Nuclear Terror Imminent?

While Pakistan is pretty unstable I don't tihnk that we would have to worry too much about them launching an attack. Musharraf has stepped down as Chief of the Armed Forces but he retains the presidency for the next five years. The new Army Chief (I think) was handpicked by Musharraf so he will play nice.
There is always fear of their nuclear secrets leaking out, I mean look at the AQ Kahn network. He helped North Korea and presumably Iran with the technical specifications for weapons development. Therefore my fear resides more with the knowledge leaking out rather than an actual weapon.
The revolts that were occuring in Pakistan to cause the imposition of the state of emergency are actually a good thing. These were not Taliban alligned jihadis that were taking to the streets. These were the countries lawyers, judges and professionals. They were protesting the dissolution of the Supreme Court by Musharraf, who did that to prevent the court from handing down a ruling that would have stripped him of a lot of power. The protests were actually Democracy in action!
As for the upcoming elections... there will not be an Islamic takeover of the government. Every recent poll shows that there is very little support (or even tolerance) for the Islamic parties that trend toward extremism. They poll at roughly 10%, not exactly something to fear.
The Pakistani people are very Democracy driven in the end. These are people who are crazy proud of their parlimentary system and how they have emulated in many ways the British system.

The north, Waziristan and the other rural areas are an issue, and Musharraf has done a piss poor job of keeping the Taliban out there. Those tribal areas have ALWAYS been a problem since they function as triabl areas and not within the constraints of the rest of the governmental system. But these areas will never "take over" Pakistan. They will simply always be a thorn the central government will have to deal with.

My 2 cents.
Obs out

just to point out that rumsfeld gave the aproval of the centrifuge sales to north korea

the deal was made throu ABB , rumsfeld was chairman at the time. !

the U.S basicly sold north korea the means to develope and now you take em a way

I still stick to the kindergarden sandbox metafor

are you jelous becaus khan gave people nuclear enegy for practicly free .. ?

i mean this "who is a threath and whos not" because we are civiliced is just bs , global nuclear cartell is what this sounds more like ,

i dont see people here wonering if its a threath if sweden is to sell its nuclear waste to UK that can be use as weapon material

or that " wellfare " states can just flipp of a whole line of nuclear plants just for kicks without the mass complaining ?

why dont the u.s make a start , i mean in total disarmament of nukes and start developing better radars that dont mess up wildlife like bees and whales , bit offtopic but didnt darwin say the human race had 4 years or something when the bees die out , had something to do with pollination

reply to post by zerbot565



I am not going to steer this thread off topic going into the issues you present other than one. AQ Kahn was not selling nuclear energy secrets, he was selling nuclear weapons secrets. Big diff, energy provides haet and light! Nuke weapons provide heat and light as well, though your flesh usually melts from the heat and light provided by a bomb! One of these is potentially good, one is pretty bad.

Obs out

Originally posted by observer
Musharraf has stepped down as Chief of the Armed Forces but he retains the presidency for the next five years.

If he is not overthrown. He does not have the support of the Pakistani people.

The revolts that were occuring in Pakistan to cause the imposition of the state of emergency are actually a good thing. These were not Taliban alligned jihadis that were taking to the streets. These were the countries lawyers, judges and professionals. They were protesting the dissolution of the Supreme Court by Musharraf, who did that to prevent the court from handing down a ruling that would have stripped him of a lot of power. The protests were actually Democracy in action!

Democracy in action put Hamas in control of Palestine. "Terrorist" factions are not without their lawyers, judges and professionals. The alignments cannot be determined at this time, but the Pakistani people are not very American-friendly and never have been. In my opinion, the only reason that Musharraf agreed to align himself with the US was to keep India out of the "war on terror."

