Pakistan - The Future - Nuclear Armed Jihadists?

[PeterCH]

You guys must remember that the people who lead Taleban or other extremist groups, eg the Iranians are not suicidal themselves. They'll happily send the lowest ranks to be sacrificed or martyred but the leadership and the upper echelons do certainly not
want that way. If Taleban came to power in Pakistan, I'm willing to bet they'd change
and we'd see a lot of the hardliners who were unwilling to change disappear in mysterious
circumstances. When you become the established government you tend to behave differently to when you're a guerilla group with nothing to loose. You now DO have something to loose.

 

[Alan]

You guys must remember that the people who lead Taleban or other extremist groups, eg the Iranians are not suicidal themselves. They'll happily send the lowest ranks to be sacrificed or martyred but the leadership and the upper echelons do certainly not
want that way. If Taleban came to power in Pakistan, I'm willing to bet they'd change
and we'd see a lot of the hardliners who were unwilling to change disappear in mysterious
circumstances. When you become the established government you tend to behave differently to when you're a guerilla group with nothing to loose. You now DO have something to loose.

I dunno look at Saddam. He had everything to lose and yet he still gambled. He lost and is now dead. Iran is playing the same game. If they loose they too could end up dead. The Taliban themselves did not change when they came to power in Afghanistan. They too had a lot to lose and lost in the end.

 

[JK8]

Definition of right minded people:

Well I think your views are wrong, and mines are right.

 

[PeterCH]

I dunno look at Saddam. He had everything to loose and yet he still gambled. He lost and is now dead. Iran is playing the same game. If they loose they too could end up dead. The Taliban themselves did not change when they came to power in Afghanistan. They too had a lot to lose and lost in the end.

I don't believe that Iran will ever fire a single rocket anywhere. The leadership knows that the retaliatory strike will make Iran uninhabitable for the next 10,000 years. I think the people in power are barking but their bite is toothless, same with Taleban. If the leadership of Taleban was so bent on martyrdom we'd see these guys detonate themselves next to Allied vehicles long ago, instead they hide in caves and send retarded women.
Still things like the ABM shield and threats of first strike from the West
are necessary to keep up the pressure on the leadership's electorate - the people who are supporting Iran and the Taleban (also including mid level leadership here). That could achieve a genuine spontaneous regime change in Iran as opposed to what happened in Iraq which was a botch up.

 

[Alan]

I don't believe that Iran will ever fire a single rocket anywhere. The leadership knows that the retaliatory strike will make Iran uninhabitable for the next 10,000 years. I think the people in power are barking but their bite is toothless, same with Taleban. If the leadership of Taleban was so bent on martyrdom we'd see these guys detonate themselves next to Allied vehicles long ago, instead they hide in caves and send retarded women.
Still things like the ABM shield and threats of first strike from the West
are necessary to keep up the pressure on the leadership's electorate - the people who are supporting Iran and the Taleban (also including mid level leadership here). That could achieve a genuine spontaneous regime change in Iran as opposed to what happened in Iraq which was a botch up.

A few points

1) The U.S and Soviet regimes came incredibly close on more than one occasion to nuclear war. If they can the Taliban certainly can. Especially given the relations with their nuke armed neighbour India. Those two nations have come close to conflict even with far more moderate governments.

2) Command and control. There are numerous nuke in Pakistan. You trust the top leaders to keep a firm grip on the nukes? The chance of a rogue element or accidental launch is frightening

3) The biggest problem is nukes or radioactive material being given to a 3rd party. A nuke with no return address.

4) Proliferation. Nothing to stop them spreading nuke know how to other extreme states

5) Lastly with nuclear weapons they become immune. That gives them a free hand to give full support to extremist groups in other countries. There will be a large increase in violence in largely 3rd world countries like there was in the cold war.

 

[PeterCH]

A few points

1) The U.S and Soviet regimes came incredibly close on more than one occasion to nuclear war. If they can the Taliban certainly can. Especially given the relations with their nuke armed neighbour India. Those two nations have come close to conflict even with far more moderate governments.

Yes and the Soviets backed off each time out of fear.

2) Command and control. There are numerous nuke in Pakistan. You trust the top leaders to keep a firm grip on the nukes? The chance of a rogue element or accidental launch is frightening

I think the US has told Perez Musharraf when Pakistan tested its first nuke what would happen to them if they did not look after their nukes or if a 3rd party go it.

