It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If USA invades Iran could Iran overthrow Pakistan for there nukes?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   
I haven't seen this possiblity on any website or senerio, but if the USA does invade Iran could it be possible for Iranians to infiltrate Pakistan and help the radicals in that country overthrow Mushariffs governement.

If so then what?


You can garrentee if the USA invades or attacks Iran, Iran will send troops into Iraq....




posted on May, 7 2006 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Iran will not roll over like Hussein did that is for sure. They surely have a plan for a US invasion and I would bet it involves biological attacks on Israel via Syria and on our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If this war happens the US has to hit fast and hard or it will get real ugly. If we give them 18-24 months of diplomatic sanctions we would be better off to not attack at all.

You are correct Pakistan with Nukes is the most dangerous nuclear situation, even more so than North Korea and China.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Not really. Pakistan is run by the army. It has been like that for the last 30 years or so.
The army is more or less in control of everything: from politics to economics.
However there are a few segments of the Pak army that are still very sympathetic to the taliban.
Ever since his 180 degrees head turn on the Taliban in 2001, Musharaf has been actively/subtlely weeding these elements out as they serve as the greatest threat to his rule. Pakistan's nuclear assets are very well protected and I presume that Musharraf will
only entrust his most trusted colleagues to command the missile divisions, and the warheads themselves.
It is a disjoint N-command structure, just like India. The warheads and teh delivery platforms are NOT kept together for many obvious reasons. Their control is also segregated. So in the case of an authorised launch the warheads are towed to the missilesa and mated onsite while the missiles are being fueled.
The air delivery platforms (F-16 A/B) work the same way.
Hence in order for anyone malicious elements to gain complete control of a launch capability, they would need to have all of the above mentioned commands under their control. I am sure that Mushharraf would have placed the right people in the right places, so that only he can control the order of events.This is because Mushaarraf is well aware that if foreign powers (namely India and maybe the US) get even the slightest indication that he may NOT be in complete control of his N-assets, then they would be forced to act pre-emptively and take out anything that could enable rogue elements to launch against them.
And the real deal is that the rogue elements in their infinite stupidity may presume that India would be a softer/safer target to launch against rather than the US.

Unfortunately, even though India has a steadfast 'no first use' policy regarding the release of nukes, they(we)have a very severe retaliatory strike policy which employs total rather than measured retaliatory N-strikes.
IMHO India would find it very difficult to wait and see whether the launch was 'authorised' or not.A launch is a launch.Pakistan would be a wasteland.
I don't know what the US response would be if they were to get nuked from Pakistani soil, and I'm interested to know.

Summary:

1. So if Musharaf loses control of his nukes and the rogue elements launch against India, Pakistan goes back to the stone age.

2. If So if Musharaf loses control of his nukes and the rogue elements launch against India and the US, Pakistan still goes back to the stone age.

3. So if Musharaf loses control of his nukes and the rogue elements launch against US forces, Pakistan faces military action from both the US and India.

4. If Musharaf loses control of his nukes, he faces pre-emptive action from both the US and India anyways.

Musharraf's in a tough spot aye?


Responding to youg quote:



You can garrentee if the USA invades or attacks Iran, Iran will send troops into Iraq....


No.. If the US invades Iran, Iran will keep all its troops in Iran in the beginning at least. Only if they are able to push the US back will they have the option of going on the offensive.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Sending troops into Iraq, I feel would be small guerilla style units...Not a mass invasion of Iraq. Not about taking bridges, but for blowing up bridges, basicly using the same type of tatics the Iraqi insurgents are using, just amplified.

Pakistan scares the crap outta me, there are Many Pakistanis, although they might not be in control or in the loop, know Mushariffs set-up and how to gain whatever access they need for the warheads and missiles.

Im also not saying that Iran would Invade Pakistan, but move insurgent type forces there to aid and incite the radical in that country.

So lets say the USA Nukes Iranian nuke sights, then the above does happen in Pakistan...its easy to see how such an attack could quickly grow out of control.

Thanks for the reply Deadalus3 and JoshGator54 its a no win situation, if something similar goes down. Just Pakistan and India, givin there history really gives me the creeps....but is Mushariff goes down



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 04:26 AM
link   
I think you have been drinking, excuse me so frankly

Even India has no ability to invade Pakistan, Pakistan could nuke Iran, if Iran dare to invade them.
Otherwise, even Pakistan don't use nuke, they has enough airforce and landarmy to resist Iran. The F-16 can shout down any kind of Iran fighter, the MBT-2000 can destroy any kind of tank Iran equiped, Iran almost no navy. To invade Pakistan as Iran force no doubt is suicide.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 09:20 AM
link   
[Mod Edit: removed unnecessary quote of Entire preceeding post]

We're not talking about IRan invading Pakistan. You may have misunderstood. Were talking about a internal coup of sorts.
And India can very well invade Pakistan(although it has nothing to do with the topic at hand I am very eager to discuss this with you at length in an another thread/forum)..
I too wonder who's been drinking..




