Article

2007-11-05 India-Pakistan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by ed 2007-11-05 13:59|| || Front Page|| [8 views ] Top

#1 This is one of the classic situations where American ideals and American interests may diverge big time.

That's putting it rather lightly. The simple fact remains that America is literally handcuffed to Musharref. Imposition of martial law leaves Benazir Bhutto's potential arrival on the political scene delayed if not permanently forestalled. That Musharref shows no intention of purging the ISI indicates he is most likely trying to preserve the status quo of Pakistan's terrorist subtext while still pretending to fight the GWoT. All of this points towards an incredibly unstable situation that could dissolve into chaos at a moment's notice (i.e., Musharef's assassination).

At the risk of being blunt, better that all Pakistan be bathed in high energy plasma than have any of their nuclear weapons fall into terrorist hands. This ominous possibility is one that Pakistan itself created by assembling a nuclear arsenal amidst such constant political turmoil and extremism. In no way can the West be blamed for such imprudent conduct upon their part. Pakistan's obsession over attaining nuclear parity with India may well prove to be their unintentional death knell.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-11-05 15:05|| 2007-11-05 15:05|| Front Page Top

#2 "better that all Pakistan be bathed in high energy plasma than have any of their nuclear weapons fall into terrorist hands"
Pakistan has 169 million people. Would you kill 169 million people to avoid one nuke in terrorist hands?

Posted by Darrell 2007-11-05 15:13|| 2007-11-05 15:13|| Front Page Top

#3 "Would you kill 169 million people to avoid one nuke in terrorist hands?"

Depends. But in any case we aren't literally talking about killing every human being in the country. That is just pure exaggeration.

If a nuke were actually used against us that originated in Pakistan, then yes, I would favor the complete incineration of the entire country to bare rock. Not a single human, bird, squirrel, or blade of grass left alive.

Otherwise, I would hope Pakistan can get this worked out themselves.

Posted by crosspatch 2007-11-05 15:24|| 2007-11-05 15:24|| Front Page Top

#4 No. Most likely we might be able to hit a few select storage sites with tactical nukes to deactivate their nuclear arsenal. Unfortunately, Pakistan has tied so much of its international prestige to possessing nuclear weapons that they could just as easily try and shuttle them around to prevent such a scenario. The insanely high risk factors elevated by such an ill-advised strategy might then make it necessary to blanket them with nuclear explosions.

The entire nation of Pakistan is worth less than Rhode Island in my book. As I noted in my initial post, it is they who have brought to potential catastrophe upon themselves. Rather than invest in their nation's prosperity, they instead squandered untold billions of dollars upon developing and building a nuclear arsenal that places not just their local region, but the entire world at risk.

There is a price for such recklessness and irresponsibility. It may well prove to be their very existence.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-11-05 15:28|| 2007-11-05 15:28|| Front Page Top

#5 So Darrell, tell us how many you would kill?

Posted by ed 2007-11-05 15:46|| 2007-11-05 15:46|| Front Page Top

#6 Yes, Darrell. Remember, if you will, how quickly Iran fell to Ayatollah Khomeini. One minute nobody ever heard of the guy - next minute he's the Ruler of Persia. I can't say that I'm an expert on Pakistan but from where I'm sitting it looks like the same think could happen there any time now. The big difference would, of course, be Pakistan's nukes.

Now, the problem with MAD (if you remember your Cold War acronyms) is that it doesn't work with mad men. You want one of those nukes going off in New York City? Tel Aviv? London? I don't.

I don't want it going off anywhere. I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea of radioactive fallout circulating around the globe no matter where the original explosion occurred. I don't want that stuff in my environment. But I'd rather have the original explosion in Pakistan than here.

