all feel the same way in 2016 in England..This is Not American Land
My Sis was at Greenham Common Telling The Americans..To Get Their Nuclear Missiles Off Our English Land.
Us English blokes, felt the same way but Didn’t have The Courage To Tell The Americans To Fuck Off Back To America With All Their Bombs And NUKE Themselves
We Do Not Want You Americans Here
FUCK OFF out of Our Country..
You Really are Not Helping and Take All Your Missiles With You Back to The USA
Out Of Europe
Please Go Home
Not Welcome Here
“American Woman The Guess Who ”
Others, including a Saudi spokesman, seem to think differently:
Perhaps a bit of Saudi bravado? You tell me ……………
This article on the corruption in Iraq has a direct bearing on many things in many countries but here it is of an extreme nature and open. changing Iraq to a few other countries would give a similar result.. Patrick Cockburn usually is unbiased and writes a great article. You can use the example he found and apply it to pretty much every country where nato has destablished society in one way or another. Imagine a country where the entire workforce is employed by the government.
The Iraqi bureaucracy is like a beached whale that does little except employ seven million people whose salaries cost $4bn a month.
THis is so cool can’t wait for next open thread.
Saudi Arabia doesn’t need nukes. It has America. If the US military fought a war for Kuwait, it would launch literal crusades for the KSA. Or the house of Saud. Whatever.
re: “Reports of A-bombs being used in Sep-11, Yemen, Gaza and reports of nuclear threats made by Russia to Turkey are unrealistic and beneath the dignity of Russia, and Russia would not engage in such actions; to put it mildly.”
Firstly, Putin made a remark about nukes that can be taken in the vein that, while, unthinkable, it could happen. He is a careful man and careful with words. Did he misspeak? Secondly, the possibility that nukes were used in various locations, such as ground zero in Manhattan or something like the Bali terror attack are not based on large nukes done by Russia. They are more based on something like a team of Mossad and their friends in the Western services using small nukes for terror and a big nuke fairly deep underground in Manhattan. This may or may not be the case, but nobody is blaming Russia, to put it mildly. Besides, what difference does it make if the Bali attack was done by some small and relatively clean nuke that we are hardly aware of? The bigger issue is that it was to drive more of the West, Oz in this case, into the endless War on Terror.
Also, it is only hard to hide something when the PTB in a country want something exposed. It is easy to hide things if it is in the interests of the authorities. The media are controlled; the security services are controlled; the military are controlled; the official science organs are controlled; even the alternative media are overwhelmingly full of assets, agents, and so on. A piece of cake.
All talks of nukes being used in 911 and Yemen are psyop campaigns like Roswell. Put enough BS breadcrumbs out there and enough conspiracy theorists will bite. Not only they discredit themselves in in the process as crackpots, the true effect is to discredit the entire subset of the population that are alive enough to question their regimes. Its an integral part of the information war.
What is interesting, is to figure our whether those that bit the bait are crackpots or plants.
Like this article, we should discredit such crackpot BS as active defense against the empire.
” The world does not need nuclear arms at all. This is another gross understatement. The world does not need any arms at all; if humans and their governments behaved sanely and humanely. “
The sentiment in the above statements is certainly commendable, it is commonly expressed and just as commonly never questioned. But is it valid? Does the world in fact need nuclear weapons? I’d say the answer is a resounding: Yes! The world does need nuclear weapons. Without the prospect of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), it is virtually certain that the world would have experienced, at least, a third world war in the last century. A war that would have been fought with conventional weapons of near nuclear destructiveness, and that would have produced casualties far greater than the 50 millions of the 2nd world war.
Certainly, without its nuclear deterrent Russia would simply have been attacked and dismembered by NATO in the 1990’s. The same goes for China which would probably be a colony today. In fact without nuclear weapons, it is doubtful that any of the so called third world would have achieved liberation from European colonial domination in the 1960’s. The world would almost certainly exist in a global system of apartheid with the rulers in Washington D.C.
