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.

 

Pakistan 'may declare emergency' UPDATE: Musharraf rejects emergency rule

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by acegotflows
man, that whole area is going to go thru a major happening soon. Such a powderkeg waiting to ignite...


So is the U.S., my friend, so is the U.S.




posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Musharaf's time is ticking away and he will be ousted before we know it. The islamists have a large support amongst the populace, and they WILL have a plan on how they want to take Musharaf down and what they will do with their newfound power.

The Islamists are not a dumb bunch of people, they have a plan and will execute it. They know that Musharaf's in the back pocket of the USA, and by toppling his grip on power, the US may launch air strikes against them.

For this reason, I bet, that as his presidential palace is being over-run, at the very same time, the nuclear weapons facilities in Pakistan would be getting over-run aswell.

It goes hand in hand. You cannot control Pakistan and not control the nukes, and the islamists have a grudge against many people.

Possible Outcome (Theoretical) - Islamists over-run presidential palace and catch Musharaf before he can get to his US helicopter. Helicopter shot down, Musharaf executed publicly and hung up for display to Al-Jazeera.

Simultaneously, Islamists take control of the armed forces and rid any opposition amongst their ranks quickly and secure for themselves the nuclear weapons of Pakistan.

What do you think they will do now? Have control of Pakistan, have control and support of army, and the nukes......and Bush reckons Iran is the problem.


Pakistan could either go it alone and let the nukes fly into US bases in Afganistan, Kashmir and/or Indian cities, thou I beleive this would be almost suicide.

Or, they could go publicly on Al-Jazeera, declare their control over the country, and join up with Iran, Syria, and other Central Asian nations to quickly form the muslim caliphate that they have all been dreaming of.

Could go very sour very quickly.

Just think for a second, within the space of 2 to 3 weeks after the fall of Musharaf, you'd get an Islamic Caliphate bodering Greece with Turkish Islamists taking over there too, bordering and completely surrounding Israel, Im sure the public in Saudi Arabia would overthrow their rulers there with the flow on effects of Islamist Coup throoughout the Arab world.

Most of south eastern Asia would follow, including the worlds most populace muslim nation, Indonesia, bordering Australia.

It'd be a nuclear armed Caliphate with a geopgraphic span to rival Genghis Khan at his peak, thou with many many more soldiers willing to destroy the west. A NIGHTMARE SCENARIO.

If Musharaf gets taken out, I say nuke the Pakistan in its entirety to save the rest of us from the repercussion that would entail.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Fundamentally, I think you're right. I'm not sure that the U.S. would send troops in to Pakistan if the Musharraf regime fell. The risk of getting bogged down in yet another country would simply be too much.


I hear you and I agree with your thinking the key would come down to good planning and the right strategy. To be quiet frank I think that there to many US military leaders who don't know how to fight a counter insurgency war so it would be beneficial if the expansion of the war was planned by coalition leaders.




I can't imagine any member of NATO being up for a long campaign in what amounts to another Vietnam. No stable government could be put in place that the U.S. or its allies would tolerate.


If the coalition does nothing then a regime change will become necessary in the future but for now something along the lines of the US invasion of Cambodia with a permanent coalition presence fighting the war for the hearts and minds of local.

Every country from New Zealand to the countries that make up the NATO alliance need to step up and deal with the Pakistan problem. If nothing is done then things are only going to get worse and the coalition will be shown to not have the will and/or the courge to win the war in Afghanistan.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
I find it ironic that a coup in Pakistan could potentially put hundreds of nukes and a few subs in the hands of OBL.


ive been out of the loop for a while but the last briefing i got (which admittedly was in '02) stated that pakistan and india each only had ONE nuclear weapon by treaty and pakistans was in peices spread out around the country but in such a proximity as to have it assembled and online within a few hours. this way not only could a suprise indian attack not take out their sole nuke but it would be harder for anyone else to steal from them should the govt fall.

ill admit my info is dated but unless they violated the treaty and the un inspectors have been looking the other way chances of ossama getting his hands on several usable nukes is slim.

of course the downside is that a country that can make one can make more and if factions loyal to ossama end up in power it wouldnt be long before we had a real problem to deal with.

lets hope things dont get to outta whack too fast.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 03:33 AM
link   
My god I read this and it sounded exactly like George Bush.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 03:40 AM
link   
Damocles,

You are right in stating that the fissile material is kept seperate from the delivery systems - but they have more than one warhead. It is estimates range from 35 to 92.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Some thoughts:



  1. The emergency seems to be driven by a fear that there is much public support against his(Mushy's) rule and possible extension. Yes it is probably being fueled/funded by nutty islamic fundamentalists as well for their own nefarious motives but IMO the main driving force is for a puh to return to democracy.
  2. This is a very tricky predicament for India. It is obvious that even Pakistan's arch enemies prefer Mushy to a islamist government, and have infact gone to lengths to protect his life. However India(like the rest of the world) would like to see a democratic process in Pakistan. Contrary to popular belief the majority of Pakistanis are enlightened, modern and 'civilised'.
  3. If psycho islamists come to power in Pakistan, the first country to face the direct consequences would be India(and not the west as some perceive). Whether this would be an increase in insurgency/terror attacks or something much more horrendous (like a Nuclear strike) is yet to be seen.
  4. India would prefer to stay out of Pakistan in all senses: physically, morally, religiously and ideologically. So any hopes of India leading an offensive into Pak are false. However I do believe that India(along with the US, EU, China and Russia) would move to reach a consensus on immediate seizure of WMD assets in PAk if the islamists take over. India would ONLY support such moves if a global consensus on the same is reached.
  5. Lastly, I really hope it doesn't come down to islamo-psychos taking over. It would be a nightmare for people here in the subcontinent. Not only would us Indians be under to constant fear of being nuked; but I feel for the millions of Pakistanis(decent law-abiding citizens) who would most definitely obliterated in an all-out Indian retailiatory Nuclear strike.


We can all dream for a transparent democracy to take root in Pakistan. And even if that remains a dream, we need to ensure that it doesn't degrade to a islamist trigger happy state. Anything in between (even the current military dictatorship) is bearable.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles


ive been out of the loop for a while but the last briefing i got (which admittedly was in '02) stated that pakistan and india each only had ONE nuclear weapon by treaty and pakistans was in peices spread out around the country but in such a proximity as to have it assembled and online within a few hours. this way not only could a suprise indian attack not take out their sole nuke but it would be harder for anyone else to steal from them should the govt fall.

ill admit my info is dated but unless they violated the treaty and the un inspectors have been looking the other way chances of ossama getting his hands on several usable nukes is slim.


The one-nuke thing is a little far-fetched.. Pakistan has anywhere between 15-50 warheads out of which say 10-20% can be ballistic missile launched and the rest aerially delivered.
India has anywhere between 50-150 warheads with the same deliverable percentage splits.

Another FYI...
India has a 'no-first-use' N-Doctrine:
India will not use N-weapons unless attacked by them first.
However once attacked by N-weapons India maintains the right, as stated in its doctrine, for a total(even massively disproportionate) N-response to the attack.


And yes both countries have a detached assembly nuclear protocol by which the warhead, launch vehicle and fuel for the launch vehicle are separated geographically.
This reduces the risk of accidental launch. Moreover is reduces the risk of decimation/capture of nuclear assets by singular and concentrated attacks.
The conundrum is that this poses a complexity if it comes down to securing Pak N-assets in the event of a islamist take over.
In any case it will be tough for both(more so for islamists) to secure entire launchable weapon system(s) as they would need to maintain synchronous control over all components for a bare minimum to execute a successful launch.
The international parties trying to prevent this launch would just need to control/destroy one of these key components.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 04:11 AM
link   
Where is this world heading to in the coming years.....?

1. America's economy will collapse
2. Pakistan is at the brink of disaster
3. Iran is having an eye on the Zionists
4. Hibolla on Israel and Lebanon
5. Syria waiting to get involved
6. Russion in cold war status quo
7. The Chinese Dragon is waking up
8. North Korea and it's nukes
9. Total failure of the US in Iraq

...

[edit on 9-8-2007 by Terrapop]

[edit on 9-8-2007 by Terrapop]



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Oooooo IS THAT A DRAFT I feel blowing?

Old Musharef must be stealing a play from Mr Bush & Cheney play book..
The pretext for the next war is now in place..PERFECT...Man time to buy some more gold.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by BostonOrange
I bet India has its trigger finger ready on its nukes, just in case the islamist take over.


Not Really. India ain't trigger happy. A kick in the butts of those Islamist extremists are enough. You don't need to nuke millions of Pakistani's just to screw a few of those terrorists.

But the chickens have finally come home to roost! 15 years of molly-coddling the terrorists and helping them to spread terror in Kashmir with the Pakistani aim of 'bleeding India with a thousand cuts' has finally boomeranged! They are getting it back with interest!

First and foremost the notorious Pakistani intelligence agency, ISI, needs to be disbanded pronto. They're a government within a government, who have gone berserk meddling in the internal affairs of all its neighbors.

