Hacker News Reader

That’s pretty much it. Cutting off weapon supplies never made countries less belligerent - on the contrary, it lets them loose as they no longer have any reigns.

The fastest way to lose global political influence is to send your allies to buy weapons from your adversaries. How did it work with North Korea, Iran and Syria?

When France cut off Israel’s weapon supplies in the late 1960s, all it did was to accelerate the development of the Israeli defense industry and replacement of all French hardware with US one. During this process, France lost any political influence it might have had on Israel - and arguably, the region - and irreversibly hurt its defense industry going forward.

That aside, Western ideals are just that in the Middle East - ideals. The reality is somewhat more complicated.

So let them have weapons. Western weapons are at least more precise and less crude than the alternatives. The worst wars were waged with teens wielding AK47s, not with F15s dropping precision munitions. Taking away weapons will not eliminate the underlying hostilities.

Finally, Saudi Arabia never pursued a nuclear program as it felt shielded by the West. Taking away its means to defend itself would make it an immensely more dangerous, rich and capable North Korea.

I largely agree, but would add:

Saudi use of US precision weapons systems has been far from precise.

It still depends on weapon system operator skill, as well as rules of engagement, IE not knowingly targeting civilians or having much higher thresholds for civilian casualties.

As far as Saudi nuclear development, the Saudis have never been know for doing things themselves, preferring to hire mercenaries.

In the case of nuclear development, I think it’s safe to say that Saudi financing for Pakistani nuclear development (directly or tangentially) represents a nuclear program by proxy.

If push came to shove, I could easily imagine Pakistan flying several “leased” nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia to:

1) ensure Saudi regime continuity

2) enhance existing Pakistani influence with Saudi

>The fastest way to lose global political influence is to send your allies to buy weapons from your adversaries. How did it work with North Korea, Iran and Syria?

What? Nothing like that situation happened in any of your examples. North Korea went from Japanese to Soviet control due to WWII treaties, Iran revolted against US control, and Syria happily bought US arms until the civil war started.

>When France cut off Israel’s weapon supplies in the late 1960s, all it did was to accelerate the development of the Israeli defense industry and replacement of all French hardware with US one.

This is pretending that they ever really lacked the support of the US, or that the UK support wasn't omnipresent as well. And, this directly contradicts your last point, as Israel was already shielded by the West yet pursued a nuclear program.

Iran, North Korea and Syria are examples of countries that are a significant threat without having any Western arms in their arsenal, and operate outside of Western soft powers. The West is far from being the only arms supplier in town, and when countries can’t rely on Western political, technological and military support, it is very likely they will attempt to pursue WMDs to make up for it (as done by all three) and use assymeteic warfare instead of standing military (as done by Iran and Syria).

Israel was under a US arms export embargo up until the late 60s, for all intents and purposes. Israel was never shielded by the West - there has never been direct military intervention in Israel’s favor. This, combined with the trauma left by the holocaust only couple of decades prior, and the calls to the destruction of Israel - unprecedented that a country had its legitimacy disputed like this in world politics - have made it pursue nuclear weapons.

It was the threat of those weapons, in part, that brought Israel closer to the USA (see the emergency airlift of US military equipment to Israel during the war of 1973). No one wanted a desperate, nuclear state with its back to the wall.

Today, Egypt, Jordan, the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia behave in line with Western interests because they feel embraced and protected. In the face of an imminent threat from Iran, they rely on Western arms and support. Show them you’re taking this support away for matters of public appearance, and the only choice those countries would have is to develop WMDs, both for deterrence and as the ultimate bargaining chip.

>Iran, North Korea and Syria are examples of countries that are a significant threat without having any Western arms in their arsenal, and operate outside of Western soft powers. The West is far from being the only arms supplier in town, and when countries can’t rely on Western political, technological and military support, it is very likely they will attempt to pursue WMDs to make up for it (as done by all three) and use assymeteic warfare instead of standing military (as done by Iran and Syria).

Really? They're the "threats?" How much Korean, Iranian, and Syrian blood is on the hands of Western arms dealers? Any "threat" they pose is a direct reaction to hostility from Western powers. If we want to stop the threat, we should stop threatening them.