3) The biggest problem is nukes or radioactive material being given to a 3rd party. A nuke with no return address.

True but if a nuke were to go off in NYC, and that would be tragic but if it were to go off, the leadership of Iran, Pakistan and Taleban would know
that in 30 minutes they'd be on the receiving end automatically.

4) Proliferation. Nothing to stop them spreading nuke know how to other extreme states

If any evidence was found of that, they would be targetted and hit. I'm sure that on presidential level this has been clarified and it's understood by the Pakistani and Indian leadership.

5) Lastly with nuclear weapons they become immune. That gives them a free hand to give full support to extremist groups in other countries. There will be a large increase in violence in largely 3rd world countries like there was in the cold war.

True. However with the ABM and first strike policy the US may or does follow, they now have other worries.

I agree that your points are valid but at the same time I don't think that the people who are ambitious enough to be the leadership of Al Quada or Taleban
are suicidal themselves and with nukes, they now become the targets no
their lower ranks, unlike the scenario now where they hide and let their foot soldiers take the bullets.

The West in bombing Hiroshima in retaliation for the Japanese strike on a military facility of Pearl Harbour have shown that they are not afraid to use nuclear weapons. This is a strong message to would-be-pariahs and it's not lost, I'm sure on the Taleban.

 

[Alan]

Yes and the Soviets backed off each time out of fear.

Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov (Russian: Василий Александрович Архипов) (1926-1999) was a Soviet naval officer. During the Cuban Missile Crisis he prevented the launch of a nuclear torpedo and therefore a possible nuclear war.

On October 27, 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, a group of eleven United States Navy destroyers and the aircraft carrier USS Randolph trapped a nuclear-armed Soviet Foxtrot class submarine B-59 near Cuba and started dropping practice depth charges, explosives intended to force the submarine to come to the surface for identification. Allegedly, the captain of the submarine, Valentin Grigorievitch Savitsky, believing that a war might already have started, prepared to launch a retaliatory nuclear-tipped torpedo.

Three officers on board the submarine — Savitsky, Political Officer Ivan Semonovich Maslennikov, and Second Captain Arkhipov — were authorized to launch the torpedo if they agreed unanimously in favour of doing so. An argument broke out among the three, in which only Arkhipov was against the launch, eventually persuading Savitsky to surface the submarine and await orders from Moscow. The nuclear warfare which presumably would have ensued was thus averted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasiliy_Arkhipov

Now imagine a similar scenario except this time a Taliban "officer" is at the controls of a nuke armed rocket. There are plenty irrational lunatics in the Taliban of similar high ranking.

I think the US has told Perez Musharraf when Pakistan tested its first nuke what would happen to them if they did not look after their nukes or if a 3rd party go it.

The question is can the Taliban. They may be competent guerrilla fighters but controlling a nation's nuclear weapons infrastructure? Big difference

True but if a nuke were to go off in NYC, and that would be tragic but if it were to go off, the leadership of Iran, Pakistan and Taleban would know
that in 30 minutes they'd be on the receiving end automatically.

IMO the U.S president wouldn't have the political support nor the will to nuke a nation on the basis that they may be responsible for a terrorist nuke attack on a U.S city. If they he did those nations would themselves respond by launching nukes themselves. So there be even more destruction.

If any evidence was found of that, they would be targetted and hit. I'm sure that on presidential level this has been clarified and it's understood by the Pakistani and Indian leadership.

The Pakistanis sold nuclear secrets to Libya and North Korea IIRC. Nothing happened to them. Again nuclear war on the basis one country is selling nuke secrets is not feasible for the U.S

True. However with the ABM and first strike policy the US may or does follow, they now have other worries.

The U.S will never carry out a nuclear first strike in this day and age. Again politically not feasible to launch a nuclear strike because a country is supporting terrorists in another country

I agree that your points are valid but at the same time I don't think that the people who are ambitious enough to be the leadership of Al Quada or Taleban
are suicidal themselves and with nukes, they now become the targets no
their lower ranks, unlike the scenario now where they hide and let their foot soldiers take the bullets.

They may not be suicidal. But they aren't afraid to gamble. These people aren't rational. As you said they live in caves

The West in bombing Hiroshima in retaliation for the Japanese strike on a military facility of Pearl Harbour have shown that they are not afraid to use nuclear weapons. This is a strong message to would-be-pariahs and it's not lost, I'm sure on the Taleban.