A so called civilian democratic government would find it well neigh impossible to control ISI for fear of being packed off just like Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharrief. They are the people who run the country with the help of the Muslim extremists. In fact the ISI is officered mostly by radical elements starting from the top, down to the lowest rungs. And the CIA knows this.


So then, taking out Musharraf at this stage is unwise as he's the only guy with a little say in the ISI. A civilian government will just be a puppet-on-a-string.

Things undoubtedly have gone haywire for the ISI. Millions of dollars of weapons are being dished out by them to the Taliban who have now started to roll in Pakistan too! So now we have the ISI in a quandary. They need to help the Talibs with weapons and ammo in order to take back Afghanistan, as it's part of their doctrine of Strategic Depth against India.

But then those arms and ammo worth billions that the ISI has given to the Talibs is now being used against the Pakistan Army and their Para Military forces to defy state authority.

Damned if they help the Taliban, damned if they don't! Oh boy! What a mess!

------------------------------------
Mod Edit - Replaced contentious term with Pakistani




[edit on 9/8/07 by masqua]



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gools

news.bbc.co.uk

Pakistan's government is considering imposing emergency rule, the country's information minister has said.
...
(visit the link for the full news article)



Man you have to love the British Media they make a big deal out of something while the rest of the world claims He rejected the calls for an emergency

One can only assume it is a slow news day for them or Reuters is lying again



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 08:11 AM
link   
The story has been developing overnight, and the head lines were changed this morning, nobody's lying (in the sense you alluded to).



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Sounds to me like Musharraf is the master of the 'ole "good cop, bad cop" routine...his position is still precarious but he might just hold it for a little while longer.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Hey there XPERT11

Again our little ol Country gets the call in time of need!
See the problem is convincing people that this is a time of need.. Alot of people are so ignorant to whats happening in the world. I was discussing our local news broadcasts with my flatmate tonight saying how appauling our coverage on international issues such as this are..

New Zealand has played it's cards very carefully in the way of stepping into affairs of the world because as everyone can now see its all just a big bowl of spaghetti.

I agree with you though. I think New Zealand, Australia Spain Europe and everyone needs to realize that if we lose Pakistan to extremist Islamic control, its gone past the point of untangling the mess... Pluuus we will have a few more problems to worry about sooner rather than later (CRAZY PEOPLE WITH NUKES)

It's a wierd predicament though. Would we get involved? In a pointless war where no one is sure who the bad guy is anymore? It's hard for anyone to say. Makes me think NZ's election next year could be kinda important


Edited for spelling...



[edit on 9-8-2007 by ka0s69]



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 08:25 AM
link   
FreeThinkerIdealist and Discomfort said it best.

I hope Bush isn't foaming at the mouth yet:


The president would have also been able to postpone national elections due to be held later in 2007, which could have enabled him to continue in his role as chief of Pakistan's powerful military.


We all know Bush is wringing his dictorial hands at this one. I'm sure he was afraid he'd look like a Johnny Come Lately if this were to happen before he could implement his Presidential Order.

The world of free men will fall.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 08:28 AM
link   
And, you know, if the situation continues to deteriorate, this could be all the excuse Bush needs to declare emergency powers and/or extend his presidency beyond 2009.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 10:44 AM
link   
I like how this happens just as Obama and Clinton start arguing about going in to Pakistan to get OBL. Makes you kind of wonder if martial law might be being used to convince America that they're totally against terrorism, so no invasion is needed! Pretty drastic action if that's true, though.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gools
The story has been developing overnight, and the head lines were changed this morning, nobody's lying (in the sense you alluded to).


I realize that Gools. I was simply trying to point out reuters recent track record is not the best

Finnish paper claims Reuters used Titanic film shot

I could list several however the most recent should do since I am sure you as I are aware they have been less then honest in reporting and are notorious for altering photos


Did they alter the one mentioned in the article I am not sure, yet have to suspect them because of recent errors the have made in reporting false information on page one one day and the next day they print a one line retraction on page 59 or whatever, you get my drift I am sure.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
And, you know, if the situation continues to deteriorate, this could be all the excuse Bush needs to declare emergency powers and/or extend his presidency beyond 2009.


Man, I hate Star Wars.

How the heck can the President "declare emergency powers" to extend his presidency. There's nothing in the Constitution that lets him do that, and I couldn't even imagine a Republican Congress passing whatever necessary laws are required.

If you're at the point where the President can just say "Whoah, I think I'm gonna stay a little longer," then he doesn't need to. It's already a dictatorship.

EDIT: I know that the President can declare a "state of emergency." We've been in one since like 1995 when Clinton did it. He's not in office any more


[edit on 8-9-2007 by Esoterica]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join