discuss: how do we avoid Pakistan losing control of its nukes ?

this is a core concern in the discussion of what to do in Afghanistan. How significant is the problem, how do we respond ?

:eyes:

lest they fall into the hands of al qaeda.

I would not say this unless I sincerely believed it.

i mean, IRAN!

for starters, maybe :shrug:

Ensure that corruption and failed state status are replaced with knowledge and competency, buttressed by the rule of law, as hard as that challenge is.

Neo-lib imperialism?

rule america-america rules the seas!

"exterminate the brutes"

Security

I notice the difference between the reply and rejoinders which ring with the familiar hollowness of sarcasm

Contrary to the scaremonger tactics used by Bush and other assorted shitheads, a nuclear weapon is, by design, pretty damned secure. I don't mean that the bases and silos and all are secure. I mean the weapons themselves are very secure.

In all honesty if the whole thing goes to hell, the biggest worry we would have regarding these nukes isn't that htye ever get used - they likely can't be used because of the security safeguards - but that they're sold to say, Syria or Iran to reverse-engineer. That in and of itself wouldn't be too big of an issue, since neither nation would be able to make legal use of that information, and such a sale would be easy as hell to find out about.

Even more likely is that if Pakistan finds itself facing the real chance of being toppled, those Nukes are probably going to end up getting shipped to Russia, the US, or some other buddy in the region for safekeeping LONG before any revolutionary forces can nab them.

what about india and the rest of the surrounding countries? i think they have a much bigger stake in pakistan than we do.

where is the rest of the world`s commitment in blood and money ?

... claimed that the military found evidence that India was providing weapons to the Lashkar-e-Islam. - Roggio

so if you set one off near Delhi e.g. you potentially make Bhopal look like cat barf on the rug (I asked you once before about your handle, are you from Indo/Pak/Afgh ?). The humanitarian consequences alone of a nuke set off anywhere, nevermind anywhere in the subcontinent south of the mountains, could be unbelievable depending on the size. Primarily because the residual effects would be acute for far longer than a chemical accident/attack, for example. Look at the immediate effects and long-term condition of Chernobyl, and that wasn't a full criticality explosion, just a (partial ?) meltdown. Nukes produce waste ground for centuries, along with immediate mass death and long-term severe health impacts including birth defects and cancer.

Of course all of this is true anywhere you set one off. So while the subcontinental and SW Asian players may have immediate stake in the game, we all do, either because the explosion could just as well be here at home (if the weapon is noved and the safeguards are defeated as another poster pointed out) or because we'd be paying to help clean up/aid the affected.

I'd like to see the US work out a deal where we provide an extra layer of protection. That will cut Pakistan's cost, and free up personnel for other national security concerns.

We get secure nukes, and a presence in the region. India will feel more secure too because our presence would make a first strike less likely.

just saw a report (another Hersh piece in the NYorker IIRC) that the safeguards had been reviewed by American experts on the subject and found to be adequate. Currently. Over much whining by the Pak Army elite about this bullying of their sovereignfulness.

of those nukes.

If that's what we are worried about, why in the hell are we pussy-footing around?

Make them an offer they can't refuse.

They can't refuse. What? You never heard of that before? You think we can't?

If that's why we are over there, lets get to the end as fast as we can.

how would you craft it ? What is the leverage point to use to implement "can't refuse" ? Good work, keep going.

We could start with 30,000 troops.

Or:

Carpet them with money, or carpet them with bombs.

Shit, I dunno, but pussy-footing around is f'n dumb. Or just a game being played?

without having nukes in the immediate neighborhood.

not to be pedantic, but a core challenge here is to exercise skilled international statecraft which brings beneficial results for the international community without venturing back into the unfortunate modes of oldschool realpolitik with idiots thinking to reduce the world to a chess game and presuming to define their fellows as pawns to be moved around on the board.

That would be a response. As to the seriousness of the problem, the greater danger is not that the boogeyman hiding in the caves of Afghanistan takes over Pakistan. Pakistan has a large and capable military. The greater danger is the apparently Westernized, modern Pakistani military harbors an element that will funnel a warhead or dirty nuclear fixins' to a terrorist front. This is a very low order threat since they would have nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing so. And that is not something that fomenting hot wars on their frontier can do anything to combat, indeed it's more likely to aggravate such chances than to prevent them. If you think you are going TO SNATCH Pakistan's nukes by military action, well you are a fucking madman and should be locked up because if you act on your paranoid delusions you will get a lot of American kids nuked. Pakistan will act in defense of its sovereignty.

I.e. the destabilization that allowed AQ to operate from Afgh and perpetrate 9/11 came about because the Pak ISI propped up the Taliban as slightly hairy marionettes ? Yes, we left a mess there after getting the Russians out but the Paks ran the situation according to their perceived advantage. The natives in the NWFP/Waziristan have always been restless. The growth of radical Sunni fundamentalism cannot be chalked up solely to America's misadventures in the region; social reaction and stunted Arab nationalism are strong components of it IMO. So that contributing factors are autonomous Sunni radicalism with militant manifestations in both AQ and Talib, which influence the growing destabilization of the border region, as well as the increasing islamization and radicalization of the Pak army. And consider Pak itself, it's basically a shard of a country wrapped around the army as the one force that by virtue of acquired Anglo-Indian culture has always been the steel core that doesn't fail. A shithole in almost all other regards.

Yes, Markin bomb-tossing doesn't help matters (although I thought the 2001/2002 demolition of the Talibs was 100% right) but the sources of instability in the area seem much older. (And yes, 1. 350 years of colonialism are the root cause (let's say) but those can't be erased so let's stop farting around and 2. 100 years of oil exploitation are more undoable but that's still a process of decades, and the mixture won't stay at equilibrium that long.) Thank you for the thoughtful commentary in any case. This is the kind of discussion we need more of here.

is controlled primarily by the military. There would have to be a military coup, which is unlikely. Maybe we should send in an additional 100,000 troops into Pakistan. Hell, Iran is also a problem, so lets send in another 100,000 troops there as well. Somalia is also a hotbed, lets send in 100,000 troops there too. See why escalation is a bad decision yet people?

to address Somalia, Iran and other 'hotbeds', if anything ? I propose that a blanket policy that intervention is always bad and so we should never do it is a gross oversimplification and doesn't appreciate America's de facto role in the world. Not the role we may want, but the role we have.

military intervention, Im assuming. Military intervention is not always bad(see Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy). Bombing indiscriminately in countries with collectively over a billion Muslism is bound to incite hostilities. What is a gross oversimplification is military intervention everywhere we think we need to be. America's de facto role is diminishing because of this exact logic. We Dont HAVE a role to take our military adventures anywhere we want. And that is exactly what we have done for a long time. Central America, the Middle East, Afghanistan, etc.

we're coming off the high of 350 years of western colonialism and faced with the prospect of 5 billion nonwesterners who are tired of us. Furthermore, for better or worse we have been a beacon of something approaching a civil society of free individuals to the rest of the world. So self-interest says we don't want to have the whole pile come crashing down, with specifically mushroom clouds as a nondesirable part of such an event, and ethics say that we should resume using our power to improve the human condition the way we once did. That's what I mean by the de facto role - physics abhors abrupt changes, and the momentum we have can be used to transition the world to a more equitable distribution of power and wealth. If we fail to do that, we risk discontinuities as systems (like the financial system recently) become unstable and collapse. That will produce change too, it just won't benefit anyone except those individuals who already hold power (just like the financial collapse did).