As for the upcoming elections... there will not be an Islamic takeover of the government. Every recent poll shows that there is very little support (or even tolerance) for the Islamic parties that trend toward extremism. They poll at roughly 10%, not exactly something to fear.
The Pakistani people are very Democracy driven in the end. These are people who are crazy proud of their parlimentary system and how they have emulated in many ways the British system.

Out of curiosity, how do you come by these poll figures? Are they exclusive to Pakistan, or general figures? Honestly though, I'm no fan of poll figures anyway. They can be grossly inaccurate. For one thing, extremists are not usually concerned with voting or participating in polls. But this is not really the point either. Iraq was not a nation of Muslim extremists. Though clearly not a democracy, Saddam Hussein fashioned a rather secular government. Pakistan may not become an outright extremist government like the Taliban, but that does not mean that they could still become a potent threat to US interests.

The north, Waziristan and the other rural areas are an issue, and Musharraf has done a piss poor job of keeping the Taliban out there. Those tribal areas have ALWAYS been a problem since they function as triabl areas and not within the constraints of the rest of the governmental system. But these areas will never "take over" Pakistan. They will simply always be a thorn the central government will have to deal with.

Tribal factions could take over Pakistan, but I don't think they could hold their position. But even in the short-term, the results could be disasterous if they get the nukes. Furthermore, an outright takeover is not necessary. If the central government embraces the tribal leadership in rural areas, this would be dangerous to the US.

I thank you for your input. After all, my theory is just a thoery.

It's the same old thing all over again. Prior to Iraq the US was all over the media and in front of just about everyone declaring that Iraq had WMD's. We had photos with circles and arrows and paragraphs on the back of each one. At the same time there were countless others saying BS. There are no WMD's. Iraqs said there were no WMD's. Inspectors said there were no WMD's. But we weren't about to let facts get in the way of a good ol shock 'n awe fest. And then our illustrious government said, 'well, no WMD's but Sadam is a bad guy so it's ok'.

Fast forward a few years. We say (and whenever I say we you can pretty much assume Israel is on-board) Iran is buildiung nukes. They say they're not. Other countries say they're not. Inspectors say they're not. But we're sure. Iran's prez comes to town to convince people he's not making nukes. No one buys it. Then the NIE comes out.

The fact is, none of these 'players' have the delivery means necessary to get any 'meaningful' number of nukes onto US soil. And by meaningful I mean enough to prevent our launching a retaliatory strike. And they ALL know our policy on retaliation. How, you ask? Because we publish it for everyone to read. Every nation knows that we WILL retaliate and have the means to do so. Pakistan, even the extremist leaders in Pakistan (they may be extremists but they're not stupid), know that a nuclear attack on the US will reduce them to a historic footnote.

It won't happen.

I'm not necessarily talking about a state-sanctioned attack by Pakistan against US forces. This would require an alignment of international forces against the US. Or yes, obviously, it would be suicide.

But if Pakistan falls into civil war, the situation gets a lot more sticky. How does the US then designate all of Pakistan as the enemy. The US could not nuke Pakistan in retaliation, only intervene into the civil war with conventional forces.

Then of course there is the whole "false-flagging" possibility. What better way to expand the US theatre than to blame a nuclear terrorist attack on "rogue" elements in Pakistan? This would also solidify US "legitimacy" in Iraq as in "fighting terrorists wherever we find them."

[edit on 12/7/0707 by jackinthebox]

The thing I find most interesting about Pakistan, is that it represents a near total flanking of Iran. We’re in Iraq (where we’re building many large military bases), and Afghanistan now, Pakistan would represent having Iran surrounded on three flanks. Iran is now the last real power that the west doesn’t control in the region. I can’t help but wonder if China and Russia are willing to sit by and allow us to checkmate them in the worlds oil barrel.

reply to post by resistor


There's a great big "wild card" called India when trying to figure out Pakistan's strategic position.