Quoting – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 5/7/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   

posted by LdragonFire

“ . . if the US invaded Iran is it possible for Iranians to infiltrate Pakistan and help the radicals in that country overthrow Musharraf’s government? [Edited by Don W]


Why do you refer to them as “radicals?” Could you not also call them “democrats” with a small “d?” Or could you not also call them “patriots?” I hold the view that 99.44% of Pakistanis are anti-US. Like Ivory Snow. Have you been victimized by US propagandists?


“ . . If so then what? You can guarantee if the US invades or attacks Iran, Iran will send troops into Iraq . . “


Well, at this point in time, any US invasion of Iran would logically be launched from Iraq rather than any other route. Air drops are out of the question, and a sea-borne invasion is too risky. It would be the over same route Saddam took in the 1980s. Which Iran can guess, too. Iran has 600,000 sq miles. 2.5 times the size of Texas. 68 millon people. Wow! We'd need a two pronged invasion force of 400,000 reinforced soldiers to make a real dent in Iran. Wow! We've got 130,000 in Iraq and 5,000 in Afghan. 38,000 in S. Korea. Invade Iran? Impossible.


posted by JoshGator54

Iran will not roll over like Hussein did. Iran surely has a plan for a US invasion. I bet it involves biological attacks on Israel and our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. [Edited by Don W]


I think Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s violent anti-Israel rhetoric is pure hyperbole for A) to jerk the US around and B) maybe some Shia versus Sunni meaning that escapes us.



“ . . If this war happens the US has to hit fast and hard or it will get real ugly. If we give them 18-24 months of diplomatic sanctions we would be better off to not attack at all.


I’m thinking America ought to stop talking this nonsensical and belligerent crap.


“ . . correct. Pakistan with Nukes is the most dangerous nuclear situation, even more so than North Korea and China.


Let me repeat, China is not aggressive. China’s army is for keeping the peace inside China. China will aggress only on the Taiwan issue and that when they are ready. And China will not accept that move would be aggression. Any Security Council action would be vetoed. Maybe by Russia, too. And France.

As for our so-called concern over Pakistan having nukes. We have none. It is only more prop-crap. Only the Pakistani maverick nuclear scientist is said to have furnished bomb making tech info to NK and anyone willing to pay his price. What did we do? Nothing. If we are worried why not pull a Mr Bull of super gun fame, on hm? We really don’t care about nuclear proliferation as long as it is one of “our” guys who proliferate. Israel is said to have 50 to 300 A bombs. Where did they get the critical ingredients? I’d say from the good ole US of A.

The former ambassador (under Clinton) said recently that she believes NK has material for 2 to 6 A bombs and by the end of this decade, will have enough for 10. Iran OTOH, cannot have its own A bomb for 2 to 10 years, depending on who is talking. So which is the more pressing? No matter how much W-DC lies, the truth is out there if people take the blinders off.



[edit on 5/7/2006 by donwhite]



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   
No way this decade (or the next) would Iran even consider invading Pakistan. After all not only are they the only Muslim nuclear power but as such they are...
1. A potential friend (some day anyway)
2. Someone who can keep the c*** out of Iran
3. Someone who if attacked would cause the world to attack them

Iran's best option is without a doubt to build on friendship with Pakistan. If they are capable of removing the current (and rather unpopular) pro American government and then putting friendlier one in; then they should do so about now.

If I were Iran I would say to Pakistan...
"We can be friends or we can be enemies. We fully understand that you need to be pro-American as far as routing out terrorists who not only threaten America but also your own government. And frankly as the Americans seem so willing to help you on this problem we see little reason why anyone in power would do things differently. The U.S is our great enemy not yours. But as Muslim brothers we would like your support, we could trade more and in the long term make that U.S influence seem so much like a thing of tomorrow. The U.S after all has a long term interest in India and next to none in you. But we respect (in current circumstances) your decision to work with them.
So long as the door for friendship remains open the government of Iran will have no involvement in any activity in overthrowing you. We don't won't want to, we just want help as brothers in religion and the long term challenges that face us.

