Egypt's Nuclear Ambitions: A Strategic Move or a Risky Gamble?

[abdo375]

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/15622629.htm


What do you guy's think ?

 

[Anttech]

Perhaps you want to narrow the scope down of your question? What exactly would you like to talk about? Do you have a problem with Arab nations using nuclear technology?

 

[abdo375]

no, I just want to hear your comments on the topic.

 

[Anttech]

1) A clear statement of purpose written by the person starting the thread and contained in the opening post of the thread.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181

Its the first rule. You arent allowed to post a link without stating what it is you would like to discus

As I said before what would you like to discuss? What is your opinion on this matter?

 

[abdo375]

What do you think about Egypt having a nuclear power program, do you think they should be allowed to or not?
btw I'm saying they should, but I'm nowhere being fare since I'm an Egyptian.

 

[Yonoz]

If it's a peaceful nuclear program, by all means. Egypt has genuine need for cheap, reliable and lasting power sources.

 

[Anttech]

Yes I think they should allowed to pursue nuclear energy.

If it's a peaceful nuclear program, by all means.

Is yours? I know what you mean, but do you not think it is slightly hypocritical to demand that they must only pursue a program for peaceful purposes and not defence, when their next door neighbour doesn't and hasnt.

 

[Yonoz]

Is yours? I know what you mean, but do you not think it is slightly hypocritical to demand that they must only pursue a program for peaceful purposes and not defence, when their next door neighbour doesn't and hasnt.

That next door neighbour has those weapons since the days http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/nasser1.html":

We were waiting for the day when we would be fully prepared and confident of being able to adopt strong measures if we were to enter the battle with Israel. I say nothing aimlessly. One day two years ago, I stood up to say that we had no plan to liberate Palestine and that revolutionary action was our only course to liberate Palestine. I spoke at the summit conferences. The summit conferences were meant to prepare the Arab States to defend themselves.

Recently we felt we are strong enough, that if we were to enter a battle with Israel, with God's help, we could triumph. On this basis, we decided to take actual steps.

A great deal has been said in the past about the UN Emergency Force (UNEF). Many people blamed us for UNEF's presence. We were not strong enough. Should we have listened to them, or rather built and trained our army while UNEF still existed? I said once that we could tell UNEF to leave within half an hour. Once we were fully prepared we could ask UNEF to leave. And this is what actually happened.

The same thing happened with regard to Sharm el-Sheikh. We were attacked on this score by some Arabs. Taking Sharm el-Sheikh meant confrontation with Israel. Taking such action also meant that we were ready to enter a general war with Israel. It was not a separate operation. Therefore, we had to take this fact into consideration when moving to Sharm el-Sheikh. The present operation was mounted on this basis.

Actually I was authorized by the (Arab Socialist Union's) Supreme Executive Committee to implement this plan at the right time. The right time came when Syria was threatened with aggression. We sent reconnaissance aircraft over Israel. Not a single brigade was stationed opposite us on the Israeli side of the border. All Israeli brigades were confronting Syria. All but four brigades have now moved south to confront Egypt. Those four are still on the border with Syria. We are confident that once we have entered the battle we will triumph, God willing.

With regard to military plans, there is complete coordination of military action between us and Syria. We will operate as one army fighting a single battle for the sake of a common objective - the objective of the Arab nation.

The problem today is not just Israel, but also those behind it. If Israel embarks on, an aggression against Syria or Egypt, the battle against Israel will be a general one and not confined to one spot on the Syrian or Egyptian borders. The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel. I probably could not have said such things five or even three years ago. If I had said such things and had been unable to carry them out my words would have been empty and worthless.

Today, some eleven years after 1956, I say such things because I am confident. I know what we have here in Egypt and what Syria has. I also know that other States Iraq, for instance, has sent its troops to Syria; Algeria will send troops; Kuwait also will send troops. They will send armoured and infantry units. This is Arab power. This is the true resurrection of the Arab nation, which at one time was probably in despair.

Today people must know the reality of the Arab world. What is Israel? Israel today is the United States. The United States is the chief defender of Israel. As for Britain, I consider it America's lackey. Britain does not have an independent policy. Wilson always follows Johnson's steps and says what he wants him to say. All Western countries take Israel's view.

The Gulf of Aqaba was a closed waterway prior to 1956. We used to search British, US, French and all other ships. After the tripartite aggression - and we all know the tripartite plot - we left the area to UNEF which came here under a UN resolution to make possible the withdrawal of Britain, France and Israel. The Israelis say they opened the maritime route. I say they told lies and believed their own lies. We withdrew because the British and the French attacked us. This battle was never between us and Israel alone.

I have recently been with the armed forces. All the armed forces are ready for a battle face to face between the Arabs and Israel. Those behind Israel are also welcome.

We must know and learn a big lesson today. We must actually see that, in its hypocrisy and in its talks with the Arabs, the United States sides with Israel 100 per cent and is partial in favour of Israel. Why is Britain biased towards Israel? The West is on Israel's side. General de Gaulle's personality caused him to remain impartial on this question and not to toe the US or the British line; France therefore did not take sides with Israel.

The Soviet Union's attitude was great and splendid. It supported the Arabs and the Arab nation. It went to the extent of stating that, together with the Arabs and the Arab nation, it would resist any interference or aggression.

Today every Arab knows foes and friends. If we do not learn who our enemies and our friends are, Israel will always be able to benefit from this behaviour. It is clear that the United States is an enemy of the Arabs because it is completely biased in favour of Israel. It is also clear that Britain is an enemy of the Arabs because she, too, is completely biased in favour of Israel. On this basis we must treat our enemies and those who side with our enemies as actual enemies. We can accord them such treatment. In fact we are not States without status. We are States of status occupying an important place in the world. Our States have thousands of years of civilization behind them -7,000 years of civilization. Indeed, we can do much; we can expose the hypocrisy - the hypocrisy of our enemies if they try to persuade us that they wish to serve our interest. The United States seeks to serve only Israel's interests. Britain also seeks to serve only Israel's interests.

The question is not one of international law. Why all this uproar because of the closure of the Gulf of Aqaba? When Eshkol and Rabin threatened Syria, nobody spoke about peace or threats to peace. They actually hate the progressive regime in Syria. The United States, Britain and reaction which is the friend of the United States and Britain - do not favour the national progressive regime in Syria. Israel, of course, shares their feelings. Israel is an ally of the United States and Britain. When Israel threatened Syria, they kept quiet and accepted what it said. But when we exercise one of our legitimate rights, as we always do, they turn the world upside down and speak about threats to peace and about a crisis in the Middle East. They fabricate these matters and threaten us with war.

We shall not relinquish our rights. We shall not concede our right in the Gulf of Aqaba. Today, the people of Egypt, the Syrian army, and the Egyptian army comprise one front. We want the entire front surrounding Israel to become one front. We want this. Naturally there are obstacles at present. Of course, Wasfi al-Tall is a spy for the Americans and the British. We cannot cooperate with these spies in any form, because the battle is one of destiny and the spies have no place in this battle. We want the front to become one united front around Israel. We will not relinquish the rights of the people of Palestine, as I have said before. I was told at the time that I might have to wait seventy years. During the Crusaders' occupation, the Arabs waited seventy years before a suitable opportunity arose and they drove away the Crusaders. Some people commented that Abdel Nasser said we should shelve the Palestinian question for seventy years, but I say that as a people with an ancient civilization, as an Arab people, we are determined that the Palestine question will not be liquidated or forgotten. The whole question, then, is the proper time to achieve our aims. We are preparing ourselves constantly.

This is, ahem, before Israel took the occupied territories.

 

[J77]

Good for them!

 

[abdo375]

So you don't have any doubt that it might turn to a military program.

 

[Yonoz]

So you don't have any doubt that it might turn to a military program.

Not in the forseeable future, no.

 

[J77]

So you don't have any doubt that it might turn to a military program.

Doesn't that take a very long time...

I don't think that the 'West', ie. the US should have a monopoly on nuclear power by saying that any country that wants it is going to build weapons...

 

[Astronuc]

Well, the US doesn't have a monopoly on nuclear power.

Most European countries have nuclear power programs, and most have nuclear power reactors.

Any country could by nuclear plants and nuclear fuel from US, Europe (mostly Areva), Russia, S. Korea, Canada, China and several others. It would be expected that the users of the nuclear fuel would dispose of the spent fuel directly, or ship it back to the source for disposal or reprocessing/recycling.

The issue is enrichment of UF₆, which enables one to enrich natural U (0.7% U-235) to concentrations up to 5% (current upper limit on commercial nuclear fuel) or all the way to weapons grade concentrations > 70%.

Then there is also the matter of production of Pu-239 and the separation/extraction if fuel is reprocessed. The matter of Pu-239 is of considerable concern.

------------

Now here's an idea -

Fund Aims for Central Uranium Supply
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6129758

Weekend Edition Saturday, September 23, 2006 · Investment guru Warren Buffett, media mogul Ted Turner and former Sen. Sam Nunn say they will donate $50 million toward a centralized supply of enriched uranium for nuclear energy purposes. Nunn tells Scott Simon about an effort meant to discourage nations from pursuing technology that could also lead to nuclear weapons.