Speaking of false-flagging. If a Pakistani "terrorist" set off a nuke in India, even if it was not state-sanctioned, India would invade without question. The US wouldn't need to invade Pakistan, and would have a great big new ally. It's curious that India hasn't been more involved with what has been happening in the region ever since the US invaded Afghanistan. To be honest, I was quite surprised when Pakistan suddenly became such a key US ally. I thought for sure the US would just "green-light" an Indian invasion of Pakistan and even offer support. The US (and Britain) have traditionally had much better ties with India, and India place a very important role in the technology services sector.

Originally posted by jackinthebox

Here's the bombshell people. I think the West is about to be bombed by Pakistan.

Might be. Afterall We must not forget the alleged ISI - CIA connection.

-v

If some 'element' truly was intent on attacking the U.S. why would they focus on a nuke? They're hugely complex, extrememly expensive to create and support, massively difficult to transport and insert into the U.S. and extrmemly difficult to hide.

It is infintely easier and less expensive to launch a biological attack with even a far more wide-reaching effect. Even a moderate attempt could easily get the entire country (something they could never do with nukes).

The nuke argument doesn't make practical sense.

reply to post by jtma508



I'm not talking about a national long-term strategy or plan of attack. I'm talking about the destabilization of Pakistan and the immediate threat that this fact poses given the current climate of world affairs. If a terrorist can get their hands on a nuke, they're gonna use it.

Pakistani troops have driven Islamic militants from a key region and killed 290 backers of a pro-Taliban cleric.

This was according to The Assosiated Press, as printed by the Poughkeepsie Journal 12/9/07

reply to post by dizziedame


First for those of you not born a nuclear baby, (childern born between 1946-1980's) everyone had to be on the same page, parents, teachers police when it came to a major disaster, eg: 9/11, The blackouts that followed years later, every worked together, WTC cleaned and cleared after only nine months, the blackouts after that, everyone calm, many walked miles to get home even from bus stations, Fire drills, Ems, first aide that stuff like that never hurts to know- Peace

Musharraf has taken direct control over Pakistan's nuclear weapons, out of the hands of the Prime Minister. He may have given up his military rank, but this is clearly a militant move.

Visit a a recently posted thread, Musharraf assumes nuclear control

Originally posted by jackinthebox

If things are really winding down, why the third carrier in the Gulf now?

Because when things wind down you need to pick them up to bring them home. The extra carrier helps bring even more troops/resources home.

I posted this the other day to point out how the Military is looking at alternatives to the "surge" idea. Maybe lessening the tensions or letting the main aggressors fight it out themselves. I think it directly applies to this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

They refer to it as a "Soft War" strategy and it may bring a lot of Soldiers home.

Cuhail

reply to post by Forlon


Possible, but I believe unlikely. A carrier battle group is a display of force, not a troop transport. I can't remember the last time three carriers were in the same place in hostile waters. It's unnerving at best.

There are so many threads discussing possible nuclear attacks on the USA that I wasn't sure where to post this.

So here it goes:

My wife's best friend is retired Navy. She will not provide any more information than this. Sometime next year the US will suffer a single nuclear attack. She describes this as being a small nuclear explosion. I told my wife that I wouldn't be to concerned about the size of the explosion. A small one is just as bad for those in the immeadiate area anyhow.

Perhaps it's a suitcase bomb or just a nuclear accident. I just don't know.

Btw, she is also moving from Oregon to another state. Something to do with child custody or something. Who knows.

reply to post by jackinthebox


Whoa. Now there's a scenario I hadn't considered. Great food for thought.

reply to post by jackinthebox


I doubt Musharrif will be overthrown... this is not a man who would pick a viable threat to his power to run the Army.

Of course he is taking power over the nukes, Bush has power here, not the Joint Chiefs. That is what the president does (I think).

As for the polling numbers, I got them from listening to a long interview of political scientists in Pakistan talking on NPR so I don't have a web citation.
I don't take much stock in polling myself, but it beats random guessing about a region I don't live in and don't know a lot about!

Obs out