Let's just hope that Bush has a better plan. I still like the idea of Perv and some of his closest associates living in security and luxury somewhere in the south of France in exchange for those nukes being turned over to the US or India. Hell, I'd even let China have them. Then we could leave PakiWakiland to the crazies and let them seethe all they want.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2007-11-05 15:48|| 2007-11-05 15:48|| Front Page Top

#7 The big issue in all of this is the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear power, with as many as 95 nuclear warheads. Many of these designs are far more powerful than the first-generation devices

A few years ago I heard 40-50 warheads. So that numbered doubled in a few years. And some are reported to be deuterium/tritium boosted. Fun times ahead.

Posted by ed 2007-11-05 15:53|| 2007-11-05 15:53|| Front Page Top

#8 The simple fact remains that America is literally handcuffed to Musharref.

Not quite. We want to be handcuffed to the nukes. But they're under the control of Perv. So we settle for being handcuffed to him. The moment he looses control of the nukes, we drop him like a hot potato.

So the question becomes, to whom will he lose them? Is the situation comparable to Iran or the Philippines?

And what are the reactions of the other interested parties, India, China and Russia? While it would be fun for some terr to nuke the Great Satan, having a nuke in the back woods of Pakistan and detonating it on the CONUS are two very different things.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-11-05 16:21|| 2007-11-05 16:21|| Front Page Top

#9 So Darrell, tell us how many you would kill?

Aw com'on, ed, you weren't really expecting an honest answer to such a well-posed and salient question, were you?

But I'd rather have the original explosion in Pakistan than here.

A deft summary of the issue.

We want to be handcuffed to the nukes. But they're under the control of Perv. So we settle for being handcuffed to him. The moment he looses control of the nukes, we drop him like a hot potato.

My point as well. The problem is that once Musharref gets "dropped" (all puns intended), there is not going to be anyone to "pick up", save the remote chance of installing Benazir Bhutto. Even that premise assumes she can survive longer than it takes for the devil to get his shoes on.

Worst of all is how the moment things go titzup in Pakistan, Iran gets hurled onto the back burner. This is like some perverted "perfect storm" of major crises. Why is it absolutely no surprise that underneath every one of these damned rocks we find Islam there, slithering around?

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-11-05 17:02|| 2007-11-05 17:02|| Front Page Top

#10 In the coldest possible way, look at the bottom line here. Islamism in Pakistan that threatens to obtain nuclear weapons means mass extermination. How so ever it is done, or by who.

This could mean using a neutron bomb that would only kill lifeforms in the threatening area, leaving all buildings untouched, such as in the Waziristans or the city of Swat.

More likely, the introduction of a self-limiting, yet highly lethal biological weapon, designed to wipe out every person in a region in a week then die out itself.

It does mean the death of hundreds of thousands, or even some millions of people. But the alternative is the same, if Islamists obtain a nuclear weapon. Just different people. Possibly us.

Anything other than a stable Pakistan is intolerable. This means that Islamism has to end in that country, and for good.

We have tried to unify Pakistan under Perv's control, but he is really their last hope. Unless he can immunize his country from the possibility of Islamists taking control, then the Islamists must die.

If Perv quickly falls to Islamists, then not just the US, but China and Russia may be obligated by treaty to secure their nuclear weapons. And under such circumstances, there would be no limit to the amount of force used to accomplish that mission.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-11-05 17:14|| 2007-11-05 17:14|| Front Page Top

#11 Excellent analysis, 'moose. This is truly a, "them or us" situation.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-11-05 17:31|| 2007-11-05 17:31|| Front Page Top

#12 Just get them shipboard. Remind Perv that his bets are all hedged if he has control over the nukes and an escape hatch to take them with him. That means load them on ships the he can control, and keep them out of the hands of his opponents and of India. If it comes to him having to leave, those are his ticket out and great welth as he turns them over to the US or GB for "safekeeping" on Diego Garcia.

Posted by OldSpook 2007-11-05 18:46|| 2007-11-05 18:46|| Front Page Top

#13 One thing is for sure - Ghandi was right. India should NEVER have been partitioned into India and Pakistan. The facts that it was done so along ethnic lines means the Muslims in Paki have never been forced to deal with the modern world nor other cultures. ANd thats how we have the Taliban, etc.

Posted by OldSpook 2007-11-05 18:49|| 2007-11-05 18:49|| Front Page Top

#14 Pakistan has 169 million people. Would you kill 169 million people to avoid one nuke in terrorist hands?

Yes. Obviously. Next question.

Posted by Excalibur 2007-11-05 18:54|| 2007-11-05 18:54|| Front Page Top

#15 No minced words. That's something I really admire about you, Excalibur.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-11-05 19:21|| 2007-11-05 19:21|| Front Page Top

#16 If a single nuke from Pakistan goes missing we can assume the worst. We make a statement as official policy that unless it is returned we reserve the option of nuking Mecca if we are hit with a nuke.

I wouldnt give one second of warning. AND I would absolutely demolish pakistani facilities, stocks, and round up all relevant personnel and put them aside with no lawyers and no rights.

If pakistan got in my way I would make whoever gave me a problem bend over and kiss his butt goodbye.

American security is five stars, anything less is not an option. There is no law when your life is threatened. Old Spook is right. Take all the nukes offshore and use them as perv's ticket out if necessary.

If anybody fails to cover this problem 100%...get a rope.

I would kill Jesus and the entire Holy family before I would allow a single nuke to be in Islamist hands. 169 mill Pakis.? You got it.

as Anonymoose sez":
In the coldest possible way, look at the bottom line here. Islamism in Pakistan that threatens to obtain nuclear weapons means mass extermination. How so ever it is done, or by who.

This could mean using a neutron bomb that would only kill lifeforms in the threatening area, leaving all buildings untouched.

More likely, the introduction of a self-limiting, yet highly lethal biological weapon, designed to wipe out every person in a region in a week then die out itself.

It does mean the death of hundreds of thousands, or even some millions of people. But the alternative is the same, if Islamists obtain a nuclear weapon. Just different people. Possibly us.

Anything other than a stable Pakistan is intolerable. This means that Islamism has to end in that country, and for good.

We have tried to unify Pakistan under Perv's control, but he is really their last hope. Unless he can immunize his country from the possibility of Islamists taking control, then the Islamists must die.

If Perv quickly falls to Islamists, then not just the US, but China and Russia may be obligated by treaty to secure their nuclear weapons. And under such circumstances, there would be no limit to the amount of force used to accomplish that mission.

We wouldnt wait to say hello charlie if Perv goes down.

Posted by Angleton9 2007-11-05 19:48|| 2007-11-05 19:48|| Front Page Top

#17 American security is five stars, anything less is not an option.

Author! Author!

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-11-05 19:54|| 2007-11-05 19:54|| Front Page Top

#18 "So Darrell, tell us how many you would kill?"
As few as possible to do the job. I reckon that's at least a few short of 169 million, don't you? Tell me something: how do you think it looks to the world that you would rather "all Pakistan be bathed in high energy plasma than have any of their nuclear weapons fall into terrorist hands"? You appear to be as crazy as the Islamists. You justifiably hate them for being willing to kill you, yet you would willingly kill them and a hundred million innocents if given the chance. Personally, I find both you and the Islamists to be caught up in evil ways.

Nobody who knows me would call me a dove -- and many would call me a hawk -- but I'm not going to advocate killing more people than have to be killed to neutralize the threat. You guys are savoring words like "exterminate" and phrases like "blanket them with nuclear explosions" and "complete incineration of the entire country to bare rock." It's shameful.

Posted by Darrell 2007-11-05 20:07|| 2007-11-05 20:07|| Front Page Top

#19 "I would kill Jesus and the entire Holy family before I would allow a single nuke..."
I'm done with this thread.

Posted by Darrell 2007-11-05 20:10|| 2007-11-05 20:10|| Front Page Top

#20 It's ranting, not shameful; dumb, juvenile, unreasonable, unrealistic perhaps, but not shameful.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-11-05 20:11|| 2007-11-05 20:11|| Front Page Top

#21 You appear to be as crazy as the Islamists.

