It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Bhutto Killed=Pakistan Chaos=Nuke Hunt=Iran War

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

+21 more 
posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 12:59 PM
You've probably heard that former Prime Minister of Pakistan and opponent of Pervez Musharaff, Benazir Bhutto has been assassinated. For more on that, including theories on who's behind it, please visit This Thread, by Jgruh4e.

But I'm creating this thread to consider the consequences vis-a-vis Iran. Whoever is behind this, it has created a moment of opportunity for a lot of people.

Iran must see the chance to blame Musharaff and bring about an Islamic Revolution in Pakistan, which would isolate Afghanistan and cause US efforts there to fail, and give Iran a like-minded nuclear nation for a neighbor, and maybe even free nukes of its own.

Musharaff must be worried about being blamed, and about who (including him) might be next if this is pure terrorism. He will want more crackdowns. That will beget internal problems for Pakistan.

And The US, on top of seeing the two above very real dangers, must also see the chance to use them as justification for preemptive action.

If the terrorists are making a bid to create a power vaccuum in Pakistan, there's gonna be a civil war. If Musharaff cracks down, that may prompt a civil war, maybe even a coup, although that's not entirely likely since Musharaff has close ties to his commanders.

Either way, the US immediately tells Musharaff that we're coming for the nukes, and if he wants our help he'd better allow it. I don't really think we'll get there in time with the kind of forces it will take if things get very chaotic in that country (because I don't think the Pakistani military will hand over the nukes without a fight, regardless of Musharaff's orders, and you know that ISI will be working against us).

Then we've got a nuke hunt, and a blank check to covertly cross Iranian borders going after them. We're not talking about a few panty raids. We're talking about putting batallions on the ground in Iranian space to block roads and search whole towns that are considered possible pit-stops for the alleged traffickers, and bombing the holy hell out of any Iranian forces that so much as twitch when they go in.

Will Iran take that sitting down? No. They'll kill a few dozen of our guys and lose a few hundred of theirs. And we won't find the missing nukes, be they real or imaginary. And America will want revenge.

This represents the single best chance Bush has ever had or will ever have to make Pakistan 100% compliant AND invade Iran. If he doesn't take it, I will be very worried about just how degraded our military is, because I don't think for a second he'll hesitate if he thinks he can pull it off.

And the stakes are higher than the official explanations. Pakistan controls the future of Afghanistan because Pakistan controls Afghan access to the sea. Covert control of Pakistan gives us incredible influence over India, because they won't want us to set up another Iraq on their border and then limit what they can do about it ala Iraq/Turkey. Iran, more than just giving us oil, gives us a compelling presence in Central Asia to check any future Chinese ambitions for westward expansion, not to mention the economic pressure it would put on China. That's a lot of motivation.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 01:22 PM
Ya know, the top presidential runner ups were falling all over each other on this disasterious event. Romney, Guiliani, McCain, Huckabee, Edwards, Clinton, Thompson were all positioning themselves in the light of who knows what better than the other. So what we have here is a primer for our elections to buyin the best candidate who knows the game and how to play it for keeps. I had to laugh when these clowns were grandstanding in a moment of conflict Xing democracy. How cheap to stand before Americans and claim some sort of connection to the martyr for there own personal gain.

Instead of civil war being the affair, I think it more a holy war with WMD waving in the face of peace.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 01:43 PM
reply to post by The Vagabond

Indeed the next few days and weeks will be extremely interesting.

Lets pray cooler heads prevail. I think the scenarios you outlined playing out in any combination have the potential to start WWIII.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 02:08 PM
I don't think this will be a direct trigger for a World War. If anything, it may be to WWIII what the Franco-Prussian War was to WWI. That is to say, a fairly one-sided affair that humiliates an old rival and ticks a lot of people off, setting the stage for a larger war down the road.