The Soviet Union’s check on Western global hegemony is what created the political conditions for the colonised of the world to liberate themselves. That check on Western power was underwritten by the Soviet nuclear arsenal.
Governments do not frequently behave sanely or humanely and certainly in the era of Europe’s global dominance, they have not. For much of the world, the unspoken (unspeakable?) truth is that it was the nuclear arsenal of the East that kept the peace and allowed them to live. One would hope it was otherwise, but its the sad truth.
Not really without Nukes the manifold advantage the ussr & wsp had in tanks would have been decisive.
Without Nukes no nuclear aircraft carriers or subs meaning america can’t project power without a large string of vulnerable bases.
Africa & other places probably wouldn’t have gotten independence but realistically only a few players matter in global Geo politics.
1st rate players (have everything to be top within 20 years or already are)
India China Russia America
1.5 (lack few key things; maybe low population, bad neighbourhood)
France Germany England etc
Japan South Korea
Iran Turkey Pakistan KSA Egypt Thailand
3rd/4th Syria Iraq Libya
You can see past Thailand all other countries are within sphere of influence of someone else.
I didn’t include South America because mountains & rainforest mean really there’s just one flash point Btw Venezuela & Colombia which is US sponsored.
We could include poland in 2/2.5 if this were solely about military power especially within next decade (they massively increased budget).
Alas, the joke about the mongols crossing Russia 6 times to invade poland three comes to mind.
» Without Nukes no nuclear aircraft carriers or subs «
Wrong. Nuclear reactors work fine, both on land and on ships. Not viable in cars or lawn-mowers, though – they’re too heavy. Trains are borderline cases – it would work, but too many drawbacks and too few advantages. Nuclear reactors, like most engineering feats, are beneficial to mankind.
So-called “nukes” are an entirely different story – written and produced in Hollywood.
might want to check with the good people at fairewinds or fukushima about that uncle albert summed it up about reactors, a hellofaway to boil water!
” Not really without Nukes the manifold advantage the ussr & wsp had in tanks would have been decisive.”
I don’t know if it would have been decisive. I doubt it. Without nukes and without decolonization, Western Europe would have followed a completely different development path after ww2. They would not have established welfare states, leaving plenty of funds available for military expenditures. Because of direct control of the colonies the Wests resource and labor advantage over the USSR would have been huge. Tanks do not float and would not have crossed the oceans. The result would have certainly been massive wars. In Eastern Europe, China, Russia-Japan etc.
Perhaps the USSR would have ultimately won. But the point is that the global death and destruction would have been massive.
Had the Anglo-Dutch-German entity Urenco been more cautious it would not have given centrifuge blueprints to A Q Khan of Pakistan allowing him to supply N Korea and other states with enrichment technology. These rogue nations did not develop the know-how themselves, like Israel they were supplied by Western governments. Israel had its costs covered by West Germany
Wink wink Don’t think they lost much sleep over it. ;)
Scum stick together,
America England France Germany KSA Indonesia heck eve Iran helped in that war but before present government.
Team chaos is unpredictable at present if the FED was their pyramidal base DAESHing Syria is the crowning glory!DAESH is their unholy baby copulation of NATO,WAHABIS,ERDOOTTO bredby Neocons ideologically underwritten by prophylactic threefold Abrahamish ‘we them ‘ kool aid.Team chaos will not give up and walk away now it has taken too much of their energies to bring daesh into Syria.This is not some stupid ‘moderate head chopper’ running around with machete and ak 47s.It would be foolish to even think they have not WMDs,biological,chemical and small warheads.They will use them as a bargaining tool and even blackmailing but they wont use it until push comes to shove!They hold a large piece of desert country dont think they are playing with lego sets!They will succeed or take a large number with them the Sampson option way.Too bad for them R7 is way ahead!..stockpile popcorns!
This YouTube clip has the Saudi unofficial spokesman talking of them having nuclear bombs. But from 1:30 it also has an interview with former founding director of CIA counterterrorism centre, Mr Clarridge, saying the KSA had 4 to 7 nuclear bombs, bought from Pakistan, and the F-15s to deliver them.
