Jones looking for Pakistani nuclear certainty
The big question this week in Washington is the safety of Pakistan's nuclear weapons.
Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari comes here on Wednesday, and the White House is looking - it seems to me - for something a little more certain than previous airy assurances from the Pakistanis.
That is the impression I got from a conversation with the National Security Adviser James Jones:
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions
Hello, I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~44~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Justin,
Interesting clip and an interesting question, possibly the biggest facing the world now.
And now that I've posted on topic, may I just say 'Nice tie'. It would look a bit more executive with a double Windsor knot though.
Fashionista Sam
Complain about this comment
The question Jones danced around is pretty obvious, what will the US or anyone else do if Pakstan's government falls and its arsenal of nuclear weapons falls into the hands of a Taleban like regime closely allied to al Qaeda. Not a state supporter of terrorism but a terrorist state? It's the flip side of the same coin that has Iran with nuclear weapons. That is where the rubber will meet the road in both cases. It should not be necessary and would be very unwise to put something like that to a vote in an international forum like the UN Security Council. Survival of a nation is not subject to external veto. In either case, those nations that feel threatend would be insane not to act unilaterally, pre-emptively, and expeditiously to destroy the arsenals before they can be used and the capability to manufacture more weapons. Unfortunately, given how easy it is to hide them, that probably means destroying the entire country. The alternative is to be open to nuclear attack at any unknown time and place in the future, a circumstance that no civilized nation would find acceptable. No apology in responding to this existential challenge should be needed or offered.
Complain about this comment
the sooner the world is free of Nukes the safer everyone will be. These weapons only serve a purpose to a destructive psycopath who wants to end the world. There is have no use for them other than intimidation because using them will mean the end of it all for the user and the target.
How was Pakistan allowed to develop Nukes when others cannot? Pakistan has never had a stable government for a long time. Yet countries like South Africa were 'encouraged' to disarm and destroy all nukes.
Why are governments who hold Nukes selling Nukes to other countries? That includes the US who struck a deal with India 2 years ago.
It seems very moronic. The UN, the US and its allies should have seen the Pakistan problem coming for a very long time. The politicians cannot protect themselves how capable are they of protecting weapons of mass destruction?
Complain about this comment
I do not know what assurance, other than beating back the Taliban, Pakistan could give that would be reassuring in any meaningful way. I thought the interview Mark Dummett gave with students from Islamabad about the conflict was very interesting. These two students seem to believe the solution is for the Pakistan Army to wipe the Taliban out. I wonder how universal that view is with most Pakistanis
Complain about this comment
Why is "the big question" - at least among imperial Washington toadies in the corporate press - the "safety" of Muslim and North Korean nuclear weapons? Funny, no one in official Washington and their free press publicists ever express such misgivings about the massive arsenal of nuclear weapons of that belligerent little state of Israel that the U.S. coddles? No such public alarm either about India's nukes, which the U.S has cheerfully abetted in? Or how about the U.S.'s - and UK's - own overflowing closets of bristling missiles? Pakistan surely can't compete with these airily ignored "safety" questions?
Complain about this comment
Sam (#1), do you mean a full Windsor? He'd probably have to buy new shirts to get the proper look. Anyway, that's a knot designed for royalty. Who else has the time to tie it?
I can't view it, because of the need for current Flash. What knot does he use and with what collar type? I recommend the half-Windsor as a practical alternative to the lop-sided knots most men use.
Complain about this comment
It is the thorniest of issues, but like so many problems we must look primarily at prevention, while of course considering a possible cure. Prevention would involve removing the recruitment tools (ie Western nations flouting their own laws); trade and aid upping the standard of living of the poorest Pakistani citizens; education showing them the world beyond the propaganda.
Marcus (2) as ever would see a unilateral strike to take out a future rogue state as the only viable option, but who would let it get that far?
There is a parallel with the US health system, which discourages early visits to the doctor due to high costs, and thus creates more really ill cases later, requiring stronger medicin. Perhaps Obama has understood 2 things - health and diplomacy.
The US finally has a President who is prepared to speak softly, and not just wave his big stick (Sam - don't you dare...), in order to try to ameliorate the present situation.
We cannot know if this will work, but we can certainly know that more of the same gun-totin', war-mongering rhetoric from the West will only play ever further into the extremists' hands.
That said Obama will certainly have a whole team of "what if?" thinkers running over ideas should the worst come to pass, as would any president.
Complain about this comment
A 'Pandora Box' was opened when the nuclear bomb was 'invented.' No one at that time really 'knew' what the effects would be. It seemed expedient then and there was also an intellectual curiosity that fueled a desire to actually 'see' what would happen, thus Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now we are stuck with this evil means of destruction that can also provide a benign form of energy.
We cannot close that Pandora Box, it is too late. Could some hope be left that could change the course of destruction into one of construction. It has been about 65 years now so I will wait and see and also hope.
Complain about this comment
3 moderate-observer
"Why are governments who hold Nukes selling Nukes to other countries? That includes the US who struck a deal with India 2 years ago."
I did not know that the US had done a nuclear deal with Pakistan under the previous administration. I can only imagine it had 2 reasons behind it - money, and permission to continue to use Pakistan as a military base for drone missions in Afghanistan/frontier provinces.
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5762371.ece
Otherwise, M-O, you are the voice of sanity. Nuclear weapons are a disaster waiting to happen.
Regarding "why was pakistan allowed to get nukes?" - I understand it was part of an earlier geopolitical policy to not allow India or Pkistan to be dominant. If one has it, so may the other.... very short-sighted IMO.
Try this link...
www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/
"Pakistan's nuclear weapons program was established in 1972 by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who later became President and Prime Minister. Shortly after the loss of East Pakistan in the 1971 war with India, Bhutto initiated the program with a meeting of physicists and engineers at Multan in January 1972. India's 1974 testing of a nuclear "device" gave Pakistan's nuclear program new momentum."
Complain about this comment
#6
Gary,
I do. Justin has a half Windsor which fails to show off the full masculine 'stripiness' of his rather splendid tie. It also doesn't work with a broad silk tie such as the one he clearly invested much time and $$$ (or more likely pounds somewhere in Jermyn Street).
NSA Jones has a rather better knot with a less splendid stripy number, though he has failed to fully tighten it and use his little finger for the perfect 'dimple' in the center.
A form of Alpha / Beta sexual display perhaps? I feel a paper coming on.