P.S Please note the historical case of Iraq where the U.S (and or) its allies is widely believed to have led Saddam into thinking the Iranians had violated a border agreement by using the Kurds to steer up trouble in Iraq. We now know that in this last instance it was foreign elements (in the disguise of our people) who were bribing Kurdish tribal leaders into steering up trouble in Iraq.
Tragically it was this same last instance that led to the Iran-Iraq war in which millions of good Muslims died on both sides. We ask you to note this historical in case the U.S (or any of its allies) should (in their way of repeating history) disguise any work against your government as that of our own.

(As said) as long as the door for friendship remains open the Peoples Republic of Iran shall have no such intentions; or indeed harbour any such actions.

Yours sincerely Iotallah Nuclear xxx
(Hand drawn pictures of mushrooms below)
Maybe a map of Israel would be a good background for this letter?



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   
If USA invades Iran could Iran overthrow Pakistan for there nukes?

No need to wait for the hypothetical "What If" scenerio:


Militants fighting the Pakistani army in the Waziristan tribal region on Saturday distributed leaflets in the name of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, calling for the assassination of President Pervez Musharraf.

"I also pray to the one and the only Almighty Allah to teach a telling lesson to Bush, Musharraf and their forces, and give a chance to the lions of Islam to kill the slave of Bush in Pakistan," read the leaflet.

Musharraf, has survived several al Qaeda assassination attempts by Pakistani jihadi groups since siding with U.S. President George W. Bush in a global war on terrorism following the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.

And bin Laden's Egyptian deputy Ayman al-Zawahri, who is believed to be moving between the Pashtun tribal lands on either side of the Pakistan-Afghan border, last month issued a videotape again calling for Pakistanis to overthrow Musharraf.

"Osama" leaflets circulate in Pakistani tribal area


Ever wondered whether Iran supported and/or aided Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden? I have, even more so, especially considering past reports that OBL was in and out of Iran on numerous occasions and this latest article:


MI6, Britain's secret intelligence service, has identified six Pakistani scientists working in Iran's nuclear bomb program who have been "advising al-Qaida on how to weaponize fissionable materials it has now obtained."

MI6 and the International Atomic Energy Agency believe the scientists have played a major role in enabling Iran to be "well advanced in providing uranium enriched materials for nuclear bombs," said Alexander Cirilovic, a nuclear terrorism expert in Paris.

Both high-level MI6 and CIA sources have confirmed the scientists would only have been allowed to assist al-Qaida with the authority of Iran's unpredictable President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

From JOSEPH FARAH'S G2 BULLETIN: Brit MI6 confirms bin Laden nukes







seekerof

[edit on 7-5-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 09:52 PM
link   
When the Taliban were still in power in Afghanistan, there was major hostility with Iran. Iran even threatened to invade Afghanistan on a few occasions, at one point with some 200,000 troops on the border I believe. So, considering that the Taliban were sponsoring al Qaeda there, I doubt there would really be any kind of positive connection between al Qaeda and Iran. But since you are referring to more recent articles, maybe things have....hey, wait a minute...you're quoting WorldNetDaily....haha, almost had me. Is there another source for that G2 bulletin or is this another WorldNetDaily exclusive
?



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Source issues again, Jamuhn?
Got an insider there in MI6?
Let me know, cause your continued habit of having source issues does not change the validity or merit of the article linked and in question.






seekerof

[edit on 7-5-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofLet me know, cause your continued habit of having source issues does not change the validity or merit of the article linked and in question.


Right, so then you would consider it proper for me to cite a Rense.com article in response? How do you know that WND has an insider in MI6? How do you know all this isn't just made up? I hope you aren't emulating the Bush Admin/CIA's record of faulty intelligence just to try and justify a war. WorldNetDaily has a history of faulty analysis, sensationalist propaganda, and flat out lying.

Quote another source unrelated to WND if this aritcle is valid or contains merit.

[edit on 7-5-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   
How's this?

Boston Globe

Now, I'm not gonna get into the issue of whether or not the Globe is getting their scoop from the nuts at WND, but sufficed to say you wanted mainstream, so there ya go.

This leaflet is apparently circulating. Who's circulating it, and why, is a matter of conjecture, if you're inclined towards thought of conspiracy...



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Musharaf is the best Pakistan can have at the moment..
If he goes, and a non-democratic islamist govt. comes to power.. then you can say bye bye to Pakistan..
India's not going to wait for some nutcase to chuck a few WMDs here and there..
So for Pakistan's sake Musharraf should not secede to a coup or a radical govt..
Infact I can go so far by saying that Musharraf was/is supplied vital intel on movements of terror groups in PoK (Pak occupied Kashmir) by Indian intelligence agencies so that he can:

1. Shut those damn things down (but he apparently doesn't want to)
2. Save his own behind..



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Now, I'm not gonna get into the issue of whether or not the Globe is getting their scoop from the nuts at WND, but sufficed to say you wanted mainstream, so there ya go.


