Saudi Arabia Seeks Nuclear Weapons

The Dong Feng 21 portable version
The Dong Feng 21 portable version

The latest of the nuclear arms debacle in the Middle East now comes from Saudi Arabia and China. To deter Iran from its own nuclear weapon ambitions, Saudis are in negotiations with China for the purchase of ballistic missiles, the 2000 km+ Dong Feng-21, which China uses to mount its own nuclear bombs. Saudi Arabia has also struck a deal with Pakistan for the availability of nuclear warheads from Islamabad’s arsenal for fitting onto a Chinese ballistic missile.

One of the conditions for the purchase of the Chinese missile is that the Chinese built the facitilites to house and launch them. The base would be constructed near Riyadh. After the 4th meeting with Iran about their nuclear weapons failed, and the failure of NATO in intervening in Syria, the Saudis are plodding a self-reliant course now since they have the ability to buy nuclear weapons. Of course, this will be a game changer for Israel and the Middle East. One can see how Jordan might follow the Saudi lead.

China's ICBM is designed to carry a three megaton nuclear warhead to distance up to 13,000 km. It is a silo-based, two-stage missile. The missile was developed in the 1960s, but did not enter service until 1981. China has about 36 of these missiles.

One can see the Armageddon happening the near future there.

More by this Author


Comments 34 comments

maxoxam41 profile image

maxoxam41 4 years ago from USA

And now, it is escalating! I have a question though why would we support a dictatorship to acquire nuclear weapons?


perrya profile image

perrya 4 years ago Author

Good question, but we cannot keep the nuclear genie in the bottle much longer.


maxoxam41 profile image

maxoxam41 4 years ago from USA

What about an economic blockade? Or, better why not declaring war on Saudi Arabia?


maxoxam41 profile image

maxoxam41 4 years ago from USA

Isn't it radical Muslim like Iran?


maxoxam41 profile image

maxoxam41 4 years ago from USA

Oh, I forgot it is our "booty" call!


Dr Billy Kidd profile image

Dr Billy Kidd 4 years ago from Sydney, Australia

The U.S. protects Saudi Arabia with a pack going back to Reagan. Maybe we should just give them some of our nukes.


MrWaterheater profile image

MrWaterheater 4 years ago

USA are in bed with the Saudis. Because they have oil baby!


perrya profile image

perrya 4 years ago Author

AS the US tries to limit nukes in the region, SA looks at it differently. They are sure Iran will get them because we are doing little. So, when you dislike a bully, you get nukes also to deter them. I am sure SA had approached the US about getting some of ours.


Paul 4 years ago

I agree with maxoxam41. We shouldn't differentiate between the different countries in the Middle East. We should just wipe them all out.


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 4 years ago from Wisconsin

I doubt we'll see nuclear war in the near future. Everyone wants nukes so they can play politics with the big boys. Any Arab or Muslim nation with nukes will know that they can say 'no' to the US and it won't automatically mean invasion or sanctions. Even the so-called 'fanatical' Muslim governments like Iran know that mutually assured destruction only works if no one is 'destructed' No matter how much rhetoric I see thrown around about dying for Allah or taking infidels with them to paradise, I don't buy it for a second. If they really believed that, then Iran would already have declared war on the rest of the world, and they wouldn't care that they didn't have a snowball's chance in Hell because they have Allah on their side. This is how you tell religious fanatics from the posers. Religious fanatics don't care about the odds. Posers do, and all the "Muslim fanatics" in the middle east seem to care about the odds.

No.. the time to fear nuclear war in the middle east is when the oil runs out. Then it will just be one gigantic fireball on the horizon and each oil producing nation goes from exporter and drug pusher to an oil importer who no one will sell to because they have nothing else to offer in trade. Everyone will look at the dwindling oil fields and if they don't have a serious chance of gaining control, will gladly try to make sure no one else can either. That will be our World War III.

Saudi Arabia getting nukes?? Doesn't bother me. Even Iran getting nukes doesn't bother me. It's going to happen someday. We should be spending more time figuring out what to do when they get them than trying so hard to stop them from getting them.


perrya profile image

perrya 4 years ago Author

I tend to agree, swordsbane


Paul 4 years ago

Swordsbane, you're ethnocentric view of these people is just wrong. They do not think like us. Do some reading on the Twelfth Iman and get back to us.


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 4 years ago from Wisconsin

Paul: Of course they don't think like us, I never said they did. I just said they weren't religious fanatics. They can't stand our western values and don't like us meddling in their affairs, but they aren't fighting a holy war. They're fighting an ideological war, and a political war. I'm not saying that they don't have religious fanatics on their side. They do, and they encourage these allies, but the leadership is no more fanatical than the Catholic Church ever was. It's political. Religion is just their rally cry.


MrWaterheater profile image

MrWaterheater 4 years ago

I always find the irony in USA get whingy about other countries with nukes. They are the only country who have ever used them against another...twice...


Paul 4 years ago

mrwaterheater: Those two nukes also saved approximately 1 million American lives and put an end to a war that America did not start.