Actually the U.S nuked those two cities because it was the quickest way to end the war. It had absolutely nothing to do with Pearl Harbuor apart from the fact that Pear Harbour was what started the conflict

 

[BBSA]

Well I think your views are wrong, and mines are right.

Well who cares...... Obama agree with me

President Barack Obama on Tuesday ordered an additional 17,000 American troops into Afghanistan to reinforce embattled U.S. and NATO forces fighting a deepening Taliban insurgency.

 

[PeterCH]

Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov (Russian: Василий Александрович Архипов) (1926-1999) was a Soviet naval officer. During the Cuban Missile Crisis he prevented the launch of a nuclear torpedo and therefore a possible nuclear war.

On October 27, 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, a group of eleven United States Navy destroyers and the aircraft carrier USS Randolph trapped a nuclear-armed Soviet Foxtrot class submarine B-59 near Cuba and started dropping practice depth charges, explosives intended to force the submarine to come to the surface for identification. Allegedly, the captain of the submarine, Valentin Grigorievitch Savitsky, believing that a war might already have started, prepared to launch a retaliatory nuclear-tipped torpedo.

Three officers on board the submarine — Savitsky, Political Officer Ivan Semonovich Maslennikov, and Second Captain Arkhipov — were authorized to launch the torpedo if they agreed unanimously in favour of doing so. An argument broke out among the three, in which only Arkhipov was against the launch, eventually persuading Savitsky to surface the submarine and await orders from Moscow. The nuclear warfare which presumably would have ensued was thus averted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasiliy_Arkhipov

Now imagine a similar scenario except this time a Taliban "officer" is at the controls of a nuke armed rocket. There are plenty irrational lunatics in the Taliban of similar high ranking.

I doubt it would be like that. The Taleban aren't stupid. If they take over an entire government the people behind especially the military will want to retain control.

The question is can the Taliban. They may be competent guerrilla fighters but controlling a nation's nuclear weapons infrastructure? Big difference

IMO the U.S president wouldn't have the political support nor the will to nuke a nation on the basis that they may be responsible for a terrorist nuke attack on a U.S city. If they he did those nations would themselves respond by launching nukes themselves. So there be even more destruction.

The Pakistanis sold nuclear secrets to Libya and North Korea IIRC. Nothing happened to them. Again nuclear war on the basis one country is selling nuke secrets is not feasible for the U.S

US policy towards NK is half-a-sed. NK is not really genuinely seen as a threat. Kim Il is just a guy who is using the nukes to get concessions but he isn't stupid.

The U.S will never carry out a nuclear first strike in this day and age. Again politically not feasible to launch a nuclear strike because a country is supporting terrorists in another country

According to a March document by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that was recently posted to the Pentagon's website, Washington will not necessarily wait for potential adversaries to use what it calls "weapons of mass destruction" before resorting to a nuclear strike against them. The document, entitled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations", has yet to be approved by Pentagon chief Donald

Rumsfeld, according to an account published in Sunday's Washington Post. However, it is largely consistent with the administration's 2002 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which was widely assailed by arms control advocates for lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons by the US.

"What we see as significant is that they are considering using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear powers in preemptive first strikes," Ivan Oelrich, of the Federation for American Scientists (FAS), said about the NPR and the new doctrine.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GI14Aa01.html

They may not be suicidal. But they aren't afraid to gamble. These people aren't rational. As you said they live in caves

I think they are rational. Their hiding away while the lowest ranks martyr themselves proves this point.

Actually the U.S nuked those two cities because it was the quickest way to end the war. It had absolutely nothing to do with Pearl Harbuor apart from the fact that Pear Harbour was what started the conflict

You sir, have not heard the speech the US President gave to the nation after dropping the Hiroshima bomb. Pearl Harbour was mentioned specifically. As is with every mention of the nukes Pearl Harbour is mentioned by apologists.
The dropping of the bomb were also a message the USSR but the Japanese
were on their way to surrendering anyhow. The central message is that anyone with nukes who messes with the USA will get nuked, especially in a nuclear attack.

 

[PeterCH]

Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov (Russian: Василий Александрович Архипов) (1926-1999) was a Soviet naval officer. During the Cuban Missile Crisis he prevented the launch of a nuclear torpedo and therefore a possible nuclear war.

