The_barBEARian said:
whiterock said:
Too late. They already have them. And nothing could do more to ensure peace and stability in the region than a nuclear capable Israel. It ensures no other country invades them.
Amid turmoil, Trump to give Saudi Arabia sweet nuclear deal
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/saudi-arabia-nuclear-deal/
first, those are dissenting opinions on a deal which has not yet been finalized. And it probably won't be until the Iranian situation is resolved.
second, if Iran is allowed to have nuclear weapons, why not Saudi Arabia? Only the worst actors serving as proxies for our rivals can have them? Saudi nukes would ensure better stability in the region that has Iranian nukes, would it not?. For that matter, if North Korea can have nuclear weapons, then how can we not justify letting Japan and/or South Korea also have nuclear weapons? How can we say the world is a better place when the worst actors (Russian & Chinese proxies) can have them but good actors (our allies) cannot?
More to the point....why should the American people bear the burden of nuclear deterrence against all those bad actors? If a rogue nuclear power invades one of our responsible allies, why should the US taxpayer alone bear the risks of nuclear deterrence? Why not let the people actually being invaded take some or all of it on? If Iran invades Saudi Arabia, why should we risk Tampa for Tehran? If NoKo invades SoKo, why should we risk Seattle to save Seoul? That is a pertinent and very sober question that should always be on the table.
the direct question at play here is this: does the Post-WWII nuclear non-proliferation structure still serve our interests? Hard to give it an unqualified yes, given the number of questionable or bad actors who have them. China and Russia did not lift a finger to stop Noko or Iran. They wanted to let us carry that burden, to destabilize our foreign policy with a heavy and thorny problem. So why would we not push back similarly? Yes, the world is less safe when a radical totalitarian regime like NoKo has nuclear weapons, but does the risk double if SoKo gets them, or triple if SoKo and Japan get them? (No.). More to the point, SoKo and Japan having nuclear weapons puts the onus on China, who will not like it. So now we have a better negotiating position. If China doesn't want Japan or SoKo to have nuclear weapons, we could agree so long as NoKo loes theirs. Same for Iran.
We see stability between India and Pakistan, right? A good actor and a bad actor who were both able to circumvent non-proliferation safeguards yet find a responsible balance.
Time to make Russia and China feel the same heat they've been putting on us. If the Saudi deal is as weak as the article suggests, then what you see is the admin doing what I've suggested - giving Saudi a civilian nuclear program that is escapable IF future rogue regimes threaten them.