Anthropologist Sam
Complain about this comment
MO moment;
The United States agreed to sell services to design and build nuclear power plants to India, not to sell it nuclear weapons. Even this however is in contravention of the NPT treaty because India has not signed it. India has demonstrated the capability to detonate nuclear weapons since 1974. What regimes will be put in place to prevent India from reprocessing biproducts of the cores of these to create more nuclear weapons is not clear. India is believed to already have considerable stockpiles of plutonium, possibly sufficient for manufacturing approximately 1000 nuclear weapons including a low yield thermonuclear bomb with a yield in the 200 to 300 kiloton range.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaArsenal.html
Here is some background on Pakistan's nuclear weapons believed capabilities
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Pakistan/PakTests.html
The two countries seem to have been poised to go to war over Kashmir for a long time. India's fear of Pakistan based on considerable experience with terrorists based there would give it good reason to rationalize a pre-emptive nuclear strike that would eliminate Pakistan's existance should the Taleban gain control over Pakistan's government. Pakistan like Iran is playing with fire, seemingly indifferent to the dire situation that is being created while the rest of the world looks on too preoccupied or indifferent to act.
Complain about this comment
#8 aquarizonagal,
Aqua, they new what would happen due to the Atomic bomb test in New Mexico in July, 1945.
Complain about this comment
Ref #7 RomeStu
Absolutely correct Romestu, there is a 'prevention v. cure parallel', but your point can be taken further, because there was no problem in Pakistan originally. If you recall, under Bush, the USA Forces started crossing over Pakistan border into their villages and communities - what it called "in Hot Pursuit." The Pakistani government protested at the time, saying it would convert many to support the Taleban. They said it many, many times. USA seemed to ignore the local advice, and has continued ground incursions as well as bombing raids, killing Pakstani people. Not surprisingly resentment has increased, yet the USA has gone further and further into Pakistan increasing tensions: moderates have become sympathisers; sympathisers have become militants. A crude attempt was made to rid a boil by stabbing aimlessly at it, instead of trying to cure it. The result: the infection has spread everywhere, and the patient is now critical with many infection and open sores.
Complain about this comment
moderate_observer (#3), the US-India nuclear agreement is a complicated subject: http://www.cfr.org/publication/9663/
but whatever your position on it, India was already a nuclear power, and a non-signer of non-proliferation treaties.
As for allowing Pakistan (and North Korea) to develop nukes, what would you do about it? Fission weapon technology is not that difficult. The genie was released from the bottle a long time ago, and it is impossible to put it back in. Several years ago someone (George Schultz?) was talking tough about not allowing North Korea to develop nuclear weapons, but nothing much came of it. It's not an easy problem to deal with. Simplistic solutions like advocating preemptive strikes are irresponsible in the extreme in my view, and will only make things much worse in the long run.
Complain about this comment
I think India, more than the U.S., needs to be convinced of the security of the Pakistanis nuclear arms. How long will they wait if Pakistan appears to lose control? What measures are they considering?
Complain about this comment
Seriously guys ,you are just trivialising this discussion by commenting on Justins tie.You missed the most important message,Justins shirt is not the right colour!.It should have been regular BBC light pink.I think Justin is moving on.
Complain about this comment
"Fission weapon technology is not that difficult."
North Korea's test was a dud. The theory sounds simple enough but the reality of building one that actually works is not as easy as it sounds. Nobody will be putting one together in their basement from parts made at a local machine shop.
Complain about this comment
Seen as how we are talking about everyone's nukes. What about Israeli nukes? They are ok, because they came with a huge dollop of holocaust guilt.
Bye Bye Comment, Bye Bye Free Press!
Complain about this comment
I suspect the concern was beyond the probability of the Taleban gaining access to nuclear material and also includes the distinct of possibility of Pakistan becoming an Islamic state. The concern is real and firm action must be taken to ensure nuclear weapons don't fall in the hands of terrorist organizations or radical elements.
In addition to strengthening or helping the government of Pakistan we must re-establish diplomatic relations, and trade, with Iran to mitigate what could be a very dangerous situation in that part of the world.
Complain about this comment
Since this discussion has already veered into a discussion of ties and shirts, I would like to point out that Justin looks better from a left angle, as in his photo on this blog, than from the right angle in that little clip. Not that this bothers me; I just thought he might want to keep it in mind for future interviews.
Complain about this comment
18 valencia
Please, we are trying not to have every thread turn into an Israel/Palestine thing.
This thread is about Pakistan, so if you have a comment we'd love to hear it. After all you can usually manage 5 or 6 paragraphs on the football blog, but here you give us just a short sharp piece of provocative trash.
Thanks for joining us!
Complain about this comment
MAII (#17), it was the missile test that failed, not the nuclear explosion test. The danger is not basement bombs (except possible fizzle bombs used for terrorist purposes), but those designed be third-world countries such as Iran with help from weapons designers such as Dr. Khan in Pakistan. Several nations have succeeded in developing nuclear warheads.
Complain about this comment
only the hand of grace can end this race towards another mushroom cloud
Complain about this comment
To #12 Rodidog
I would disagree with that. Tests are not exactly the same as the actual effects on human beings.
Complain about this comment
To#23 Justlikethesea
Yes and yes again!
Complain about this comment
If everyone in the world could acknowledge there is only one (same) god / allah / jah etc then people may start to cool down their temper and live peacefully instead of warring over religions
Complain about this comment
Ref 26, Just
If everyone would abandon their superstitions, cultural intolerance, greed and imperialist agendae there would be no need for nuclear weapons in the first place. A nuclear Pakistan in the hands of radical elements should be an unacceptable proposition for everyone. Every step should be taken to guarantee the safekeeping of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and technological capabilities.
Complain about this comment
The problem with Pakistan is that its politics are, as Shrek would say, like an onion: lots and lots of layers.
Which means that you can talk to Zardari all you like, and he can give you every reassurance you might wish to hear, and it may be of precious little consequence.
So if you're looking for nuclear certainty in Pakistan, you'd best start peeling the onion, and get ready for some tears.