Nuclear crisis works on escalation. There is not much of anywhere for Russia or China to begin with escalation here. America can be up to its waist in Pakistan and Iran at the drop of the hat- China can't move a compelling force to protect either of them in time and Russia just plain won't- The Russians have a long and proud history of talking a running their chicken-hawk mouth while slowly moving their sparrow butt out of our way.

China could try to use Taiwan or South Korea or even Japan as a chip against us like West Berlin, but I think we know that Taiwan is lost eventually and would let it slide, and I think China realizes that their advantages would be somewhat mitigated on the Korean peninsula (not to mention that it's a nuclear powder keg they don't want to smoke near).

I think if we do it, China drops the dollar a little bit- enough to severely cramp American lifestyles and put a ripple effect through Europe that would result in severe international pressure, but not enough to completely tank us, because that would be cutting their nose off to spite their face- we're an important market for China and they will want to shove us really hard then make up, not knock us down completely.

We proceed with the war anyway, and China lets that stand then because they know it will turn into an Iraq and we'll be gone in 2 years or less, depending on how fast the next president moves.

Iraq would become a lost cause and we'd prop up a warlord to fill the vaccuum while we moved troops out of Iraq in favor of the new war.

Ron Paul would gain a lot of traction on an event like that- enough to justify staying in the race after losing the primary, and with a split Republican ticket and the most progressive Democrat available making big gains, the election would be almost a formality for Hillary.

Hillary would let Bill be the front man to negotiate the big peace, wherein we'd retain responsibility for Pakistan but leave Iran to Russia and China. And when it was all said and done we've got Pakistan and Afghanistan, though they are unstable, plus a new, slightly more pro-US Saddam in Iraq that is at odds with Iran.

In short, it's a rewind to 1988 in a lot of ways. Which is what the NWO types want. 1991-92 was a really good year for them afterall. (Putin is setting Russia up to be rewound into the late 80s early 90s as well). Basically I see this as part of a big do-over, because they screwed it up the first time the wall came down.

WWIII comes in around 2020-2025 if they screw it up again, because China just keeps getting stronger, and China is NOT playing ball. They'll still be ticked at us, they'll know we have to keep trying (for a 3rd time) and they will be in a position to do something about it then.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 02:51 PM
Nice work...

But with one glaring omission... The real reason Pakistan created it's nuclear program in the first place and it's historical adversary: India.

I'm sure there have been some interesting conversations in New Delhi.

Ironically, the last protracted hostilities between India and Pakistan led to the rise of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was was the political force behind the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Pakistan.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:00 PM
Yeah, the Indians are pretty on edge about this according to what I've read, but I don't think they'll catch the brunt of the problems honestly. Unlike the terrorism that America faces, that facing India is driven by territorial disputes, and that makes nuclear terrorism a less attractive option, especially when retaliation is considered.

I'm sure that there will be problems on India's borders if things start to unravel in Pakistan, but all sides (except the Pakistanis themselves) seem to like India- I don't think America, Russia, and China will let much bad come to them- not that the Pakistanis are able to do much more than badly irritate India, short of cutting their nose off to spite their face by going nuclear.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 07:03 PM
If we do go to "war" with Iran,I hope America has its begging hand ready.
Cause were either gonna need to borrow more money from China,or rape the American people in order to pay for it.
Our country is going broke fighting these wars.
The last thing this country needs is another war somewhere.
We cant afford the ones were fighting now.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 07:19 PM
A good point Black_Fox, but I'm not so sure that the present administration cares. He's probably planning to do the same thing with America that he does with his oil companies: run them into massive debt then sell them to the Bin Laden family at a tidy profit.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 07:24 PM
great post vaga,
I dont think we'll come close to putting any forces in Iran covertly though, because Iran will immediatley pick this up.
All of a sudden covert ops become military action, very public military action.
And with all the sabre rattling from the US against Iran, it will be viewed as a whole lot MORE, than just paki nuke hunting.

As soon as I saw bhutto's news report, The Arch Duke came to mind.

Just 1 person's death can cause so much strife leaning to much more death.