That's not the article from WND. Seeker quoted two articles, one from Reuters concerning what you just quoted from the Globe and the one from WND concerned this:
'MI6, Britain's secret intelligence service, has identified six Pakistani scientists working in Iran's nuclear bomb program who have been "advising al-Qaida on how to weaponize fissionable materials it has now obtained."'

I don't have a problem with non-mainstream sources as long they don't involve people with OBVIOUS agendas.

But, interesting nonetheless about this supposed al Qaeda leaflet. I don't think it's much of a surprise though that the Taliban remnants don't like Musharraf.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite


As for our so-called concern over Pakistan having nukes. We have none. It is only more prop-crap. Only the Pakistani maverick nuclear scientist is said to have furnished bomb making tech info to NK and anyone willing to pay his price. What did we do? Nothing. If we are worried why not pull a Mr Bull of super gun fame, on hm? We really don’t care about nuclear proliferation as long as it is one of “our” guys who proliferate. Israel is said to have 50 to 300 A bombs. Where did they get the critical ingredients? I’d say from the good ole US of A.


Although I hvae repeatedly said simliar stuff (i.e. the US turns a blind eye to Pakistani proliferation), I must correct you on two counts:

1. The US never helped the Pak nuke program. Infact they did much to stop it as they were well aware that a Pak bomb could eventually find its way to other rogue anti US establishments in Pakistan itself or abroad.
Read up on something called the Pressler Amendment which crippled Pakistan around 1988 when Pakistan reached the level of enrichment required for weapons grade plutonium/uranium.

2. It was not ONLY the Pak maverick as you refer to him, who preliferated to Iran.
True he was the one who took the sole/entire responsibility for this technology transfer but rest assured he could not done something of this magnitude w/o the consent of the Pak authority (in othe words the Pak Army). IMO the US is wel aware of this, but has carefully decided to overlook this, because of Pakistan's vital role in South Asia and the war on terror. It is here where I completely agree with you on the point of US hypocracy on proliferation.

Also on another note, you cannot condemn the US for proliferation vis-a-vis Israel because whoever helped Israel (recent reads on ATS poin to France, SA, UK as well) did so before anything called the NPT was even thought of. Israel's nukes are more legal than those of Iran.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
That's not the article from WND. Seeker quoted two articles, one from Reuters concerning what you just quoted from the Globe and the one from WND concerned this:
'MI6, Britain's secret intelligence service, has identified six Pakistani scientists working in Iran's nuclear bomb program who have been "advising al-Qaida on how to weaponize fissionable materials it has now obtained."'

I don't have a problem with non-mainstream sources as long they don't involve people with OBVIOUS agendas.

The mention of "agendas" is really ironic here, Jamuhn, because on one hand, you use such a measure to discount sources you may not necessarily agree with, and yet, on the other hand, accept other agenda-ridden sources when you do agree with their commentaries or assessments (ie: NYTs, etc.). If you do dispute this, I can take the time to check your post history and find those OBVIOUS agenda-ridden sources you DO agree with.

A simple key search on GOOGLE produced a 2004 article talking about the Pakistan-Al Qaeda connection and another 2004 article supporting the mention that Pakistan has been aiding Iran's nuclear program.

So, accordingly, this WND article asserting what MI6 has determined is or is not saying anything new here or simply confirming old news? But, hey, you keep playing that source game without checking with your favorite search engine forst, k?







seekerof

[edit on 7-5-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofSo, accordingly, this WND article asserting what MI6 has determined is any saying anything new here or simply confirming such? But, hey, you keep playing that source game without checking with your favorite search engine forst, k?



See, you've done exactly what I asked for, to provide some kind of background of the situation independent of WND. Yet, I still question the direct connection WND is trying to make in that "has identified six Pakistani scientists working in Iran's nuclear bomb program who have been "advising al-Qaida on how to weaponize fissionable materials it has now obtained." Iran's nuclear bomb program?

Maybe somebody should give the US a heads-up about this seeing as they are trying to make a case to the UN.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   
LOOK SEERKOF, if the MI6 has evidence about iran having nuclear weapons then WHY ISNT anyhting being done about it????


TELL THE WORLD abt it. evidence = cause of concern = immediate action.
NO??

SHOW ME THE PROOF!!



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Musharaf is the best Pakistan can have at the moment..
If he goes, and a non-democratic islamist govt. comes to power.. then you can say bye bye to Pakistan..
India's not going to wait for some nutcase to chuck a few WMDs here and there..
So for Pakistan's sake Musharraf should not secede to a coup or a radical govt..


i strongly agree with you on this...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join