Yours,
Pinko
Complain about this comment
Gary Hill
I think the yield of NK's N test was in the range of 0.4 KT. By any reasonable standard, that was a dud. The energy released by the collapse of the two WTC towers was around 0.1 KT. The limited damage an attack with such an ineffective weapon except against a very carefully selected specific target makes it all but useless except for terrorists. I don't think it's enough to destroy even a small city. Politics aside, they did not demonstrate the technical capability to manufacture a militarily usable weapon. This goes to show that nobody really knows what will happen when a nuclear weapon is detonated. In the original test called Trinity, a minority of scientists believed the explosion would ignite the entire earth's atmosphere in a fusion chain reaction. Obviously it didn't. In Castle Bravo, lithium deuteride was added at the end almost as an afterthought. As a result, the explosion was 2 1/2 times the highest expected yield and was until TMI without doubt the worst radiological accident in US history. Maybe it still is. Japanese fishermen 90 miles away received 3rd degree burns from the explosion.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
26. just_like_the_sea wrote:
"If everyone in the world could acknowledge there is only one (same) god / allah / jah etc then people may start to cool down their temper and live peacefully instead of warring over religions"
The only way to stop people warring over religions is not have them at all .... not to make everyone acknowledge your particular variety.
Complain about this comment
19. At 10:46pm on 04 May 2009, saintDominick wrote:
"I suspect the concern was beyond the probability of the Taleban gaining access to nuclear material and also includes the distinct of possibility of Pakistan becoming an Islamic state."
Pakistan is an Islamic state. The problem is that no-one in their right minds can possibly rely on anything "Mr Ten Per Cent" might say in Washington or anywhere else.
Complain about this comment
23 just_like_the_sea wrote:
"only the hand of grace can end this race towards another mushroom cloud"
Young-Mr-Grace .... we need a hand. It seems we are not doing very well at all!
Complain about this comment
I suggested that the world chills out and does that thing that happylaze does so well but the damned mods modded me like the feds
Complain about this comment
And adding to my earlier comment, which is still going through the moderators, Pakistani nuclear arsenal is by and large safe. For the Taliban to overpower our army will take another 5 years (and hopefully we will have supressed them to a large extent by then). So there is no worry there.
I would also like to add that being a Pakistani I admit our failures and bad governance. However, they are limited and they have been happening for the past 60 years! Since Lord Mount Batton left :D!. So thats not the reason for this mess.
Anyway, I just hope this is all over asap, for everyone, for the people in the war afflicted zones, for the army who is sacrificing so much and for the sake of a beautiful religion that is being grossly misused by a bunch of illiterate hooligans.
Complain about this comment
Oh and if nothing works, send Led Zeppelin (hopefully Robert Plant agrees to play with the group again) along with trucks load of special greenary and rizzla paper. And I'm sure there will be peace within hours and all you'll here is 'Kashmir'
Complain about this comment
Ref 33, British
"Pakistan is an Islamic state. The problem is that no-one in their right minds can possibly rely on anything "Mr Ten Per Cent" might say in Washington or anywhere else."
I should have been more explicit and clear. I believe the danger for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is not the Taleban or Al Qaeda, but the ascent of Islamic clerics to assume power, the way they did in Iran after the Sha was deposed, imposing Sharia law and pursuing religious goals that could endanger not only South Asia but the entire Middle East as well, not to mention the possibility of nuclear weapons falling in the hands of terrorists and radical elements that could use them with impunity just about anywhere in the world.
Mr. Ten-percent may be ineffective and an embarrassment of sorts, but Gen Musharraff gave President Bush a runaround for years while getting substantial amount of money to modernize Pakistan's military and improve their ability to combat radicalism.
Hopefully substantial changes will come out of the upcoming Iranian election, leading to better relations with the West, that could help offset the dangers posed by growing radicalism in Pakistan.
Complain about this comment
#37, s2akbar, what kinds of reforms would you like to see in Pakistan
to get it back on the right track?
Complain about this comment
"Hopefully substantial changes will come out of the upcoming Iranian election, leading to better relations with the West, that could help offset the dangers posed by growing radicalism in Pakistan."
I don't see what possible difference it could make or what one thing has to do with the other. Iran is run by religious clerics. The candidates they filter who are allowed to run cannot ultimately make policy, that is reserved for the clerics alone. Talking to Ahmadinejad is a waste of time because he is not calling the shots. It would be demeaning for the President of the United States to negotiate directly or hold talks with someone who is in effect and underling.
How could an election outcome in Iran affect what is happening in Pakistan? They are in separate worlds which may one day collide. Notice how the princess-of-pee railed against Suni Arabs and Wahabist Suniism of which the Taleban and al Qaeda are militant proponents? They and the Iranian Mullahs are opposite sides of the same evil coin.
Complain about this comment
s2akhbar and the Sea,
Cool, yah! And Stu and Pinko and Ish and Aqualass, I believe we are quorate and have a consensus.
Fashionistas, I prefer a keffiyeh
Peace is possible. Without it, life isn't
Complain about this comment
41. At 00:51am on 05 May 2009, Hesiodos wrote:
Fashionistas, I prefer a keffiyeh
Hmm. They've come back? Red check or black? (Don't answer that while MA's about.)
Complain about this comment
We have a saying where I come from; never trust a man who wears his underwear on his head.
Complain about this comment
To#36 S2akbar
We also have "failures and bad governance." Let the people work to over come the failings of governments.
Peace be with you and your country.
Complain about this comment
Ref # 2 MarcusAureliusII
Marcus, as usual, your solution is the simple 'schoolboy destroy response': "Unfortunately, given how easy it is to hide them, that probably means destroying the entire country." (MAII)
Your strategy was completely flawed even before you finished typing - actually before. Think again. How were you thinking USA might destroy the entire country?
(1) You suggest "a pre-emptive nuclear strike that would eliminate Pakistan's existance" I don't think so. Are you aware of the China-Pakistan Treaty? You want a war with China?
(2) Expect India to launch a pre-emptive attack? Not an option either. You think India wants a nuclear war with China. Besides, have you seen the radiation that follows from those things? It can drift in any direction. Like Delhi and most of north west India. Or across China!
(3) That leaves you conventional bombing. And just how long do you think that will take? Long enough to cause the biggest refugee movement ever known, swarming into India and China. Long enough for the Pakistan nukes to be launched against USA.
(4) Last resort - a ground invasion. Don't think you've got enough troops for that. Look how long it's taken in Afghanistan. Besides, USA would find the nukes hitting a few cities before your troops unpacked their gear.
So that's your strategy in the bin. What next? Any more military ideas?
Complain about this comment
auquarizonagirl (8)
"A 'Pandora Box' was opened when the nuclear bomb was 'invented.' No one at that time really 'knew' what the effects would be. It seemed expedient then and there was also an intellectual curiosity that fueled a desire to actually 'see' what would happen, thus Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
They knew exactly what they had created and decided to use it anyway. They'd worked out the mathematics before they started the Manhattan Project. The Trinity test was conclusive proof of what would happen. It was intentional mass homicide. There was a lot of mass homicide going on in the world at the time.