Hopefully they are duds!
But Pakistan isn’t necessarily the most unified and incorruptible government/military/security complex around.
If nuclear war does threaten we can hope in ET intervention. Not kidding. Over 100 reports of UFOs interfering with nuclear weapons systems or buzzing nuclear bases/ships by military personnel of both NATO and USSR. See
Medvedev discloses ETs are real and interacting with us and it is kept top secret:
The Russian documentary film re alien contact he refers to is called “Men in Black” but does not feature Will Smith ;). It is also on YouTube:
Public pressure for the truth on 9/11 and the truth on ETs/UFO coverup would go a long way to liberating us from the Empire/Cabal. Ridicule is used to keep us silent on both. A Saker thread on UFO/ET coverup would be useful. Maybe interview Dr Steven Greer ( siriusdisclosure.com ) and/or Robert Hastings (see ufohastings.com above).
Abby Martin on RT interviewed Greer:
But I’m sure the ETs would prefer not having to scramble to defuse thousands of flying warheads if we can avoid it.
As follow up to my previous comment- just came across this excellent article:
Can’t stop people, but I can ask: please be open minded and do not make any sceptical comments without at least first examining the evidence. :)
An amusing set of links to what Russia has been “weaponizing” @:
“Russia Is ‘Weaponizing’ … Everything
NATO Commander Breedlove agrees with LunaticOutpost.com. Russia is ‘weaponizing’ everything: robotic cockroaches, World files, history or Syrian immigrants. Whatever you might think of.”
It shows the extent of the disinformation campaign against Russia.
My respects to Ghassan Kadi
But I beg to differ:
“the world has been fortunate enough not to see any dirty bombs being used anywhere”
Mebee. But what about depleted uranium. Pretty effing dirty if you ask me. The genes of millions of people in the middle east have been polluted for generations.
Look at the deformities of children in Fallujah, since 2003.
As to Saddam’s last stand at Baghdad airport, it looks like the yankee squaddies got a bit of a fright and something pretty nasty got used. Rumours abound of a “small” neutron device. Certainly trucks and personnel carriers are shown to have been exposed to very high temperatures.
Do not forget, “this is the age of science and technology”. Some pretty odd stuff going on out there. And in military terms a Big Bang is not always required.
Sorry to say – this is a disappointingly useless and inaccurate article.
Postulating 20 different possibilities that Saudis yes have no have yes have no have nuclear weapons and making no definite point either way seems like a primary school language excercise (how many words can you stick in a comprehensible-looking-article?)
Smallest nuclear weapon is NOT equivalent to 10 tonnes of TNT, but to 10 THOUSAND tonnes (10 kilotons). I’ve actually seen various claims on the net (and if I read it on the net – it must be true!) of between 1.5 kiloton and 15 kilotons. It’s actually harder to make smaller ones than the big ones, believe it or not. To get the fission going you need a critical mass, which is known for all fissionable materials. Otherwise if you try going smaller and smaller, you end up with a dud “dirty bomb” with no destructive power to speak of.
Lastly, making a nuclear weapon is tried and tested “old” technology, every university on the planet would have at least one physics professor with complete knowledge how to make one (not to mention internet, there is other stuff there besides porn, you know?). Problem with nuclear weapon manufacture is obtaining and refining (enriching) the fuel. Only viable fissile materials are Uranium 235 and Plutonim 239, and they are VERY rare in nature. It takes a lot of work and time to separate them from the other stuff. Why do you think Iranians had over 500 centrifuges? If you have less, it would take you 40 lifetimes to get enough fuel for a single bomb.
Just my 2 cents, flame on.
Let me add my 2 cents too.
Iran had some 20’000 centrifuges of which it retains 5’000 and dismantles the surplus. (Anyone out there interested in second-hand centrifuges? Get seated again – just kidding.)
