Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Suppose the worst, suppose Pakistan's nukes fall into the hands of extremist or

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 10:39 AM
Original message
Suppose the worst, suppose Pakistan's nukes fall into the hands of extremist or
Edited on Fri Dec-28-07 10:40 AM by Bandit
Because of the unrest, which spirals out of control, It appears the nukes are destined to fall into extremist hands, Should America intervene with our military? Would we consider it a severe threat to our nation and invade? Should we? Could we? Or should it ONLY be done by the UN or NATO or both? Should anybody interfere?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
1. Or into the hands of the Pakistanis?
Edited on Fri Dec-28-07 10:43 AM by LynnTheDem
The vast majority of whom hate us and approve of OBL.

THANK YOU, GEORGE W. bUSH, you stupid MFer.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteppingRazor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #1
15. You do have a point, but that's a bit of an exaggeration.
The vast majority of Pakistanis do not approve of Bin Laden. They've actually done bin Laden approval polls in Pakistan, and he generally polls about 45 percent. Of course, the disapproves are around 25 percent, with the remainder unsure, so he does have more approval than disapproval.

Here's a link to some poll numbers:
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/11/pakistan_and_islamism.php

Anyway, point being, I don't think all is yet lost in Pakistan. The opinions of Pakistanis can still be turned around, but it will take a lot of work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #15
23. Work? Nah.
Just bomb them into the stone age. THAT will turn their opinions around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #1
20. The vast majority of Pakistani's dislike bin Laden. Religiously,
Pakistanis tend to be quite moderate.


Remember, Bhutto had something of a 55-60% approval rating going into the elections and she had pledged to rein in religious violence in Pakistan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #20
29. OBL: 46% approval rating; 25% disapproval rating
Edited on Fri Dec-28-07 11:58 PM by LynnTheDem
Mushie: 38% and dropping fast.

And George W. bUsh? 9% approval rating.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteppingRazor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
2. I'll say one good thing about Musharraf...
from all reports he's as afraid of nutcases getting their hands on Pakistan's nukes as anyone. In meetings with Bush, he's said time and again that, should unrest turn into civil war, he has his most loyal men watching the nuclear weapons, and that they would be disarmed and deactivated.

So, to answer your question, I doubt it will ever come to extremists getting their hands on nukes. I don't think Musharraf will let that happen. But, to continue in hypotheticals, if it did happen, then yes, we have every right to find the people who stole the nuke and cancel their asses. Once you bring nuclear weapons into the mix, all bets are off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. Musharraf isn't much safer than Bhutto was--there have been several attempts on his life
and he's not making anybody happy in that country. If he goes down before a new leader is installed, let's hope the military stays loyal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteppingRazor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #9
17. "before a new leader is installed"?
After he wins the so-called election in a couple weeks, Pakistan will still have Musharraf in charge. He's not going anywhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #17
21. Well, I think maybe they oughta wait until the opposing parties can
come up with a viable candidate before holding elections--hold them now, and Musharraf might win, and then his Presidency will be legitimized. Predictions were that Bhutto would have won on Jan. 8--I don't know what Musharraf would have done to counter that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennifer C Donating Member (760 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #17
30. Unless the Pak military oust him in a another coup...nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #2
18. My biggest fear is that since the Bush* Cabal has done nothing but
holler "Wolf" for six years that when/if a real wolf appears would America be so jaded not to respond? Musharraf has and is maintaining control but we just saw what happened to Bhutto. What if he is cancelled out through some means? It has been said that many police and army regulars are sypathetic to the Taliban and or Al Qaeda and probably many other fundamentalist groups...To me it is a scary scenerio.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
3. If we knew that extremists were gaining control of the nukes, I imagine
most nations would agree to intervene militarily--especially India.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atreides1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 10:48 AM
Original message
China as well
Remember that China is having its own problems with Islamic militants, and I can see a Sino-Indian alliance to make sure that Islamic militants in Pakistan don't get their hands on those nukes!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #3
27. The UN security council is even now meeting to discuss just that possibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lame54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
4. Sounds like a perfect opportunity for him to declare...
Edited on Fri Dec-28-07 10:55 AM by lame54
marshall law - as planned
sorry, martial law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Law
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Psst--"martial" law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. this is what Mushie wants and total abuse of power
hmm....I wonder if *'ie is taking notes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #5
11. I thought he meant Marshal Law. He was a friend of Marshal Dillon, I Think.
Or did he hang out with the Earps and Doc Holliday? I get confused about that stuff. I'm pretty sure he rode with the Posse Comitatus, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. LOL! "This town ain't big enough for the both of us! Take yer posse and skedaddle!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
6. Well, ya gotta think about delivery systems.
I imagine anything they have is pretty big, and they don't have any missiles to carry a warhead like that any further than maybe India. So how they gonna get their bomb here? I don't think UPS takes 4-ton radioactive parcels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #6
16. If that baby goes into India you may as well welcome WW3
and get the hell away from Cheney's vicinity to keep from getting sticky.