On October 27, 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, a group of eleven United States Navy destroyers and the aircraft carrier USS Randolph trapped a nuclear-armed Soviet Foxtrot class submarine B-59 near Cuba and started dropping practice depth charges, explosives intended to force the submarine to come to the surface for identification. Allegedly, the captain of the submarine, Valentin Grigorievitch Savitsky, believing that a war might already have started, prepared to launch a retaliatory nuclear-tipped torpedo.

Three officers on board the submarine — Savitsky, Political Officer Ivan Semonovich Maslennikov, and Second Captain Arkhipov — were authorized to launch the torpedo if they agreed unanimously in favour of doing so. An argument broke out among the three, in which only Arkhipov was against the launch, eventually persuading Savitsky to surface the submarine and await orders from Moscow. The nuclear warfare which presumably would have ensued was thus averted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasiliy_Arkhipov

Now imagine a similar scenario except this time a Taliban "officer" is at the controls of a nuke armed rocket. There are plenty irrational lunatics in the Taliban of similar high ranking.

I doubt it would be like that. The Taleban aren't stupid. If they take over an entire government the people behind especially the military will want to retain control.

The question is can the Taliban. They may be competent guerrilla fighters but controlling a nation's nuclear weapons infrastructure? Big difference

IMO the U.S president wouldn't have the political support nor the will to nuke a nation on the basis that they may be responsible for a terrorist nuke attack on a U.S city. If they he did those nations would themselves respond by launching nukes themselves. So there be even more destruction.

The Pakistanis sold nuclear secrets to Libya and North Korea IIRC. Nothing happened to them. Again nuclear war on the basis one country is selling nuke secrets is not feasible for the U.S

US policy towards NK is half-a-sed. NK is not really genuinely seen as a threat. Kim Il is just a guy who is using the nukes to get concessions but he isn't stupid.

The U.S will never carry out a nuclear first strike in this day and age. Again politically not feasible to launch a nuclear strike because a country is supporting terrorists in another country

According to a March document by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that was recently posted to the Pentagon's website, Washington will not necessarily wait for potential adversaries to use what it calls "weapons of mass destruction" before resorting to a nuclear strike against them. The document, entitled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations", has yet to be approved by Pentagon chief Donald

Rumsfeld, according to an account published in Sunday's Washington Post. However, it is largely consistent with the administration's 2002 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which was widely assailed by arms control advocates for lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons by the US.

"What we see as significant is that they are considering using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear powers in preemptive first strikes," Ivan Oelrich, of the Federation for American Scientists (FAS), said about the NPR and the new doctrine.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GI14Aa01.html

They may not be suicidal. But they aren't afraid to gamble. These people aren't rational. As you said they live in caves

I think they are rational. Their hiding away while the lowest ranks martyr themselves proves this point.

Actually the U.S nuked those two cities because it was the quickest way to end the war. It had absolutely nothing to do with Pearl Harbuor apart from the fact that Pear Harbour was what started the conflict

You sir, have not heard the speech the US President gave to the nation after dropping the Hiroshima bomb. Pearl Harbour was mentioned specifically. As is with every mention of the nukes Pearl Harbour is mentioned by apologists.
The dropping of the bomb were also a message the USSR but the Japanese
were on their way to surrendering anyhow. The central message is that anyone with nukes who messes with the USA will get nuked, especially in a nuclear attack.

 

[PeterCH]

Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov (Russian: Василий Александрович Архипов) (1926-1999) was a Soviet naval officer. During the Cuban Missile Crisis he prevented the launch of a nuclear torpedo and therefore a possible nuclear war.

On October 27, 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, a group of eleven United States Navy destroyers and the aircraft carrier USS Randolph trapped a nuclear-armed Soviet Foxtrot class submarine B-59 near Cuba and started dropping practice depth charges, explosives intended to force the submarine to come to the surface for identification. Allegedly, the captain of the submarine, Valentin Grigorievitch Savitsky, believing that a war might already have started, prepared to launch a retaliatory nuclear-tipped torpedo.