There really was no chance humans wouldn't weaponize the technology once they worked out the nature of atoms. It was just too obvious an application.
Complain about this comment
RomeStu (32)
"The only way to stop people warring over religions is not have them at all .... not to make everyone acknowledge your particular variety."
No, we have an equally effective (and way more practical) method in the States: state mandated tolerance. It works.
Complain about this comment
S&M
You think China will engage in a nuclear war that would wipe out its chances for any future over the ashes of Taleban run Pakistan whether the attack comes from its best customer the USA or its giant next door neighbor India? Besides, China has its own problems with Moslems. The last thing it wants to see is radical Islam get its hands on nukes. Get real. India will likely take its chances with radioactive fallout and radiation sickness as the far lesser of two evils, the alternative, having its own cities nuked first by the Taleban is not acceptable to them. Radical militant Islam is not interested in issues of life and death in this world, they are only focused on the next. The USA is playing its cards close to its chest but it's not hard to tell what they are thinking. A nuclear strike by al Qaeda on an American city could trigger world war III. If Obama won't act, the indications are from reading the best accounts of the Cuban missile crisis is that the military has the capability to act without him. I'm not certain the US nuclear weapons arsenal is completely under civilian control. The US military won't be waiting around for a vote in the Security Council either. It's entirely possible that Obama is preparing to attack Pakistan anyway. He's been hinting at it since Berlin last summer.
It's amazing that an entire generation or two has grown up without understanding the peculiar psychology of nuclear weapons resulting from the finality in the consequences of their use. Governments understand it perfectly, at least those that have them and have tested them successfully do.
The world can't continue going on the way it has much longer. Most people refused to see the consequences of the financial WMDs that were deployed and detonated and were surprised when the shockwaves finally hit their doorstep. This like so many other ticking time bombs out there is the same. It doesn't seem to me that the world will be around much longer. Not at the rate things are going.
Complain about this comment
47, AndyPost: "No, we have an equally effective (and way more practical) method in the States: state mandated tolerance. It works."
So does that mean atheists can come out of the closet and get elected to national office now? Since tolerance is mandated? Just wondering.
Complain about this comment
#44 Thanks aquarizonagal, Peace be on you as well.
#39 I will reply to you question after work, it is a long one :)
............................
#40 MarcusAureliusII, you said ...
"the Iranian Mullahs are opposite sides of the same evil coin."
What is the basis of this comment may I ask? I mean I understand why the Taliban are evil....but why are these guys evil? they seem to be running a normal country. Fine, women there aren't allowed to please our eyes by wearing skirts, but besides that it seems all okay to me.
I genuinely would like to hear where you are coming from.
And if you say that they suppress voices or torture people (which I seriously think is not very common in Iran), keep in mind what America has done post 9-11 or Israel has done since it has been occupying Palestine. And the other thing I would like you to do is to exclude Ahmedinejads comments on Israel and their support of Hezbollah. Those can be explained and the 'wipe Israel of the map' comment doesn't mean Israeli people, it meant take the occupied lands back. This all was said as support to the people there because no one else in the world stands for them, whereas the occupying force is supported by all the major players in the world. And Iran has clarified that it will accept a two state solution. Anyway, I said these two things just so that I don't get the same response we get again and again.
But besides that, why are they 'Evil'?
Please respond!
thanks!
Complain about this comment
Sam (#10), I'm not convinced that's a half-Windsor. In any case, my opinion is that it's the spread collar that's the problem, which requires a larger knot. Must be a British thing.
Complain about this comment
To#46 Andypost
I am sorry but I do not agree that the 'creators' of the nuclear bomb were fully aware of all they had created. There was a tremendous effort to develop more and better weapons, to somehow bring the war to an end in favor of the US and its allies. Scientists did what they do best, they researched and they produced.
Mathematics, tests and simulations, no matter how well conceived, are no true match for the reality of the thing itself. This has been demonstrated many times when a thought has been put into actual practice.
I will say once more that the Pandora Box is open and will not be closed.
Complain about this comment
Whether the relatively low yield of the North Korean test was a success or a failure is not that clear cut. Here is an analysis for the nuclear wonks:
analysys
And, by the way, Castle Brave was a thermonuclear (hydrogen) bomb test. This is not relevant to a discussion of fission bomb tests.
Complain about this comment
#16
Taff,
Are we confusing BBC pink with Thomas Pink. The short should at least be Pink. I would suggest that the color is optional.
Fashionista Sam
Complain about this comment
#43, 48
There is a saying where I come from:
'Man worried about underwear headgear and reasoning winnable nuclear war whould not be trusted with matches. Or sharp objects. Or crayons for that matter. He have bigger issues than hats'
Perplexed Sam
Complain about this comment
s2akbar
Like the Taleban, the Mullahs of Iran would impose their religious theology on the entire world or as large a segment of it as they can. Their theology and this tyrannical philosophy not only flies in the face of democratic rights that were so hard fought and won only starting a little over two centuries ago but also flies in the face of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is part of the Charter of the United Nations and which Iran signed up to. The rhetoric of the Iranian state may at times seem relatively reasonable and rational but it is belied by the actions of that state which includes its direct surrogates Hezbollah and Hamas. Both the US and EU have correctly called them terrorist organizations. You can see the true intentions and methods of the Iranian state in its Fatwah against the author Salmon Rushdi for writing a book whose comments about Islam it detested to the point of contracting for his assassination.
Insofar as Israel is concerned, Iran will only agree to a two state solution if what it defines as the Palestinian People agree to it also, knowing full well that both Hezbollah and Hamas will never allow that to happen. Iran has been behind many efforts to destroy Israel by both supplying armaments and money to Hezbollah and Hamas and training. Hezbollah's control over Lebanon which is gaining momentum is one more effort at gaining regional political and military hegemony and eventually elimination of the state of Israel. So frightened by being dominated by the Shia Mullahs in Teheran are many Arab leaders, that they are even now selling out the Palestinians in the hope of being rescued by Israel against the common enemy Iran. (Nobody in the Islamic world actually ever cared about the Palestinians, otherwise, 61 years after the creation of Israel, they would not be living in the desperate squallor they find themselves in, and no that is not Israel's fault. That is their own fault and that of their so called leaders and allies.)