 

[tranquill]

Israelis blocked the Sufa again - now with farmers! Look here:

samsonblinded.org/news/kibbutzniks-try-to-block-sufa-crossing-again-2247

 

[vanesch]

In fact, because Egypt signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (in 1968, and ratified it in 1981), it has the international legal RIGHT to develop peaceful nuclear power, on the condition that it abides to the rules set out by that NPT. So an NPT signatory that abides by those rules has an unalienable right to do so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

In other words, discussing whether Egypt has the right or not to use peaceful nuclear power is a moot point: it has that unalienable right by signing the NPT - as long as it abides by its rules (declares all its nuclear activities to the IAEA and allows inspections, and will not help others in building nuclear weapons).

 

[AhmedEzz]

This is, ahem, before Israel took the occupied territories.

But after you occupied Palestine and went to war with all of the Arab nations, what do you expect? the man was at war with you, did you expect him saying "hi guys , welcome, take our lands and make yourself comfortable"

Israel wants to have nuclear monopoly in the ME and it doesn't allow its buildings for inspection but the world doesn't care about that, the world cares about the Evil Iranian nuclear program. Yet, the world does not have a real solid evidence against Iran, but its only the threat that Iran poses to Israel is what the whole world say "Iran must terminate its program" yet no one said or even dared say "Israel should "reconsider" its declared military nuclear program"... Hippocrates.

 

[vanesch]

Israel wants to have nuclear monopoly in the ME and it doesn't allow its buildings for inspection but the world doesn't care about that,

Israel is one of the 4 nations who didn't sign the non-proliferation treaty: Israel, India and Pakistan. North-Korea actually signed it, violated it and then withdrew although it is disputed whether that's legally possible.

As such, those 4 nations never promised not to make nuclear weapons, and on the down side, are prohibited to any nuclear exchange with the signatories. In other words, if they want to use nuclear power, they have to help themselves. But as long as they do so, this is not forbidden.

The problem with Iran is that it was an NPT signatory, and then violated it (it had secret enrichment plants which it didn't declare to the IAEA).

 

[quadraphonics]

Also, the United States is quietly helping various Arab allies build up their nuclear programs. This is in response to Iran's push for regional nuclear primacy.

 

[AhmedEzz]

That is the US saying "If you play nice and quiet, we'll throw you a bone"... since those countries are starting the nuclear program inevitably, what's the difference.

 

[quadraphonics]

That is the US saying "If you play nice and quiet, we'll throw you a bone"... since those countries are starting the nuclear program inevitably, what's the difference.

I don't think that's the case. I would bet good money that Mubarak got the green light from the Bush Administration before pursuing this. And, if not, the difference is that with American support, it will actually work out and contribute to Egypt's stability and development. To do it against America's wishes would risk too much. The key to all this is Iran: in normal times, Israel would be screaming bloody murder about any nuclear developments in Egypt, and America would be applying lots of pressure to stop it. But Israel, the Arab states and the USA all more concerned about Iran/Hezbollah/Hamas than they are about one another, the stage is set for improved strategic coherence cemented by nuclear infrastructure. Interesting times.

 

[AhmedEzz]

No I wasn't saying that Arab countries would dare start their programs without US's approval but I meant that the US was sending a message to Tehran saying "if you play by our rules like these guys, you would have saved yourself a lot of trouble."
and by the way, its not really our program since most of it will be done FOR us not BY us. In other words, "give me a fish; feed me one day. Teach me how to fish; feed me everyday"...we are doing quite the opposite which is why you don't see Israel having any concerns about it. Unlike Iran, developing the technology by itself. That's why Israel is so concerned about it.


But Arab countries HAD to start a program sooner or later.

 

[Cyrus]

No I wasn't saying that Arab countries would dare start their programs without US's approval but I meant that the US was sending a message to Tehran saying "if you play by our rules like these guys, you would have saved yourself a lot of trouble."
and by the way, its not really our program since most of it will be done FOR us not BY us. In other words, "give me a fish; feed me one day. Teach me how to fish; feed me everyday"...we are doing quite the opposite which is why you don't see Israel having any concerns about it. Unlike Iran, developing the technology by itself. That's why Israel is so concerned about it.


But Arab countries HAD to start a program sooner or later.

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Give a man religion and he will starve to death praying for a fish

-Ha, I got to use that quote, finally!

 

[Cyrus]

I don't think that's the case. I would bet good money that Mubarak got the green light from the Bush Administration before pursuing this. And, if not, the difference is that with American support, it will actually work out and contribute to Egypt's stability and development. To do it against America's wishes would risk too much. The key to all this is Iran: in normal times, Israel would be screaming bloody murder about any nuclear developments in Egypt, and America would be applying lots of pressure to stop it. But Israel, the Arab states and the USA all more concerned about Iran/Hezbollah/Hamas than they are about one another, the stage is set for improved strategic coherence cemented by nuclear infrastructure. Interesting times.

Israeal screams bloody murder all the time anyways...