Three officers on board the submarine — Savitsky, Political Officer Ivan Semonovich Maslennikov, and Second Captain Arkhipov — were authorized to launch the torpedo if they agreed unanimously in favour of doing so. An argument broke out among the three, in which only Arkhipov was against the launch, eventually persuading Savitsky to surface the submarine and await orders from Moscow. The nuclear warfare which presumably would have ensued was thus averted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasiliy_Arkhipov

Now imagine a similar scenario except this time a Taliban "officer" is at the controls of a nuke armed rocket. There are plenty irrational lunatics in the Taliban of similar high ranking.

I doubt it would be like that. The Taleban aren't stupid. If they take over an entire government the people behind especially the military will want to retain control.

The question is can the Taliban. They may be competent guerrilla fighters but controlling a nation's nuclear weapons infrastructure? Big difference




IMO the U.S president wouldn't have the political support nor the will to nuke a nation on the basis that they may be responsible for a terrorist nuke attack on a U.S city. If they he did those nations would themselves respond by launching nukes themselves. So there be even more destruction.

The Pakistanis sold nuclear secrets to Libya and North Korea IIRC. Nothing happened to them. Again nuclear war on the basis one country is selling nuke secrets is not feasible for the U.S

US policy towards NK is half-a-sed. NK is not really genuinely seen as a threat. Kim Il is just a guy who is using the nukes to get concessions but he isn't stupid. Libya also changed it's nasty status recently. They are no longer advocating violence against the West.

The U.S will never carry out a nuclear first strike in this day and age. Again politically not feasible to launch a nuclear strike because a country is supporting terrorists in another country

Please see this:

According to a March document by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that was recently posted to the Pentagon's website, Washington will not necessarily wait for potential adversaries to use what it calls "weapons of mass destruction" before resorting to a nuclear strike against them. The document, entitled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations", has yet to be approved by Pentagon chief Donald

Rumsfeld, according to an account published in Sunday's Washington Post. However, it is largely consistent with the administration's 2002 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which was widely assailed by arms control advocates for lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons by the US.

"What we see as significant is that they are considering using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear powers in preemptive first strikes," Ivan Oelrich, of the Federation for American Scientists (FAS), said about the NPR and the new doctrine.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GI14Aa01.html

They may not be suicidal. But they aren't afraid to gamble. These people aren't rational. As you said they live in caves

I think they are rational. Their hiding away while the lowest ranks martyr themselves proves this point.

Actually the U.S nuked those two cities because it was the quickest way to end the war. It had absolutely nothing to do with Pearl Harbuor apart from the fact that Pear Harbour was what started the conflict

You sir, have not heard the speech the US President gave to the nation after dropping the Hiroshima bomb. Pearl Harbour was mentioned specifically. As is with every mention of the nukes Pearl Harbour is mentioned by apologists.
The dropping of the bomb was also a message for the USSR and the Japanese
were on their way to surrendering anyhow, the point about immunity for the Emperor was what was keeping them away from surrender, something which they got after wards anyway. The central message is that anyone with nukes who messes with the USA (NATO) will get nuked, especially in a nuclear attack. During WW2 the Japanese targeted very few US civilian sites, in fact Honolulu was probably the only one and that was probably overflow from Pearl Harbour. If the US can use nukes after a 'clean' war - ie soldier vs soldier, imagine the retaliation a government which allows terrorists use it's bomb on US civilians will face. Whether this is intended (I think it's a welcome side-effect) or not, foreign governments and their controlled terrorist groups will think twice about this because of this
past history.

I suspect that a wide array of targets would be hit by the US military in a nuclear fashion should a -God forbid- terrorist nuke
go off targeting US civilians or military personnel.

 

[Alan]

I doubt it would be like that. The Taleban aren't stupid. If they take over an entire government the people behind especially the military will want to retain control.

Only the very top brass aren't stupid. The rest are religious extremists. You have to be rather stupid to be one of those. The few leaders at the top can't physically control everything. They have to delegate responsibilities to the lunatics

US policy towards NK is half-a-sed. NK is not really genuinely seen as a threat. Kim Il is just a guy who is using the nukes to get concessions but he isn't stupid. Libya also changed it's nasty status recently. They are no longer advocating violence against the West.

Bottom line is they sold nuclear secrets to U.S enemies at the time.

Please see this:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GI14Aa01.html

That still doesn't make it a viable option. Can you honestly see Obama launching a nuclear strike on anybody first

I think they are rational. Their hiding away while the lowest ranks martyr themselves proves this point.