Only to an appeaser like you who not only refuses to answer ed's very pertinent question but cannot come up with any sort of realistic game plan. By the way, "As few as possible", does not qualify as a strategy. All of us hope for that same outcome, it just so happens many of us understand thatdespite all humanitarian concernssuch a constrained reponse may not even be a remote option.

Face ed's question fairly.

So Darrell, tell us how many you would kill?

Please feel free to run away. When confronted with this exact same question, you've done the exact same thing many times in the past.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-11-05 20:33|| 2007-11-05 20:33|| Front Page Top

#22 COUNTERTERROR BLOG > THE REAL CHAOS IN PAKISTAN + PAKISTAN'S NUKES MAY FALL INTO OTHER/FREE HANDS. Pakis secret nucprogs + unauthorized nuctech-weapons proliferation. AQ Khan's network never disassembled or destroyed - Iff Osama = Radical Islamism doesn't get nukes from the post-USSR "black market/mafias", can get it their own backyard = Pakistan.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-11-05 20:38|| 2007-11-05 20:38|| Front Page Top

#23 If Islamists took over Pakistan, I would be willing to kill as many as X or even 2X of Pakistanis to preemptively eliminate a nuke that could possibly kill X of us. But that is very different than wiping the country clean. Zenster, you seem to have strong urges to wipe every Muslim country clean, nukes or none.

A fine one you are to talk about my lack of a game plan, Zenster. You don't have a game plan -- you have a genocidal streak. And not staying up until midnight and not suffering fools gladly is not running away, it's not suffering fools gladly.

Posted by Darrell 2007-11-05 20:50|| 2007-11-05 20:50|| Front Page Top

#24 The insanely high risk factors elevated by such an ill-advised strategy might then make it necessary to blanket them with nuclear explosions.

That's what I call a realistic game plan.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-11-05 21:02|| 2007-11-05 21:02|| Front Page Top

#25 Thank you, NS. I rest my case.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-11-05 21:22|| 2007-11-05 21:22|| Front Page Top

#26 Given weather patterns, migration of survivors, general panic that would result among Pakistan's neighbors, sympathetic attacks by others, economic damages, etc., likely more than 169 million would die.

As to 'how many should one kill', it's a nice, clean, theoretical argument uncluttered by reality. Few of us here have the background or experience to make such a decision. And few have any concept of what possibly might happen afterwards.

Me, I don't know. It would depend on the situation, and what intelligence, assets, options, and how much time is available. Fortunately the decision would be waaay above my paygrade (this time).

Posted by Pappy 2007-11-05 21:28|| 2007-11-05 21:28|| Front Page Top

#27 Wipe Islam clean. That is--the political parasitical ideology, a cult, pretending to be a religion. Then all the problems related to it would disappear in no time. Yea, other problems would arise, they always do, but not in the global scope as this.

The question is how. Broad answer: Destroy the pillars it rests upon.

No mater what, some eggs would break, no other way to make an omelete. But the alternative is to go after muslims, and in all likelihood, if the disease that is Islam gets untreated, we would have to act as an organism attacked by a lethal organism, to resort to genocide.

Unfortunately, I don't see any motions towards the first option, which would almost assuredly result in the second one.

Posted by twobyfour 2007-11-05 21:37|| http://www.twobyfour.nfo/]">[http://www.twobyfour.nfo/] 2007-11-05 21:37|| Front Page Top

#28 From what I've read the last few days, the so-called Pakistan experts haven't got a clue how this is going to play out. I like Old Spook's plan: move the nuclear material out of reach of the vicious children. The problem is, I have no faith this government will convey the options to General (etc.) Musharref in a way he will understand as non-negotiable and unavoidable.

