Pakistan - The Future - Nuclear Armed Jihadists?

[PeterCH]

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.




Looks like we're going to have to

Alan, Dick Cheney was all for nuke first strikes. It's common knowledge that the US has had a nuke strike first even on non-nuke but targets posing heavy risk for US, policy. It's nothing new. These would not even be huge nukes, not nearly as large as Hiroshima ones. Nukes are carried as cruise missiles and on subs and they can be shifted via bombers, but wherever there is a Navy taskforce around - it probably has nuclear strike capability. Not condemning this mind you, just pointing out that the Taleban, Libyans and others should know that they can be hit and very easily.

 

[PeterCH]

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 :

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:

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

NATO will pull out of Afghanistan. The only way to clean up that country would be to let the Russians in but this time not supply the Taleban with stingers.
Afghanistan is just not worth the lives.

 

[Alan]

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

*dons tinfoil hat*

Yes always the evil western imperialists fault. Of course everything was just peaceful and perfect before they got there

Alan, Dick Cheney was all for nuke first strikes. It's common knowledge that the US has had a nuke strike first even on non-nuke but targets posing heavy risk for US, policy. It's nothing new. These would not even be huge nukes, not nearly as large as Hiroshima ones. Nukes are carried as cruise missiles and on subs and they can be shifted via bombers, but wherever there is a Navy taskforce around - it probably has nuclear strike capability. Not condemning this mind you, just pointing out that the Taleban, Libyans and others should know that they can be hit and very easily.

We can go around and around on this. As I said the U.S couldn't politically get away with a nuclear first strike. Nukes are a deteerance not a front line offensive weapon. They haven't been strikes since WW2 during the many wars involving the U.S and they won't be unless somebody hits them with nukes first. Just give some thought to the reaction from people, governments and press around the world if the U.S used nukes.

So we agree to disagree again

NATO will pull out of Afghanistan. The only way to clean up that country would be to let the Russians in but this time not supply the Taleban with stingers.
Afghanistan is just not worth the lives.

Well originating from Afghanistan 3000 people were killed in a few hours on 9/11. How many western troops have died in 8 years occupying Afghanistan? I think it's justified keeping Afghanistan from reverting to it's previous state.

 

[Nanfeishen]

I think it's justified keeping Afghanistan from reverting to it's previous state.

From what has just occured in Kyrgyzstan, its going to become increasingly more difficult:

Kyrgyz MPs have voted to close a key US base supplying troops in Afghanistan, hours before Nato chiefs meet to study a US plea to boost troop levels.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7898524.stm

On the NATO meeting:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7900654.stm

Any withdrawal from Afghanistan, will be seen as a defeat, and will be utilised by the fundamentalist and Jihadist element to the full, creating more than just a few extra supporters to their cause.

 

[PeterCH]

We can go around and around on this. As I said the U.S couldn't politically get away with a nuclear first strike. Nukes are a deteerance not a front line offensive weapon. They haven't been strikes since WW2 during the many wars involving the U.S and they won't be unless somebody hits them with nukes first. Just give some thought to the reaction from people, governments and press around the world if the U.S used nukes.

So we agree to disagree again

Alan the point is that it's NATO/Pentagon policy. If it's policy and the means are there, this makes it a deterrent. I'm not against it but it is official policy.

Well originating from Afghanistan 3000 people were killed in a few hours on 9/11. How many western troops have died in 8 years occupying Afghanistan? I think it's justified keeping Afghanistan from reverting to it's previous state.

Removing Al Quada was the reason for the invasion. Its inevitable that NATO will pull out as there is no reason for them to occupy Aghanistan. They will cut a deal with Taleban, you'll see.

 

[Alan]

From what has just occured in Kyrgyzstan, its going to become increasingly more difficult:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7898524.stm

On the NATO meeting:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7900654.stm

Any withdrawal from Afghanistan, will be seen as a defeat, and will be utilised by the fundamentalist and Jihadist element to the full, creating more than just a few extra supporters to their cause.

Removing Al Quada was the reason for the invasion. Its inevitable that NATO will pull out as there is no reason for them to occupy Aghanistan. They will cut a deal with Taleban, you'll see.

Given the commitment( or lack there of) to Afghanistan it looks like there is going to be some form of settlement. Denying it being used as an Al Qaeda base of operations like it once was but a million miles away from it being a stable democratic country is what they'd hope for in a settlement. IMO this policy is doomed to fail. Afghanistan will descend back into it's old extremist Al Qaeda base it was in 90s and NATO will be forced to return some time in the future. That's why I'm of the opinion that you go in hard and fully committed and get the job done. Same with Iraq.

One might say that the last 8 years has distracted the extremists from attacking Western countries by keeping them focused on Afghanistan. But then troops must be kept there for decades in a low grade counter insurgency conflict. But politically that's not viable

Alan the point is that it's NATO/Pentagon policy. If it's policy and the means are there, this makes it a deterrent. I'm not against it but it is official policy.

Yes I get it. But it has a snow ball's chance in hell of being implemented. The Taliban and co know this and hence it's not an effective deterrent

 

[Frankie]

Pakistan suicide bomber kills dozens at Shia funeral

Any weapon in the hands of these "peaceful" ones is a disaster.

Pakistan suicide bomber kills dozens at Shia funeral

At least 25 people were killed today in a sectarian suicide bombing at a funeral in Pakistan.

Around 1,000 people were attending the funeral of Sher Zeman, a Shia Muslim leader who was shot dead yesterday, when a bomb ripped through the procession as it headed towards a cemetery, police said.

Ashiq Salim, a doctor at the main hospital in Dera Ismail Khan, 170 miles (270km) south-west of the capital, Islamabad, said the hospital was treating a further 60 people. Around 25 bodies had already arrived at the hospital, he said.

Sectarian violence between militant Sunni and Shia groups has plagued the town as the country struggles to contain a growing Taliban insurgency.

 

[PeterCH]

Yes I get it. But it has a snow ball's chance in hell of being implemented. The Taliban and co know this and hence it's not an effective deterrent

I beg to differ. The Taliban underestimated the US in 2001 when they refused to hand over Al Quada and showed GWB the middle finger. They did not expect they'd be carpet bombed and then attacked with a proxy army. Had they known what would happen, I'm sure they'd have delivered the Al Quada leadership on a platter.

I'm sure they now know not to underestimate the US.