Saudi Arabia planning nuclear plant

Saudi Arabia planning nuclear plant

www.jpost.com

With the world seemingly unable to stop Iran's nuclear march, other countries in the region are now pushing forward with their own plans to build nuclear power plants.

The Saudi newspaper Al-Watan reported on Thursday that the Saudi minister of water and electricity, Abdullah al-Hosain, said the kingdom was working on plans for its first nuclear power plant. The US inked civil nuclear power deals with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates last year.

(visit the link for the full news article)

To clarify, this project is within the framework of the AEA, and is with the assistance of the United States, and at present this looks to be purely to meet energy needs. So probably nothing to panic about.

Saudi Arabia has the largest military budget of any country in the region, spending a whopping 10% of its $467 billion GDP (source). This is about 3 times the amount spent by either Egypt or Israel.

One thing I'm not sure about is the potential or danger of the Saudis making the jump from nuclear power to nuclear weaponry. Presumably this takes a whole new level of technical expertise, which would have to come from either Russia or the US? Hopefully someone can explain how this works.

Another thing I'm wondering is whether, in the event of a nuclear armed Iran, Israel and the US will assist other "friendly" states with developing their own deterrents? Or are there possibilities for a joint Russian-US shield to cover the whole region?

www.jpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

funny that Israel has no nuclear power facility, yet has 100's of nuclear weapons. So a nuclear power facility is not a prerequisite for getting your hands on a nuke.

I see no problem with the Saudis having nuclear power stations. I see no problem with Iran having nuclear power stations. I'd rather no one had nuclear weapons.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


I agree that it would be far preferable for the Middle East to remain nuke free. No-one wants to see another nuclear arms race in what is already a very unstable region.

I also don't have a problem with any country building nuclear reactors for generating power, but it should be within the framework of the IAEA, and there needs to be internationally agreed safety requirements.

Chernobyl should be a reminder of the disastrous consequences of poor safety standards and sub-par engineering. If something like that were to happen in the Middle East the consequences would be felt throughout the entire region.

[edit on 21-8-2009 by mattpryor]

Personally if I where in charge of Saudi Arabia.. I would turn a few square miles into a giant solar power field. Just think how much power that would generate, sitting out in the desert like that.. or windmills even..

Nuclear is still dirty and still expensive.. but I s'pose when your the King of Saudi Arabia it'd be cool to say "come check out my nuclear reactor"..

i love how, because their americas friends, they have no problem with them building a reactor, and even helping ... yet someone like iran is not allowed because their not bessie mates with usa .. it stinks to the top!

its amazing what being one of the worlds richest countries can get (buy) you !

GO SAUDI!

I would say that with trends drifting towards C02 emission reductions and such like the Saudis are looking to try and diversifier there economy including energy production . Saudi Arabia doesnt need nukes because as the first Gulf War showed just everybody will pitch in military to some extend when the vast oil fields are threatened .

Cheers xpert11 .

With the history of US creating problems, I'm pretty sure they will give Saudi Arabia the bomb, like they did with Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea.

They would like Saudi Arabia and Iran nuking each other.

So I expect Saudi Arabia to have nukes within 5 years maximum.

the iranian reactor at tehran was supplied by the USA , and fully operational, the one at Arak is running - the reactor not complete at bushwehr is either `ready` or ` operational` depending on which sourse you want to read.


either way - it is also under the rules of the IAEA - something the USA and its allies don`t actually want to mention - the IAEA work plan has been completed and the IAEA are happy with bushehr;

reply to post by Rockpuck


Not a bad idea however they would need to find a way to keep all of the dam sand away from the panels .

reply to post by boaby_phet


I get the feeling though that if Iran had been more open and less confrontational about it, the US would have been glad to assist with building a nuclear generator. Would have been cheaper and more expedient for Tehran and would have been good for the US too.

A message through the diplomatic channels to the effect of "we'd like to build a nuclear power plant, and would appreciate your expertise and guidance" would have made this a non-issue. Instead they did it behind closed doors which leads to suspicion of ulterior motives. Suspicion leads to resentment on the part of the Iranian theocracy and that leads to more secrecy, which is a bad feedback loop. Or have I misread the lead-up to this crisis?

If I were Ahmadinejad I'd want to build a nuclear arsenal now just as a show of defiance to the USA, even if I wasn't planning to before.

I think we should give every country in the reigon 3 nulcear bombs. I bet the middle east would get tired of thier new toys real fast.

reply to post by mattpryor


No matter how open and nice and "less confrontational" Iran is about it does not make a difference. As long as they are not a western puppet state, then you get the same result from America (hey, trust me dude, I was born here and live here!)

Any country, including Iran, has a right to nuclear power. America doesn't have the authority to police anywhere except America. Iran has allowed their facilities to be inspected, just like Iraq did.

There is no reason to attack a country for building a nuclear power plant. America's paranoia is not a reason to kill untold numbers of people.

Hrmmm


So WHY does Saudi Arabia need more energy? Oil not enough?


If this isn't a ploy at nuclear weapons, it's definitely an indicator of something afoot in oil.

reply to post by mattpryor


My thoughts and question regarding this, is just how long it will take for these other countries to even catch up with Iran? How many years does it take to finally finish one of these reactors? How many does Iran have now? 3, 4?

Israel not having a nuclear powerplant, shoes how paranoid they are about these other countries bombing it. Israel is always in a defensive posture and for good reason. With so many of these 'nukes' at their disposal, they've yet to use any of them after all these years.

Other muslim countries who have nuclear weapons, may have actually lost or sold one or two along with the ones said to be lost when the USSR broke apart.

If they only wanted one, they would have bought and used it by now......I would think. But like Smith said in the Matrix movie: " MORE "



[edit on 21-8-2009 by aleon1018]

Apparently Israel Wants A Reactor Too

I thought Israel already had a nuclear reactor that was in a secured area that not even inspectors were allowed to investigate?

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
funny that Israel has no nuclear power facility, yet has 100's of nuclear weapons.

Then why did Iran say "We will hit Israeli Nuclear sites if attacked"??

WTF I was right, Israel does have a nuclear reactor. Israel just does not have civilian reactors.

The Dimona reactor is at Negev Nuclear Research Facility, southeast of the city of Dimona. They only allow US nuclear inspectors into it with prior notice and it is suspected as being a facility to develop nuclear weapons since 1964. The US even supplied it with patriot missiles for defense in 2003.

Ironically, there's a story of unidentified jets overflying the facility in the Six Day War in '67. Apparently they were Soviet MiG-25s.