It is difficult to build nuclear bombs with reliable yields below 5-10kt TNT. So-called tactical nuclear weapons can be dialed down to sub-kiloton range. Usually, neutron generators are used to start the neutron amplification timely when the fissile material reaches its critical mass / highest density. A lower yield can be achieved by injecting the starter neutrons too early into the would-become-critical mass of fissile material. Then a comparatively small detonation is achieved because the fissile material disintegrates too early. Nevertheless, tactical nukes yield at least 200-300t TNT.
let’s not forget the tritium gas or Li6 for dial-a-yield on the other side of 10kt.
well said about N injection timing! (I wanted to leave that out, though.)
And similar centrifuges were built in 1940 then presumably?
20,000 of them ? Or dont we know? What are they made of? Is it all restricted info?
What part of the 1940s technology is so hard to reproduce in 2016 that highly advanced sociaties cant make easily today? After all in those days it was black and white tv and vacume tubes!
what is the problem Iran had? ( if they did)
What was it specifically that kahn was selling?
Nobody is using 1940 technology anymore, least for enriching Uranium. The very first enrichment was based on gas diffusion. Uranium-Hexaflouride gas was pressed/sucked through tenthousands of microsieves: U235 was slightly faster than U238 to pass through. The size of such an installation and the energy required for the enrichment to weapons grade >90% U235 are just prohibitive. Even the USA resorted to Plutonium first as it can be bread in reactors from low enriched Uranium.
Gas centrifuges accelerate the enrichment 10-100 times and lower the energy cost by an order of magnitude. However, spinning large centrifuges at some 50’000 rounds per minute is a non-trivial engineering and controlling feat. Ultra-high vacuum pumps for chemical vapor deposition chambers are commercially available but at 100 times smaller volume and throughput. And you only need one per instrument, not thousands.
Although not yet widely known in public, Uranium enrichment by gas centrifuges is outperformed by an atom-sorting process, which allows to enrich to nearly any level in one step. Because of the small scale, hardly anyone would notice if a would-be nuclear actor would build and operate such an installation.
It should be a well known fact, that the most dangerous and the biggest dirty bombs are nuclear power stations. Blowing one up on purpose doesn’t cost a fortune, is simple and terribly effective. On the other hand, putting some spent fuel or reprocessing waste into a bomb and detonating it at a different place is nearly impossible. Anyone approaching such a device would be literally fried inside-out within a few minutes.
I know! My point was that with modern technology, attaining an aim achieved in 1940 should not be a problem. if it is. What is the issue? Specifically.
There would be no need to manufacture lots of them , after all the US just used 2 . After the 2nd was used who was going to bet there was no third ……
In this day and age they could be used undercover with no attributal source. Im quite sure, with the US being responsible for maybe 20 million dead in wars around the globe since WW3 there is plenty of motivation .
Nuclear bombs are quite useless as long as 400 nuclear reactors world-wide pose as predeployed super-sized dirty bombs. You do not even need a “long-range delivery service” anymore.
In my opinion, it is sufficient to sabotage the electricity grid (i.e. knocking off the grid controller soft- and hardware) to take down an entire continent in a matter of two weeks and the entire northern hemisphere in the following months due to wide-spread fallout.
In addition, most nations behave sanely and keep their promises made by signing the non-proliferation treaty. Insanity is dominantly found within the dozen non-signatory states.
Thanks for contributing some reality here. Just a minor addition:
Before gaseous diffusion there were calutrons (cyclotrons), an electromagnet process for separating isotopes of uranium. The U-235 used in the “little boy” bomb was separated by calutrons operated by an army of women at Oak Ridge.
“Smallest nuclear weapon is NOT equivalent to 10 tonnes of TNT, but to 10 THOUSAND tonnes (10 kilotons). ”
Not true, here you have a 20 ton, NOT kilo ton, nuclear bomb. You can carry it in your hands.