Thefore, the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran or the aquisition of a government which has nuclear weapons by the Taleban and al Qaeda creates a deadly nexus President Bush warned about. Neither should be acceptable to the civilized world and by that I mean it should use any and all means however Draconian to prevent it. Allowing powerful armaments to fall into the hands of such madmen was a lesson World War II taught the world. If it fails to prevent it now, it will learn that terrible lesson all over again.
Complain about this comment
#55
That would be 'should' not 'whould'. In our area 'Whould' refers to 'Man who know not WTF he is talking about make fool of self'.
Second thoughts maybe that stands.
Sad Sam
Complain about this comment
#20
Bere,
Either way, he is a very attractive man.
Ambiguous Sam
Complain about this comment
Gary hill
The point of my comment you obviously missed was that nobody actually knows what will happen when a nuclear weapon is detonated and was in response to rodidog's statement:
"12. At 10:18pm on 04 May 2009, rodidog wrote:
#8 aquarizonagal,
Aqua, they new what would happen due to the Atomic bomb test in New Mexico in July, 1945."
In point of fact, nobody knew beofore Castle Bravo that the inclusion of lithium7duteride would create a breakdown product of tritium that would nearly triple the expected yield. It came as an utter surprise. Look at the accounts of the problems it created in its aftermath on the website I referenced or...go back to worrying about how to tie a necktie properly.
Complain about this comment
To#50 S2akbar
Much of what happens in the world and some of what you may read here is because of fear. So many have such an ingrained "fear of the other" that there is no room in their hearts to be open or to listen to those who may be different from themselves.
Complain about this comment
58, Sam -
Doesn't do anything for me. Not scruffy enough and he doesn't have the "eyes." He's all yours.
Complain about this comment
60. At 03:24am on 05 May 2009, aquarizonagal wrote:
"some of what you may read here is because of fear"
And a need therefore to create an enemy that is behind every bush and under every bed out of disparate and even contradictory groups regardless of political, geographical and religious realities.
"Cricket is inferior to baseball. Cricketers wear white. All people who wear white must envy baseball. Therefore they must hate it. Therefore massacre all people who wear white before they destroy baseball."
(Yes, I know, before anyone gets at me on that one, cricketers don't actually all wear white any more, but you get the idea.)
Complain about this comment
62, -ish, do they wear pink, now?
Here I am tuning in after work, and all I see is fashion advice!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
g and r
When Euros hear talk about things that frighten them, they change the subject...or hide under the bed. Their leaders were lucky Hitler wasn't their man servant. He'd have tied their ties for them...with meat hooks and piano wire.
Complain about this comment
The proliferation of nuclear weapons is inevitable.
How is the World to learn to live with this fact?
What changes need to be made in our approach to international relations?
Are our mentalities too many thousand years behind our technologies?
How much time do we have left in which to get smart?
Complain about this comment
coololdiconoclast, as my grandmother used to say,
"Too soon old and too late smart!"
Complain about this comment
Take out China, and you take out half the worlds problems. While India's nukes are indigenous, Pakistan's are not. They have been developed 100% by China with Abdul Kalaam's face to it. China, in its greed of wanting to be the sole superpower in that neighborhood, has ensured that it creates ALL possible problems to the only other country that can even remotely challenge it - India. China's policy has been to encircle India. And it has succeeded. What China doesn't realize is that the Taliban will come and get back at them in time. While the immediate focus should be on Pakistan, the world should next focus their attention on China. China seems to have purposely taken the path of bullying the world and making partnerships with everyone on the dark side. This monster will grow and soon become unstoppable ...
Complain about this comment
68, WWIII, you should take the blue pill that is sitting in a little
bottle on your TV set. But not the red one...
Complain about this comment
18, valencia.
"What about Israeli nukes?
It's OK if our friends (of the moment) have nukes. It is not OK if our enemies (of the moment) have nukes. It's also OK if we have nukes. This is about the only logic, or lack there of, that counts.
Complain about this comment
38, saintD.
"I believe the danger for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is not the Taleban or Al Qaeda, but the ascent of Islamic clerics to assume power, the way they did in Iran after the Sha was deposed,..."
We put the mollahs in power in Iran. it was this act, on our part, the helped create the wave of Islamic militants.
Complain about this comment
41, hesiodos.
"Fashionistas, I prefer a keffiyeh."
The keffiyeh is a reasonable headdress in a desert climate. The Foreign Legion wore a kaffiyah-like drapery below their hats and women of the desert veil. The veil's origin is practical, not religious. Note that Moslem women who do not live in the desert do not veil. (They would suffer heat prostration.)
Complain about this comment
49, bere.
"So does that mean atheists can come out of the closet and get elected to national office now? Since tolerance is mandated? Just wondering."
No. Elected officials are required to lie. It is in their job description.
Complain about this comment
@ RomeStu:
Hi! I'm Dutch, and as such I bear responsability for the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Allow me to elaborate; Pakistan's nukes were made possible by two factors. First, the international cooperation between a couple of blacklisted, isolated and extreme states (Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, and also Syria, Iran). For the West, and the world as a whole, this has been deemed as impossible for too long, until it was too late (in that view, Iran already has the knowledge to build nukes, they just need the right manufacturing equipment). The second reason is the brains behind Pakistan's nuclear programme: the infamous dr. Khan. And where did he acquire his knowledge? Yes, in Holland, working at the Dutch-German-English Urenco-company, starting as a student in Holland... By the time authorities found out what he was up to (and that was stalled, not believed and handled with sheer incompetence), and finally decided to act, he had already jumped the gun. Furthermore, US agencies intervened and both warned Dutch authorities to let him go, as well as dr. Khan that he wasn't safe anymore.
So, as a Dutchman, I have to conclude my country made a serious f___up handling this case, especially in hindsight.
Of course, from a Pakistani perspective, the Indian A-bomb explosion in 1974 must have been a terryfying event, and a stimulus for Pakistani nuclear development, but why the US went along...
Did they underestimate the threat? Yes, again especially in hindsight. But Cold War-motives (India-> USSR-ally, Pakistan-> USA-ally) played a role as well. If there is anything else, it's only speculation.
For Pakistan as a country, the big question is whether this nuclear programme has delivered it's promises. Before one can answer that, the right questions need to be asked. So, what was the reason for developing nukes? And have nukes delivered what they promised?