>Israel was under a US arms export embargo up until the late 60s, for all intents and purposes. Israel was never shielded by the West - there has never been direct military intervention in Israel’s favor. This, combined with the trauma left by the holocaust only couple of decades prior, and the calls to the destruction of Israel - unprecedented that a country had its legitimacy disputed like this in world politics - have made it pursue nuclear weapons.

What? US started importing to Israel in 1960, and both France and the UK aided Israel in the Suez Crisis, followed by heavy US support in the Yom Kippur war as you mentioned. And if millions of your people getting killed followed by a continued call for your destruction are legitimate reasons for a nuclear program then nobody can object to North Korea's.

>Today, Egypt, Jordan, the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia behave in line with Western interests because they feel embraced and protected. In the face of an imminent threat from Iran, they rely on Western arms and support.

Or because the US is a far greater threat than Iran, given what they've done in the region.

> the scale of their direct malfeasance is mostly regional

This is patently incorrect.

1. There Wahabi radical islamic movement was largely funded by SA at it's inception. SA continues to be it's largest donor, both in money and security. This movement has brought the world the 9/11 attacks, Al Queda, terrorism world wide, and has radicalised liberal Islamic populations.

2. They're brutalistic about Shias - i.e. they refuse Shias (from Syria) refugee status, and continue funding any military action that targets Shias.

3. They play a central role in money laundering of terrorist funds.

If there ever was one country to blame for today's international unstable, religion fueled geopolitical mess, it would be SA.

>1. There Wahabi radical islamic movement was largely funded by SA at it's inception. SA continues to be it's largest donor, both in money and security. This movement has brought the world the 9/11 attacks, Al Queda, terrorism world wide, and has radicalised liberal Islamic populations.

True, and for the anecdote. My family suffered from this directly as we had to flee a country for another because of the rise of Saudi funded radicalism.

With that said, all the things you quote (increased radicalization, terrorism etc.) are mostly - and it hurts to say this - spectacular inconveniences in terms of scale.

And I prefaced this to let you know that I don't see the terrorism from a pure Western perspective where there is one such act every now and then. I know that there are many atrocities which we don't hear about (e.g the 2007 Yazidi bombings).

Yet, if you compare all of these punctual tragedies with the damage, violent deaths, and chaos that the second gulf war has brought. You must see that the two process have different magnitudes and inverse shock values for western audiences.

>2. They're brutalistic about Shias - i.e. they refuse Shias (from Syria) refugee status, and continue funding any military action that targets Shias.

True, obviously this goes both ways though. Sectarian disputes have always been ugly in the region.

>3. They play a central role in money laundering of terrorist funds.

See my first point, I think that in the grand scheme of things terrorism does not matter much. It's evil and despicable and spectacular, and that's about it.

On top of the earnings to Western arms companies, every billion that doesn't flow to Russia for arms sales is a double win for the US. It's hard to squeeze their economy when you're leaking money to them on arms.

Supporting Russia's arms industry can hurt you far more directly. Income flows to research, competing with your arms everywhere and endangering your own soldiers.

That doesn't mean you can't influence SA. You can limit (or offer) access to certain weapons systems, refuse access to some investments in the West, ask for a token sacrifice to appease the press, etc.

>They would do fine with Russian or Chinese weapons. Hell, they have enough money to kick-off their own military industrial complex.

Their airstrikes on Yemen require US military assistance, and without active support for their blockades they would be seen as the war crimes that they are and would halt immediately. Maybe they could still wage war without the US, the toll on the population would be dramatically higher and the regime would not be able to maintain stability.

>They remain a vassal state to the US.

>Countries with global reach have done worse in my eyes.

These are the acts of the United States. Full stop. They can only happen because of the US and they serve US interests. That's how vassals are. This isn't some global match for supremacy with Russia and China, this is the imperial desire of the US.

It's also a way of recycling petrodollars.

> Hell, they have enough money to kick-off their own military industrial complex.

Wishful thinking.

>Wishful thinking.

Maybe! Hard to know if that's the extent of your comment. Care to explain why you think so?