They're living in caves ffs. What's rational about that? Also you seem to think that they are perfectly safe in these areas which is not the case at all. Osama himself has had a few close calls. Hell he may not even be alive anymore. Top Taliban commanders have been killed by strikes from drones or captured. They're putting their lives at risk now so why not when they get into power

You sir, have not heard the speech the US President gave to the nation after dropping the Hiroshima bomb. Pearl Harbour was mentioned specifically. As is with every mention of the nukes Pearl Harbour is mentioned by apologists.
The dropping of the bomb was also a message for the USSR and the Japanese
were on their way to surrendering anyhow, the point about immunity for the Emperor was what was keeping them away from surrender, something which they got after wards anyway. The central message is that anyone with nukes who messes with the USA (NATO) will get nuked, especially in a nuclear attack. During WW2 the Japanese targeted very few US civilian sites, in fact Honolulu was probably the only one and that was probably overflow from Pearl Harbour. If the US can use nukes after a 'clean' war - ie soldier vs soldier, imagine the retaliation a government which allows terrorists use it's bomb on US civilians will face. Whether this is intended (I think it's a welcome side-effect) or not, foreign governments and their controlled terrorist groups will think twice about this because of this
past history.

Have you not heard of the firebombing of Tokyo? But this has been covered in another thread. Countries have "messed" with the U.S before and not suffered nuclear attack.

I suspect that a wide array of targets would be hit by the US military in a nuclear fashion should a -God forbid- terrorist nuke
go off targeting US civilians or military personnel.

I think you're smoking something

 

[PeterCH]

Only the very top brass aren't stupid. The rest are religious extremists. You have to be rather stupid to be one of those. The few leaders at the top can't physically control everything. They have to delegate responsibilities to the lunatics.

I'm not sure what we're debating here. The Pakistani government replaced by Taleban? The military in Pakistan is very reactionary and they would not let that happen, I also don't think the Pakistani's support the Taleban in a mainstream fashion. However, in case Taleban conquered Pakistan or
got voted in, I doubt the mullahs in charge of it would give the hoi polloi
control of the important things.

Bottom line is they sold nuclear secrets to U.S enemies at the time.

EU supported Hussein too. I don't think this is a major issue.

That still doesn't make it a viable option. Can you honestly see Obama launching a nuclear strike on anybody first

Its official policy. I do see him doing it, if he has to act to safeguard the US he will do it, maybe even more potently than GWB. That's what the hippies who think GWB and Obama differ on foreign policy think - that he won't. Wasn't FDR a Democrat?
Wasn't Bill Clinton a democrat during Kosovo? Dems can hit harder than Reps.

They're living in caves ffs. What's rational about that? Also you seem to think that they are perfectly safe in these areas which is not the case at all. Osama himself has had a few close calls. Hell he may not even be alive anymore. Top Taliban commanders have been killed by strikes from drones or captured. They're putting their lives at risk now so why not when they get into power

Ok, I don't really know if they live in caves. Apparently they probably live in Pakistan too. Bottom line is that they're afraid of dying. Quacks are not like that.

Have you not heard of the firebombing of Tokyo? But this has been covered in another thread. Countries have "messed" with the U.S before and not suffered nuclear attack.

We are discussing nuclear retaliation here. If the US dropped 2 nuclear bombs on an enemy with whom they were at war with, its a clear sign
that they can do it to other 'potent' enemies and nothing spells potent
as having nuclear weapons. It's a lesson other belligerents shouldn't miss.
Nuclear weapon use has been on the cards in each major conflict the US
was involved in. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Vietnam and others knew this.

I think you're smoking something

Let's agree to disagree.

I don't think Pakistan will ever be controlled by the Taleban.
I don't think if it would, Taleban would be stupid enough
to use or even consider using those weapons. Certainly NK
has them and the US is not considering them too serious a threat.

What many analysts have been saying is that there has been a falling out between
Taleban and Al Quada. Ultimately I think Afghanistan will go back to the Taleban,
NATO will cut it's losses and leave in 1-2 years - that's inevitable. Afghanistan
is just not worth it. Without Al Quada influence the Taleban itself is not a threat to
the West. The falling out mentioned above may be reasons why the West may negotiate
with Taleban itself and this has been raised by many commentators on CNN and BBC,
definately with Zakariah on CNN. At the end the West will pull out. They will cut a deal
like they did in Iraq.