First, and foremost, securing regional security for the Pakistani state, against regional threats. With this is meant neutralizing the growing Indian military threat and capability, both nuclear and conventional, as demonstrated in the last few military encounters. In 1998, the year in which both countries tested their nuclear devices and tentions were running high, this goal seemed to be achieved- war was avoided, partly because the US had shifted some of it's priorities and now again had attention for the region (which was soon forgotten again...).
Second, it is a matter of national pride, and as such a possible means for nation-building. In this it has utterly failed; while virtually all Pakistani's are proud of this national achievement, it failed in the second part. The fact that over a very long time, Pakistani authorities have been dealing with some of the most bizarre, if not dangerous, states on this planet, has damaged Pakistan in the international diplomatic community. Furthermore, Pakistan itself was blacklisted for a long time for this, thereby curbing possibilities for development, investment and education for it's own citizens. Combined with the fact that the Pakistani economy has been weak (which is a serious understatement!!!) for a long time, and this programme has drained billions of US-dollars, the entire nuclear programme is tainted, even in hawkish circles; the same effect could probably have been achieved in a better way.
In my view (and even if this is true, this will likely never be admitted by anyone), the Pakistani government, armed forces and intelligence community have made some (literally) overwhelming strategic blunders.
In the eighties, while Zia was still president, Pakistan was turned into a islamic state, a preocess that started with it's independence. With the removal of Zia, this seemed to have stopped (to great relieve from the US, which had no desire for two islamic fundamentalist states bordering each other).
Now we know that the process might have been curbed, but certainly not stopped, let alone rolled back. In the armed forces and especially the intelligence community the presence and influence of fundamentalists has been far greater than even the Pakistani government has ever drfeamed about. The synergy -born in the Afghan War in the 80ies- between Afghan Mujaheddin, the Pakistani intelligence services, backed up by religious institutions all came together in the religious "universities" where funds were raised, believers were turned into fighters/warriors/martyrs, and deals could be made, but not on "the grid", has had far-reaching consequences.
Nowadays, it is clear, that the Pakistani government and intelligence services thought they were in complete control, and that they thought the Taliban were their puppets. In how far the government was fooled by the Taliban itself, or in how far (elements of the) Pakistani intelligence community itself had switched sides and were now agents of the fundamentalists is not clear. But between the two parties is a murky, grey area, and the Pakistaini state now finds itself in a situation that is not only different from what they thought would still be the case, but their stature and position is entirely different, not the puppeteers of another nation, while in control of the rivalry with their arch-nemesis, but under threat from an internal insurrection, with an army that is pursuing it's own goals (probably doing nothing, because they are divided themselves, religiously, but also morally (will they fire on their own citizens?) and so will only act if fired upon or ordered to do so, dumping responsibility on the civilian authorities), an intelligence community that is entirely unreliable because of internal divisions and a population that is more and more aghast with the entire situation...
Whatever happens, the secular elements need to be supported as much as possible. A very dangerous place to be...
Complain about this comment
is nationalistic propaganda another form of jingoism
and religious dogma another form of extremism or hatred?
Complain about this comment
Ref 64 MAII
"God it is so easy for me to detest you Euros. What one good thing can you people say for yourselves? Not one I've ever heard in my entire life."
Well, we did give birth to the US. And the US founding principles were based on European philospohies that were around at the time. Even your system of government comes from ancient Greece, which is in Europe. Those are all pretty good things.
That must really annoy you though, mustn't it... Perhaps you're just going through a stage that all children go through, that of rebelling against your parents. Who's your daddy?!?
Back on topic, though... Surely the Pakistani army would step in to stop any undesirable government getting into power? After all, they've done it in the past. I know they're not having much luck against the Taleban at the moment, but that's because the Taleban are out in remote areas. There's no way the Taleban could seriously challenge the Pakistani army out in the open.
Complain about this comment
38. saintDominick wrote "...the danger for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is not the Taleban or Al Qaeda, but the ascent of Islamic clerics to assume power..."
A distinction without a difference?
Complain about this comment
#32
Stu,
Alternatively you could just stop caring what the guy next door does, so long as he doesn't keep you awake with it.
Practical Sam
Complain about this comment
# 49 bere54 wrote:
"So does that mean atheists can come out of the closet and get elected to national office now? Since tolerance is mandated? Just wondering."
Ah Bere - we must all hope and pray that your dream will soon be realised.
;-)
Anyway, it appears that you are quite wrong. Postings from believers [well - certain believers] will often point out that in fact it is they who are oppressed by the leftie-liberal-secular-atheist-pinko-commie-muslim-intellectual establishment. For instance, that 'One Nation Not Under God' business. Not to mention 'In God We Don't Trust' on the money....
Complain about this comment
Ref 27, Yet
"A distinction without a difference?"
The difference, in my opinion, are the long term implications of Ayatollahs and Mullahs taking over Pakistan Vs those of a radical group assuming power for a finite amount of time.
The Taleban and Al Qaeda are popular in remote rural areas both because of their fundamentalist views and their overt opposition to a foreign presence in the region. The ascendancy of religious leaders to power would last for decades and would not only influence Pakistan's relationship with the West for many years to come, but would strengthen radical organizations such as the ones we are currently fighting.
I understand how the difference between radical organizations and a religious movement may seem insignificant to most people, but I believe it is much more difficult to fight a medieval ideological shift than relatively small organizations, regardless of how much material and spiritual support they may enjoy.
Complain about this comment
I keep reading the moral equivilency argument on why it is ok to have rouge nations like North Korea and Iran to have nuclear weapons.
Stop being Naive the progesive democracies in the west and India and Israel can be trusted. although toltarian so can Russia and China.
NK is ruled by an unstable despot and his aging generals.
Iran or any country that folls sharia teachings can not be trusted.
Complain about this comment
#81
I don't think anyone is aying it's OK for Iran or NK to have nukes. What people are saying is no nation has the right to pick and choose who can be trusted and who can't. It's hypocritical for America to say "so and so can't have nukes, but so and so can", when they are the only nation in history to have used them, and they used them on to civilian populations.
No nukes all round would be better.
Complain about this comment
81. At 1:14pm on 05 May 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
I keep reading the moral equivilency argument on why it is ok to have rouge nations like North Korea and Iran to have nuclear weapons.
Stop being Naive the progesive democracies in the west and India and Israel can be trusted. although toltarian so can Russia and China."
This argument can be good for the playground but not for adults.
Ask the people of Tibet and Vietnam if China can be trusted and the Georgians about Russia.
Arguments need evidence not just prejudice eg "I hates arabs and moslems" to be effective.