According to reports, 2 oppositions of Musharraf were gunned down yesterday.
There's going to be a big backlash within pakistans society... civil war could erupt here.

People were against the emergency rule enforced a month or so ago.
Now, having seen 2 oppositions murdered in the same day... really portrays just whats going on inside pakistan.

The people wont stand for it.

If America does put forces on the ground in Pakistan to protect or pick up the nuclear weapons, it will be like a MAGNET of conflict.
you can be your bottom dollar alqaeda will start popping up all over the silo's taking pot shots at America's and trying their hardest to kill them.

I think, Musharraf himself is just as bigger target from terrorists as american soliders. And this is why I think Musharraf will take the appropriate steps to safe guard his own nukes. If one is taken by terrorists, it could either be used to take him out, or strike india, this meaning a war between the two.

both scenario's are very very bad for musharraf.

Elections will now be postponed in Pakistan... something we all belived Musharraf wanted, until he gave up his military status.
And now its been postponed anyway?... to co-incidental.

Im very interested to see what President Bush, and Musharraf say to the media about this event.

Bhutto, poor Bhutto.. she had this coming. I think she knew it her self too...
Her death will do more for freedom and democracy than her living sadly.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 07:34 PM
I am not sure about how this will all pan out but we still have Russia,Egypt,Syria and Isarael to worry about the sand pit is a big melting pot of trouble brewing right now...And dont for get China is just setting and watching how far our military will be depleted....I have already talked to some of my military buddies that are not yet deployed and my son over in Iraq and they are all worried about this....

O and we must not forget our little buddy in N Korea aswell just laying low and being sneaky..Along with Chavez my we have alot of enemies around the world right now it is not looking good.....

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 07:39 PM
What if the Pakistani military decides that that it is not going to let go of the Nukes?

Musharaff I think is a CIA/ISI puppet, and most of the Pakistani people know it. The question is, out of those in control of the nukes, who is on what side? What will they do.

Vagabond, do you know how many nukes they have? What is their state of nuclear readiness?

One other thing that I heard recently on coast to coast am, was Sean David Morton. He said that there would for sure be a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India within the next few months. It was aired on either Nov, 8th or 9th 2007.

This is a freaking scary situation.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 07:41 PM
Thanks for the great reply Agit8d.

I think a stike on India to start a war would depend on who exactly gets the nukes, because the problem with India is territorial, which would make a nuclear exchange against India less agreeable to some of them that a nuclear strike on America would be.

I'm also not so sure Bush would shy away from ops in Iran just because they'd go public. Even if it was complete BS and he knew it, I wouldn't be surprised to see him send an MEU to search an Iranian village, on "bad intel" that the nukes were there, let the Iranian military shoot them up, and use that as justification for, at the very least, airstrikes on Iran.

I think Musharraf is in a pretty pickle now. His political future depends entirely on the solidarity of the Pakistani military at this point. There's just no way that he can maintain power now and still look legitimate, and that means his ability to control the nukes on his own could be threatened at some point.

His generals are an unlikely source of a coup because of their personal ties to him, but if mutinies were to break out widely enough, there's no solid guarantee that somebody wouldn't turn to save their own skin.

I'm guessing that right now Musharraf is sitting in his office with a loaded gun on his desk, CNN on the TV, and a real estate guide in his hand, trying to decide if he wants to be exiled to Brazil or Argentina.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 07:46 PM
reply to post by downtown436

An estimate published in late 2001 suggested that Pakistan might have accumulated between 40 and 45 nuclear weapons by 2000, primarily using highly enriched uranium (HEU), but with small additions beginning in 1999 of plutonium from Khushab. These figures suggested that Pakistan could have been adding nuclear weapons from uranium and plutonium, respectively, at the rate of about 5.5 and 1.5 annually. [MINIMUM NUCLEAR DETERRENCE POSTURES IN SOUTH ASIA: AN OVERVIEW OCTOBER 1, 2001 - DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY ADVANCED SYSTEMS AND CONCEPTS OFFICE, PREPARED BY: RODNEY W. JONES]

Edit to add:
Pakistani facilities

[edit on 27-12-2007 by The Vagabond]

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 07:49 PM
Thanks for the great thread

Interesting angle on possible events, I am guessing though there are many places where the nukes could go, you are inferring that the US will target Iran regardless?