Pakistan won't go Taleban I think, demographically and politically.

 

[Alan]

Nuclear weapon use has been on the cards in each major conflict the US
was involved in. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Vietnam and others knew this.

As far as I know the closest they came to using nukes during a hot war was Korea. Even there in the end they did not use it. Like I said earlier IMO it's impossible politically for a U.S president to order a nuclear strike unless in retaliation to a direct nuclear attack by another state. Going by that belief a nuke armed nation can do pretty much whatever it pleases, bar directly attacking the U.S with nukes, without risking nuclear annihilation.

Let's agree to disagree.

Looks like we're going to have to

 

[Nanfeishen]

The taking of the SWAT Valley area by the Taliban, is not only worrying, but incredibly strategic as well, placing the Taliban controlled area 130km from Islamabad roughly the same distance from Cape Town to Worcester.
It also provides the Taliban with a jump off point to interrupt the main supply route through Pakistan to Afghanistan.
As with the attack on Feb 3rd :

There are two routes through Pakistan into Afghanistan, one through the Khyber Pass to the border town of Torkham. The other runs through Pakistan to the border town of Chaman and on to the southern Afghan city of Kandahar.

The U.S. Defense Department says the U.S. military sends 75 percent of supplies for the Afghan war through or over Pakistan, including 40 percent of the fuel for its troops.

With the U.S. military set to send thousands more soldiers to Afghanistan in coming months, perhaps nearly doubling the number to about 60,000, the need for reliable supply routes will become even more important.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/as...pakistan_sever_afghan_supply_link_1233640933/

Taliban sever NATO supply line through Pakistan's northwest
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/02/taliban_sever_nato_s.php

Another problem that is being faced, is hinted at in a slightly older article, but one that could prove to become even more problematic as time goes by:

At the core of the troubles here, many say, lie demands by the United States that the Pakistani military, generously financed by Washington, join in its campaign against terrorism, which means killing fellow Pakistanis in the tribal areas. Even if those Pakistanis are extremists, the people here say, they do not like a policy of killing fellow tribesmen, and fellow countrymen, particularly on behalf of the United States.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/world/asia/18peshawar.html

In other parts , there has been concern raised by the recent developmnts, especially by NATO
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hGd2ZMkQDv13Yzbd62VRkk0SKRYQD96E5R280

Going back to Oct 2008, there were warnings:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/17191/

A very interesting read on the stance towards Pakistan that seems to be unfolding in some wierd way:
http://www.riazhaq.com/2008/10/obamas-point-man-on-south-asia.html

And then there is "scenario 2" from this article, that also seems may develop into a higher priority:
http://www.riazhaq.com/2008/10/will-pakistan-test-obama.html

 

[DJ...]

This is a clear example why you don't allow small unstable states to get nuclear weapons.

Um, Ouma, I hate to break it to you like this, but Pakistan aint a US state yet, regardless of how strongly you feel about it.

However, how did nobody see this coming? It was inevitable...

Pakistan always had the capabilities, the worrying governance and the extremists who have infiltrated both government and the mostly susceptible society - this isn't something new - it is the reason that the US has supported Pakistan so vehemently in the past...

 

[Alan]

Um, Ouma, I hate to break it to you like this, but Pakistan aint a US state yet, regardless of how strongly you feel about it.

State

a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/state

 

[DJ...]

It's a country, Ouma. Deal with it...

 

[LoneGunman]

Blame it on Britain - given that they were the ones who carved up India along ethnic lines and created 'Pakistan' (and 'Burma' and 'Sri lanka' etc etc) - just like they 'created' the mess of occupied Palestine, that some call 'Israel.'

Say thank you to your colonial masters.
The Brits created the gift that keeps on giving

Currently though, the pseudo country called "Pakistan" is mostly controlled by the CIA - do a search on CIA+ISI (the Pakistan Intelligence service) - and you'll see the actual reality. Its just a convenient spawning place to create boogeymen to make the ignorant-of-history create threads like this

Try reading this: Asia: The Role of the CIA-ISI Terror Network http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0809/S00233.htm
and
CIA-ISI Created “Al Qaeda Network”, Blamed for Pakistan Troubles http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7713

 

[Lux Maharaj]

I think the recently reported Siberian UFO is preparing to deal with them both...