India WILL retaliate and if they get nervous may strike first. They are too big of a political and financial powerhouse not to gain some quick and powerful friends and then all hell breaks loose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Didereaux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. Not WWIII, but end of Pakistan, maybe 2 or 3 Indian cities. No major alliances at stake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #6
24. In one of the 100,000,000 shipping containers that enter our ports
every year? We inspect, what, 5%?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Indeed that would be the logical vector.
Or maybe just put it in the hold of a tramp steamer, anchor it in New York harbor...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
7. and these a$$holes are worried about Iran!!
at one time India and Pakistan were pointing nuclear weapons at each other. And we have this dip shit and his band of thugs in charge in the US, how low we have become, this is a very volatile situation, and we have a W supporting a dictator, sickening truly sickening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #7
31. Maybe they'll blame Iran for killing Benazir
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
8. This is a purposely overblown fear...
Deception: British Reporter Adrian Levy on How the United States Secretly Helped Pakistan Build Its Nuclear Arsenal

Adrian Levy examines how five consecutive US administrations from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush have been complicit in building and protecting Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. Levy’s is co-author of the new book: “Deception: Pakistan, the United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons.”


.....


ADRIAN LEVY: Absolutely. I think there is a false configuration coming out of the Pentagon which is that if Musharraf falls, the Islamists will take over and have their fingers on a nuclear trigger. This is a false argument put out in order to continue the client status of the Pakistan military with the U.S. military. In fact, if you analyze Musharraf’s military record and look of his deeds rather than at the dogma, what you discover is the Pakistan military and Musharraf in particular, have been manipulating the Islamist faction. I mean the military as a whole had done that since 1988 when Benazir Bhutto first came to power, setting up an Islamist coalition to attack her viciously. They repeated the same in 1990 with the slush fund of $16 million. And Musharraf himself by 1995 reignited the Kashmir war by taking 10,000 Sunni extremists who then set fire to the divided state of Kashmir in order to make India bleed. That element of Islamists would join forces very much with Al Qaeda factions, with the Taliban by 2006, 2007. The national intelligence estimates for this and the published intelligence for this shows both in the UK And Europe that these factions – these Sunni militia gave new life blood to the Al Qaeda remnants and to the Taliban in the Waziristan area. The meddling would continue. There were 17 banned Sunni organizations which the U.S. State Department proscribed as did the Pakistan president. They were all resurging under new names post 2005. He said he would de-radicalize society, he would help control religious schools which tend to prey on the poor and impoverished in the tribal areas. You know, they increased to 13,000. I mean what we’ve seen is Musharraf and the military very much backing their own agenda. The agenda is to destabilize Afghanistan, to create a government there which is favorable to Islamabad. These are goals which are actually contrary to the goals – very largely contrary to the goals of the West. Yet, this is slowly moving car crash of the U.S. pumping billions of untraceable cash into the Pakistan military has continued since 2001 and we’re left with the position where Pakistan is to devoid of democracy, democracy is weakened and feeble, and we have just increased instability, quite honestly.

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/11/19/deception_british_reporter_andrew_levy_on


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #8
22. Thanks for that link
For some reason, my mind wasn't making that connection. We're told it's the worst case for mushy to go, because they want him to stay.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennifer C Donating Member (760 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #8
32. That is true
The more likely issue is fissile material falling into the wrong hands. How secure are the lab facilities in Pakistan? There's the huge potential that scientists may sell to AQ or other groups.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NeedleCast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
12. I wouldn't sweat it much
Detonating a nuclear weapon is typically not very easy. I also don't think Bush has any desire to invade Pakistan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #12
25. Building it is not easy. Detonating it is no harder than flipping a switch.
According to everything I've read, even the earliest Manhattan Project bombs all detonated on the first try.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
13. Sounds like a new LIHOP September 11, 2001.
Perfect excuse for the Neonazicons to invade based on baseless fear and the "War on Terror."

The Neonazicons create the instability, then launch racist mass murder campaigns into foreign nations and run the fear media 24 hours per day.

Good job, Bandit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blarch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
28. should Canada also be worried ?
Of course Canada shoudn't be worried, neither should Sweden, Switzerland or Norway.

Why is the US worried ? ....because we have fucked with these people for decades upon decades, maybe we should reap what we sow.

Norway reaps what it sows, they stay out of everybodies business, and therefore don't need to fear 'blowback' This is our own fault.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burrowowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 12:33 AM
Response to Original message
33. India would be
very worried and so should the rest of the world be with the radioactive fallout.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PakistaniDUer Donating Member (50 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 12:38 AM
Response to Original message
34. Do you own a map?
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 01:58 AM
Response to Original message
35. Sorry, the number you dialed, "U.S. military" is not a working number.
Edited on Sat Dec-29-07 01:58 AM by MilesColtrane
Please try again, and use the area code for Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 02:05 AM
Response to Original message
36. In an ideal world I'd say yes... not only the US but western powers
as well as India. Them nukes in the wrong hands are the largest nightmare since 1945

But george is in charge at the WH...and I suspect that it will be bungled and truth be told.. cui bono?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 01:38 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC