Salon asks a decent question, for once:
In late January, Saudi Arabia’s King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud and his son, Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who is also the minister of defense, celebrated the 50th anniversary of the opening of the King Faisal Air Academy. On the occasion, the Saudis reportedly added to their fleet of warplanes a number of brand new F-15SAs. The new planes are a variant of the Boeing-manufactured F-15 fighter jets and are part of a $29.4 billion deal signed in late 2011 that includes 84 new F-15SAs and an additional 68 of the F-15S variant that will be upgraded.
It was a big purchase, but the Saudis were not done. Since 2014, Riyadh has placed orders for another $30 billion worth of American weapons, the bulk of which were requisitioned after Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Yemen began in March 2015. The Saudis have also spent another $22 billion on weapons from the United Kingdom and France. The numbers are staggering, making the House of Saud the second largest importer of weapons in the world after India.
Recently, Intelligence Squared US hosted a debate on the motion that the special U.S.-Saudi relationship has outlived its usefulness. At the end of the discussion, which pitted two teams of two experts against each other, 56 percent of those in attendance were convinced that Saudi Arabia should remain a strategic ally. Based on weapons sales alone, Saudi Arabia is undoubtedly a strategic partner of — and effectively a jobs program for — the American defense industry. A more appropriate question for the event might have been, “Is Saudi Arabia a competent ally?”
A few years ago, the Saudis began rewriting their defense doctrine in response to what officials in Riyadh feared was a weakening American commitment to Saudi security. The Saudis had long expressed concerns to American interlocutors that with all the talk in Washington of “engagement” with Tehran going back to the George W. Bush era, the United States would seek to replace Saudi Arabia with Iran as its primary interlocutor in the Persian Gulf. The fact that former President Barack Obama did not support President Hosni Mubarak during Egypt’s January 2011 uprising, resisted direct American involvement in the conflict in Syria and mused out loud that the real threat to Saudi security was internal reinforced the idea in Riyadh that Washington was not just unreliable but had tilted in favor of Iran.Eat less, READ MORE!
America's problem is that it still addicted to Saudi oil. 24% of America's 7.1 billion annual petroleum consumption comes from abroad. Much of that oil comes from Saudi Arabia. When you have that kind of trade deficit, the only kind of "reliability" you care about is their continuing to supply 10 million barrels of oil a day.
ReplyDeleteToo big to fail? ;-)
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily. I suspect that if the transition from a global to national economy were planned correctly, we could move to nuclear-based energy independence over the course of 5-10 years. But so long as the Left maintains it's "green" fantasies, throws up environmental road blocks, etc., that could never happen. They hate nuclear power, and wind/solar are still but overly expensive pipe dreams.
Delete100 % agreed on nuclear (fusion later), as long as we accept it too is state sponsored.
DeleteLeft/Green anti-nuclear is a religion. Even Monbiot has reversed his position on it though, so there's hope!
Funniest thing was when Germany cancelled all nuclear, you know... because of the tsunamis in Japan. Listen blockheads, Germany is LANDLOCKED!
Given the "waste remediation stream", it would have to be DOE run, although I'd immediately point to Pit-9 @ INEL, Hanford, WA, and Savannah River as reasons to commercially operate/ government regulate... but expose the contractor to full remediation liability. No more $1 a year to run contracts (as was Lockheed Martin's offer to run Oak Ridge NEL).
ReplyDeleteSomebody's got to stand to lose a fortune if they do anything stupid... the taxpayer can't give EVERYONE a "free pass".
DeleteDo private companies really want to run radio-waste streams and end-of-life nuclear plant decommisioning?
ReplyDeleteWhen I worked at Lockheed Martin, we bid on the Pit-9 cleanup @ INEL (lot of robotics) AND the contract to operate Savannah River (for a $). A ton of "technology" comes out of the experience.
DeleteI should mention that I also worked @ SAIC/ PMCD for the chemical weapons demilitarization program. We got rid of all our obsolete and rusting chemical weapons that way.
Delete(done with automated $1 billion factories full of robotics chopping up bombs/missiles in blast-proof rooms)
DeleteSo you've been around a bit?
DeleteBeen working since 1974... started as a busboy, becames a midshipman, graduated USMMA to 3rd Asst. Engr, worked in the shipyards (Bethlehem Steel), went to grad school, moved on to Martin Marietta (pre-merger) and now have 20+ years as a contractor @ NASA (with a year hiatus at APGEA/EA working Chem DeMil). Some NASA projects I worked on ACE, EOS (Terra/Aqua), SWIFT GRS, BAT, ESDIS, STEREO, MMS, and LCRD. Ships/weapon systems/satellites/scientific instruments/communications systems... done a bit of everything.
DeleteI like polymaths!
DeleteI wouldn't go so far as to say I "excelled" in any of those fields. More of a "generalist" (mile wide/inch deep).
Delete