The World’s Smallest Nuke: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWZbrwb1mLQ
Why has the USA been left off the assessment of powers that could have given the Saudis a nuke? Because its unthinkable that they would do something so unconscionable? If thats the case then you havent been paying attention for the last couple of decades. They have left a trail of death,destruction and failed states throughout the world defending the petrodollar, so what leap of intuition is required to ask why they wouldn’t take it that little step further? I guess it all depends on how ensnared one is in the narrative of moral impeccability they spin.
“Israel would not do it in the fear of it falling in wrong hands, or in the fear of a regime change in Saudi Arabia that is hostile to Israel.”
I would put forth the proposition that SA is not hostile to Israel. In fact their foreign policy in the Middle East is in lock step. When was the last time there has been any action between them that one might label as hostile. At the same time they each are hostile to the majority of their neighbors. This is not a case where the “enemy of my enemy is my friend,” more like the “enemy of my friend is my enemy.” Case in point–Syria, Iraq, Iran, and now Lebanon are openly common enemies of both nations.
Given this, one might consider that, if nuclear weapons do find their way into Saudi Arabia, it is more likely that Israel, working in concert with the current SA regime, is the source rather than any other nation, with the exception of, perhaps, other AZ nations.
Your statement concerning 9/11 shows your lack of knowledge concerning radioactivity of certain types of nukes.
an interesting and prudent perspective on this subject.. have you read any of Bruce Cathie,s work on the topic.. ? (Bruce Cathie the NZ,er who maped out the world wide grid of ‘songlines’ or leylines ).. he was of the opinion the nuclear detonations cannot be simply detonated at will but are actually part of a bigger ‘energy formula’ that includes magnetics and earth energies etc… to trigger the desired reactions..(put simply all the nuke tests being done are attempts to finally be able to trigger at will and not in ‘fleeting windows of oppotunity’ when it is possible to forfill… but not always successful (he calls it the biggest secret of the nuke powers.. the fact that they cannot be detonated at will that it is certain combinations of time and place with various energy and magnetic requirements etc..) .. food for thought in any case.. :)
Let me debunk this.
The USA needed exactly one attempt to successfully test-detonate the first nuke ever. The other nuclear powers were successful on their first attempt too (the North Korean maybe required a second try). How probable would it be that people knew in advance the extra conditions and when these conditions would be fulfilled?
The continuously running nuclear power stations clearly demonstrate that the textbook physical model of nuclear fission is complete. In that model there is absolutely no need for some miraculous extra conditions to be matched for setting off a nuke.
Upon surpassing the prompt critical mass, the fissile material will detonate. The only uncertainty lies in the energy of the detonation. As the atoms of the fissile material split spontaneously at random times, the start of the neutron amplification is somewhat random, which influences the amount of fissile material that will split before it disintegrates in the blast. This is fixed by providing starter neutrons from a highly radioactive substance at the chosen time. As a result, the detonation energy becomes very deterministic.
By the way, as the highly radioactive material providing the starter neutrons decays rapidly, it must be refreshed from time to time. As it is bread in nuclear reactors, maintaining nuclear weapons means keeping nuclear reactors running.
The many nuclear tests were for showing off and for perfecting the bombs so they could be mounted on top of long-range rockets.
It is a mistaken view that the nuclear arms race began only after the USA’s mass murders in Japan in 1945. The race actually began in the 1930’s after uranium was discovered to be an unstable element + the potential for releasing a huge amount of energy was realized… thus the race to build a weapon started even as WW2 started.
You can cross N.Korea of your list of “states that are known to possess nuclear weapons”… there is no way that China would allow a nuclear-armed rogue state (NK is actually a buffer state) on its border. Likewise, where is the proof that the fake state of Israel ever made or tested a nuclear weapon? That leaves the interesting question of which (Western) state could have supplied the KSA with any nuclear device… if they actually have one…
Alas – new sh-t has come to light! An’ it is ugly…
“While the West was pressuring Iran to abandon its civilian nuclear program, Saud bought the atomic bomb on Israel or Pakistan. Now, to general surprise, the Middle East has become a nuclearized area, dominated by Israel and Saudi Arabia.”
In French, so far…