I could see China not interceding now, they are in a good position why would they do anything, when the US is helping to make them powerful with all the trade agreements between us?

Russia is another question, I can't see them letting the US just prod and poke around Iran looking for the nukes, they have made their bed and I think they would step in, you know that Iran would do whatever they could to retaliate and escalate your scenario.

Once this scenario plays out, and the US military is overextended and spent, China is free to step into the fray with their fresh Army and try to take on the US.

I just wanted to post another possibility based on your theory..

Could this happen?

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 07:52 PM
A senerio I thought up in another thread.

There will be war as there is war and rumors of war to a point right now that any little thing will have most of the world at war big time like what is happening in Pakistan right now, Kosovo wanting Independence and the Serbs threating war with the Russian navy heading to the Med to give support to them. Israel could bomb Iran any day. If it looks like Mushariff is in danger of being overthrown by radicals NATO will rush in from Afghanistan to secure the military bases and nuke sites. India will not sit Idly by either and I'm sure they would take all of northern Pakistan before the U.S. says stop we have everything under control.
While the U.S. is heavily occupied, Serbs with the help of Russia could take Kosovo and more. Turkey could move to stop the Serbs and get into it with Russia and Greece. Now NATO would be in a pickle, Who do they back Greece or Turkey. If Russia is with Greece and NATO ordered Turkey into Kosovo then Greece would be risking allot. Greeks and the Turks cause big problems for NATO. If Russia gets into Turkey then you know they will give Israel a try and Israel will nuke the advancing Russian Army and stop them cold.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 07:57 PM

Musharraf is in a difficult spot, Bolton said. "Even the military is filled with Islamic fundamentalists that he's tried to keep in lower positions."

That was from around november....He was in trouble then....

Look Around Them Its Scary

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:00 PM
That is a pretty big problem then. These next few days and weeks will determine a lot. I'm curious to see what Bush's next move is. I'm sure it has already happened.

What India does next is crucial also.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:02 PM
There is a problem of motive when it comes to China coming after us militarily. We don't want eachother's land. We each want the ability to run around the world setting up and trading with puppet regimes on highly favorable terms. We still have the edge in that respect, because our navy and airforce still heavily outmatch theirs.

For the next 10-15 years, China will have to accept the fact that they are an Asian power, at least in military terms. That shouldn't be a problem for them because they are safe- they have economic leverage on us, they are outgrowing us, and all they have to do is be patient.

By 2025, they can be a Pacific Power, and quite likely a serious presence in the Indian Ocean as well. That's when it will be more in their interest to take us down a notch so that they can replace us as the meddlers in chief in Africa and the Middle East.

By 2050, if things keep on as they are going, China will be a truly global power in military terms, just as they already are in terms of "soft power".

They can only lose that by starting a war with us now. It would be ugly, but I think we'd humiliate them in a war, and that would cost them dearly with allies who think that alligning with China is a good move for anti-US regimes.

Time is on their side.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:07 PM
Another thing I was thinking about, it what a great time it would be for India to go ahead and invade Pakistan, and take the disputed territories. Chaos is in the cards for Pakistan, and WHAT IF INDIA WAS BEHIND THE ASSASSINATION!!!!

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:09 PM

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Time is on their side.

Exactly, they can sit back, and should Russia decide to step in with Iran, that is just another bonus to China, everyone gets weaker while they continue to grow strong without engaging in conflict.

Almost a perfect scenario.

I can't see India getting involved either, besides putting a vice on their border with Pakistan and kicking anyone trying to flee back into the fray.

Their longtime foe could become non-existent should this thing explode.

So many possibilities, can you come up with one that might avoid a conflict?

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in