Peter Geekie profile image

Peter Geekie 4 years ago from London

Dear Perrya

I feel uncomfortable about some of the morons we have at the moment who's finger hovers over the doomsday button. To now have to take account of some unpredictable Arabs who are barely civilised and seem to feel it's OK to massacre their own citizens makes my blood run cold. I am not anti-nuclear because I feel the unimaginable consequences of nuclear war has stopped any further World Wars up until now. However, when a nuclear power has nothing to lose and no track record of responsibility enough is enough. Money (and oil) does not equal a trustworthy nation.

Kind regards Peter


Dr Billy Kidd profile image

Dr Billy Kidd 4 years ago from Sydney, Australia

Reagan was asked by a doctor if nukes could be recalled after the missiles were fired. He said, "Yes." This was February, during his second month in office. The doc, a highly respected professional, talked about it, and was trashed, called a commie, and I don't think was able to work again.

What's worse than a Bush or a Reagan with nukes? Iran has not attack another country in 250 years. Yet, the U.S. attacked Iran and over threw it's elected governemtn in 1953. and this is what we got, after the intellectuals were killed by the king we imposed.


perrya profile image

perrya 4 years ago Author

Thanks Peter, good points.


Rusty 4 years ago

Has anyone ever considered that a complete surprise attack would be the finest in retribution for Iran and the ayatollahs. This would be more fitting than a move after weeks of build-up to a strike, and more in line with that old Middle-Eastern mentality.

10 or 12 very large nukes incinerating the government and military sites would be a terrific surprise joke on the Iranians, and anyone who comes to their defense can get a couple more in their most sensitive areas.


perrya profile image

perrya 4 years ago Author

I am sure it has been considered....


maxoxam41 profile image

maxoxam41 4 years ago from USA

Paul, I don't need you to agree with me if you don't know what I stand for and what my values are! Swordbane is closer to my line of thought than you are!

But unpredictable America when it used Enola Gay to destroy Japan was "civilised"?

And by the way Perria, it is interesting to see how you avoid answering with people who disagree with you! Lack of arguments?


perrya profile image

perrya 4 years ago Author

What, I agree with most of what has been said. Everyone has stated valid opinions.


maxoxam41 profile image

maxoxam41 4 years ago from USA

I will reiterate my question, since Saudi is a radical Muslim country (like Iran), since it is a dictatorship (like what we thought Iraq was) shouldn't we dethrone their as we want to do it in Iran, as we did in Iraq? And please don't avoid it!


Peter Geekie profile image

Peter Geekie 4 years ago from London

Dear maxoxam41

I don't think we are in the business of policing the world unless the situation threatens us. There was a very good maxim " Speak softly but carry a big stick" We have rather too many politicians willing to act in a gung-ho manner without understanding the nuclear deterrent is exactly that - a deterrent not a first line of defence.

kind regards peter


perrya profile image

perrya 4 years ago Author

Peter is correct, but at what time is being gung ho the best method? iran is a great example, as we talk, time marches on, allowing Iran to get more of what they want, until, it negates any gung ho action.


maxoxam41 profile image

maxoxam41 4 years ago from USA

Who or what institution gave the U.S. the right as you said it well to police the world? Its military advantage. Therefore we will understand why any country in the world fearful of the U.S.'s whims will protect its land with nuclear power. After all, now it attacks any country it wishes with its drones!


perrya profile image

perrya 4 years ago Author

It is a legacy thing from the cold war days- good vs. evil. Like it or not, it will remain.


maxoxam41 profile image

maxoxam41 4 years ago from USA

Is it your only argument "legacy thing"? Deep lack, here!


perrya profile image

perrya 4 years ago Author

It is what it is. Arguing for the sake of arguing leads very few places. There are evil forces and good forces, there is God and Satan. Overall, America is good, not perfect, not without corruption. We check other more nefarious nations.


Peter Geekie profile image

Peter Geekie 4 years ago from London

Dear All,

Excuse me but there is more than one nuclear power in the world with the firepower to destroy all life (for that read the United Kingdom) I would hate to be remembered in that millisecond of life that remains in the vapourising cloud as the nation who was only doing it with the best intentions.

Kind regards Peter


Dr Billy Kidd profile image

Dr Billy Kidd 4 years ago from Sydney, Australia

Israel could nuke Moscow, with the Jericho 3 missile. And that may be why Russia's Putin stopped in Tel Aviv to talk to Bibi. He probably told him to let things simmer down with Iran. Or he spoke from experience, that Iranian ayatollahs are no more evil than American or Russian billionaires. The biggest danger are the American sheep that follow their leaders like limmings, voting against their self-interest, and supporting every war immaginable.


maxoxam41 profile image

maxoxam41 4 years ago from USA

Good point here Billy!


perrya profile image

perrya 4 years ago Author

Actually, Putin's trip had been scheduled long before the Syrian mess, it was to honor the Russian soldiers of WW2, there is some sort of monument there. Putin simply played the US nemesis coyly just like in the KGB days. Russia is gutless by allowing Assad to continue, they, more than anyone else, have the power to influence Assad. Putin is seeking the former USSR glory days, yet, what would they be???


Paul 4 years ago

maxoman41: I agree with you 100% on Saudi Arabia. They should not be looked at differently than Iraq or Iran. You are right, we need to take them out too.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working