Complain about this comment
80. At 12:32pm on 05 May 2009, saintDominick wrote:
"The Taleban and Al Qaeda are popular in remote rural areas both because of their fundamentalist views and their overt opposition to a foreign presence in the region. The ascendancy of religious leaders to power would last for decades and would not only influence Pakistan's relationship with the West for many years to come, but would strengthen radical organizations such as the ones we are currently fighting. "
The Taleban are popular because they enforce law and order (crudely) and reduce endemic banditry.
After near 30 years of savage anarchy people will support the proverbial drovers dog provided they bring some kind of peace.
Complain about this comment
64. At 05:24am on 05 May 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
. What one good thing can you people say for yourselves? Not one I've ever heard in my entire life."
Yeh we know you don't like our colour.
I've near heard one good thing for colour prejudice in all my life.
Complain about this comment
#85
He obviously said that to get a reaction. Ignore him :)
Complain about this comment
18 well said Valencia to Barcelona.
Drop the nuke questions until we have heard when those inspections will happen. this week the holder of undeclared nukes is visiting the USA and being treated like a decent person. Which obviously they are not.
Complain about this comment
And on the lighter side;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRLON3ddZIw
Complain about this comment
Aqua the problem is when people say " wow I think I can make this really big bomb " we do not just lock them up.
Techno junkies waiting to die from a hit of something new.
what new thing can we make where though there are clear moral dangers we will ignore that.
Meanwhile we develop (for peaceful proposes;)
So we can all look hard at the nukes. And if I were a mad dictator I would run a diversion program on that. because the gems of bioethics and chemical engineering will come out with some real winners. But we will all be looking at the nukes.
(all those but those I have).
Complain about this comment
I keep reading the moral equivilency argument on why it is ok to have rouge nations like North Korea and Iran to have nuclear weapons.
Stop being Naive the progesive democracies in the west and India and Israel can be trusted. although toltarian so can Russia and China.
NK is ruled by an unstable despot and his aging generals.
Iran or any country that folls sharia teachings can not be trusted-------
==================
UM so as long as they intend or do become totalitarian they are OK.
Complain about this comment
Don't worry, be happy!
Here's a fine example of good ole Yankee know-how and why the man will find a way to get the job done when machines alone can't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgHSDa2Jwqc
Complain about this comment
ref #83 Arguments need evidence not just prejudice eg "I hates arabs and moslems" to be effective.
Throwing the race card out again simon?
If Turkey or Indonisa both Moslem majority countries had nukes there would not be so much worry.
It is the intolerance of Iran the Taliban and Islamic facists that should be a concern. An Irananian general said yesterday that Iran could wipe Israel off the map in 11 days.
Complain about this comment
86. At 2:02pm on 05 May 2009, SaintOne wrote:
Ignore him :)
Good advice. He's been answered and challenged often enough. Not only on this blog but numerous other BBC ones.
Complain about this comment
#92
Magic, please do not defend MAII. He is nothing short or a racist, or just a troll.
Complain about this comment
37 for a long time my call has been "bongs not bombs."
Personally it seems that full legalisation of Hashish may help some rural communities not want the talliban when they can have all those well paying pot head tourists.
but then potheads are fik as the americans think
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#97
Read the first sentence then stopped. Didn't have to read the rest, heard it all before from you (plus I like paragraphs).
Oh, and thanks for proving me right
Complain about this comment
92. At 2:34pm on 05 May 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #83 Arguments need evidence not just prejudice eg "I hates arabs and moslems" to be effective.
Throwing the race card out again simon?"
No your problem mate not mine
Can't see much sense in hating millions of semites because they are not like my clean white self?
What do you get out of it?
"If Turkey or Indonisa both Moslem majority countries had nukes there would not be so much worry."
Indonesia and Turkey? Talked to any Banda islanders lately? any Kurds?
What a complete fool,
"It is the intolerance of Iran the Taliban and Islamic facists that should be a concern. An Irananian general said yesterday that Iran could wipe Israel off the map in 11 days."
Very sensible of him. That might shut the Israelies and Americans up before issuing threats.
Might make the Israeli neo-fascist foreign minister hesitate before advocating ethnic cleansing,
About time the Iranians started defending themselves. Maybe they could put bombing Israel into a funny song - like the US senator did.
We'll see who laughs then.
Complain about this comment
Meant #96
Whoops
Complain about this comment
s2akbar
Excellent posts. well said.
especially on the America taking offence at the language used by ahmadinnasbad.
It seems clear to me he talks not in the literal manner that it's opponents suggest.
But then as we have seen here they take offence too easily in the states. then act shocked if someone feels the same.
Complain about this comment
96. At 3:06pm on 05 May 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
Oh Sainted One, which race am I prejudiced against?
You said you hated Europeans because of their colour
Now tell us what colour you mean?
Black, Asian, swathy?
Answer the question
Complain about this comment
ref #98
It may be a surprise to you that most nations are not idealisticly perfect. But there are adversaries who are threat to everyone.
The Nazis and Islamic facists just happen to be two of the latest.
Can you honestly forsee China or Russia starting a nuclear war?
But I can clearly see the Mullahs or Al Quada launching a nuclear strike or planting a bomb because they have no respect for life or civilization
Complain about this comment
102. At 3:28pm on 05 May 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #98
It may be a surprise to you that most nations are not idealisticly perfect. But there are adversaries who are threat to everyone."
According to you and to you Israel is the world, or the only part of it that matters.
Others, ie the rest of the world have a different opinion.
The Nazis and Islamic facists just happen to be two of the latest."
You are referring to the Israeli foreign minister and his gang. I agree!
"Can you honestly forsee China or Russia starting a nuclear war?"
Can you honestly claim Iran, which unlike Israel has not invaded a country in 200 years wants to bomb the world.
Are you remotely serious?
Do you have anything but bigotry to back this claim?
As I say ask Georgia (Ukraine, Poland etc) and the Tibetans about trusting Russia and China
Or are they "inferior" peoples too?
Don't worry I don't expect you to have a sensible answer.
"But I can clearly see the Mullahs or Al Quada launching a nuclear strike or planting a bomb because they have no respect for life or civilization"
Yes and Hitler could see the jews taking over the world. So what? As I say bigotry is no argument.
You hate Iranians, big deal. Get over it.
Complain about this comment
100. At 3:15pm on 05 May 2009, happylaze wrote:
s2akbar
Excellent posts. well said.
especially on the America taking offence at the language used by ahmadinnasbad."