From what I can gather, the Islamists are interwoven throughout the Pakistan army, which means the army supporting the imposition of martial law is also undermining it. I still don't think we need to use our own nuclear bombs; surely we have plenty of conventional toys that make really big booms and bounce the rubble nicely. Suddenly destroying a significant number of mosques around the country, not to mention arms markets in Peshawar and elsewhere, particularly the Taliban provinces, would send an interesting message. The mosques will be easy to find -- they're the big, ornate things with towers for the muezzin to project the call to prayer five times a day.

Or perhaps some here with more military understanding than this little civilian housewife could make some serious suggestions. Would it be better to let the air force do bombing runs, use missiles from our ships in the regions, or start by firing from the Afghan side of the border?

Posted by trailing wife 2007-11-05 21:49|| 2007-11-05 21:49|| Front Page Top

#29 TW, your guesses are as valid as any others. No one is really an expert on Pakiwaki... too many factors in play. All that is apparent is that it would prove to be one helluva bloody mess, no matter how it is sliced.

Posted by twobyfour 2007-11-05 22:47|| http://www.twobyfour.nfo/]">[http://www.twobyfour.nfo/] 2007-11-05 22:47|| Front Page Top

#30 If we ever have to do a dirty deed there.... just make sure it is on friday when the mosques are full.

Posted by 3dc 2007-11-05 22:58|| 2007-11-05 22:58|| Front Page Top

#31 the army supporting the imposition of martial law is also undermining it

Which goes to the very heart of this problem and why Pakistan is doomed.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-11-05 23:54|| 2007-11-05 23:54|| Front Page Top

#32 Just need to convince Perv that the ONLY way he will retain those nukes is to move them to where WE can protect them - and him. And thats in a port city, near an airfield. Fortunately they have one of those. This way they get to keep them as a deterrent against India (for their own paranoia), it gives Perv a good escape hatch, and they are WAY away from the islamo-nutjobs and ISI the capitol.

And incidentally, well in reach of a battalion of Rangers dropping in from Balad AB Iraq and the old Soviet base in Afghanistan (Iraq & Stan come in handy!), Marines from an LPH over the horizon, tomhawks and SEALS from a converted Ohio SSGN, and carrier based aircraft, as well as a plain old "Face Saving" "escort" service by the US Navy for Perv and a tin can of his choice with the Nukes aboard.

This is our best hope - and its what State and DoD should be working on right now. Get the nukes located and accounted for, get them in a secure-able area, and get them as far away from the Talib and ISI as you can and as close to the water as you can.

Unfortuanlye State seems more insterested in punishing the Paks, and DoD under dickhead Fallon seems more intent on pissing on the Pakis to prove a point than covertly encouraging their military and command officers to work out "back-channel" deals for us to support them in the less Islamic areas near the coast in exchange for us helping them to secure the nukes.

Dumbasses. Fallon and Rice need to be fired for incomptence.

We dont need to kill 169 million, thats asenine to even talk about it.

Kill 10-12 of the right ones (pour encourager les autres) plus the top 5 in the ISI would be all we need to turn things our way temporarily , then after we get the nukes controlled, the rest of them can fight a civil war.

Advocating mass nuclear devastation is not only stupid, its the fallback of the unimaginative and incompetent.

Posted by OldSpook 2007-11-05 23:58|| 2007-11-05 23:58|| Front Page Top

23:59 Ulavimp Dingle7880
23:58 OldSpook
23:54 Zenster
23:05 Anguper Hupomosing9418
23:03 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:58 twobyfour
22:58 3dc
22:56 Vinegar Glick4227
22:54 twobyfour
22:47 twobyfour
22:34 Alaska Paul
22:12 mojo
22:11 JosephMendiola
22:07 mojo
22:05 mojo
22:00 Butch Hupemble1650
21:51 Zenster
21:49 trailing wife
21:46 Rich W
21:37 twobyfour
21:28 Pappy
21:22 Zenster
21:21 Frank G
21:20 Icerigger