Taking offence is one thing.
Joking about bombing his country another.
No wonder Iran wants to press ahead with nuclear weapons
Complain about this comment
I think in all likely-hood no country would ever start a nuclear war, because it would be MAD 'n all. The retaliation would be devestating.
A small organisation such as Al Qaeda however....well, assuming they ever got their hands on a nuke, where on Earth would a country fire their retaliatory missles?
Complain about this comment
Marcus...I can call you Marcus can't I?...please come in and sit down. Actually, better yet, lie down on that couch over there.
Now the thing is Marcus...what...yes the couch is from Ikea. Oh. Sorry. My bad. Let's just both stand shall we?
Now, the thing is Marcus I know that you were badly frightened by Hammer Horror films as a child, and you had that nasty experience with that french stick and some cheese, but you really must try and put things into a bit of perspective.
You see, you seen to be drawing some general (and to be honest, rather bizarre) generalisations about an entire continent of several hundred million people based on...well I can only assume based on Asterix Comics and Benny Hill shows.
Now I will admit that this has been very amusing to us all. We've all had a good chuckle about it - but recently, you seem to have decended into some very ungentlemanly comments. And let's be honest, your post at number 96 above really has passed into 'foaming at the mouth' territory hasn't it?
I dare say that once you've had time to think about it, you will be suitably contrite. For that reason, young man, I shall be sending you to bed tonight without your supper - but don't forget, you take the big yellow pill on Tuesdays.
Complain about this comment
#106
Game.Set.Match
Gave me a good chuckle!
Complain about this comment
105. At 3:48pm on 05 May 2009, SaintOne wrote:
A small organisation such as Al Qaeda however....well, assuming they ever got their hands on a nuke, where on Earth would a country fire their retaliatory missles?"
It is certainly a worry, but most of us knew the game was up when Indai and Pakistan - who have fought numerous wars, were allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
As soon as that happened all bets were off. Iran was of course going to want one as wouldother countries.
We will probably get a rash of announcements over the next couple of years.
Remember the basic technology is over 60 years old and no technology is kept secret forever.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I SIMPLY DONT UNDERSTAND ONE THING AND THAT IS WHY THE WHOLE WORLD IS SO MUCH CONCERNED OF OUR NUCLEAR WEAPONS? WHAT IS WITH THE INDIAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS??PAKISTAN HAS GOT THE MOST BRILLIANT COMMAND AND CONTOL SYSTEM.SOMETHING THAT INDIA CANNOT HAVE..WHY DO WE ALWAYS FORGET THAT PAKISTAN IS A FRONTLINE STATE IN THE FIGHT AGAINST TERROR..AREN'T THEY?THEY LOST 1700 SOLDIERS AND CAPTURED THE TOP LEADERSHIP OF AL QAEDA AND TALIBAN.DIDN'T THEY? NOW TELL ME HOW MUCH HAS INDIA CONTRIBUTED TOWARDS COUNTERING TERRORISM?NOTHING AT ALL......
Complain about this comment
Mr Danish - please don't shout (i.e. take the caps lock off)!
Complain about this comment
#109
Lmao. Well I feel sorry for everyone that won't miss out on your stupidity when that comment gets taken down. Truly a portrait of a man falling into the depths of insanity.
Or just a troll with nothing better to do. Eitter way it is pathetic.
Complain about this comment
105 ST1
I think a country that is faced with losing it's national Identity would be criminally insane to use the weapon of last resort.
but I can see it happening.
As someone who really has little problem with slagging off any country and loves slagging off the two I know best I see nationalism as a problem all over. A local pride , great. but if lets say america was invaded and we lost our liberty to them commies.
if we had to drive lada's(or is that GMfiat).
how bad is that?
so bad we would destroy the world.
I'm with all those that say there is no place for nukes. NONE.
ANY nukes are bad nukes.
Look at it like this. the worse without nukes is endless war. this gives future generations the ability to realise the futility of war.
All out nukes however, don't.
There are countries that look like they would strike out un-restrained with no concern for the greater world or anyone else.
Those small nations or large are the ones we should watch.
and if they are nice and stay in their own yard etc we should not threaten them.
Or they will want nukes. that is how Pakistan gained the desire to get one.
That is how they all do.
Complain about this comment
105. SaintOne: "...assuming [al Quaeda] ever got their hands on a nuke, where on Earth would a country fire their retaliatory missles?"
That's the proverbial rub, isn't it? And yet, should such an attack occur it cannot go unanswered. Many will die on both sides, very few of whom will deserve it. I wonder if that's the only way humanity can vent its hate, and having vented it, only then look for a way to live together?
108. Simon21: "Remember the basic technology is over 60 years old and no technology is kept secret forever."
So, if prevention is not feasible (and may never have been), what is a pragmatic approach to risk mitigation?
Complain about this comment
109. Hello, MarcusAureliusII. Where are you from? It's hard to guess based on your posts. It appears as if you hate everyone.
Complain about this comment
109. At 4:22pm on 05 May 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
Simon21
"Can't see much sense in hating millions of semites because they are not like my clean white self?"
Your cleanliness is only skin deep. Inside you and your kindred spirits have the filthiest of minds and the blackest of hearts.
The color of Europeans I detest is the color of their ideologies born out of their loathsome cultural heritage, "
Sorry no banana.
Answer the question
you said you hated Europeans because of their colour
What colour
Stop wriggling and answer. And give up the booze
be honest
You used the words, not me.
Black, white swarthy? What is it please
Complain about this comment
cheese danish
"THEY LOST 1700 SOLDIERS AND CAPTURED THE TOP LEADERSHIP OF AL QAEDA AND TALIBAN.DIDN'T THEY?"
Last I heard, Mullah Omar and Osama Bin Laden are still on the loose. You know something the rest of us haven't heard? We've got Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in GITMO. I wonder if we are dumb enough as a society to let him go.
"A small organisation such as Al Qaeda however....well, assuming they ever got their hands on a nuke, where on Earth would a country fire their retaliatory missles?""
The question that will be asked by the President of the United States or whoever is really in charge after the attack is how do I prevent this from happening again? The inevitable answer is to eliminate all threats wherever they may exist. With an arsenal of still over 9000 nuclear weapons and the most powerful conventional military force in the world, that is a mission that will be do-able but will anyone including us survive it? Nobody will talk about bringing it up at the UN...assuming New York City still exists and there even is a UN left.
Complain about this comment
On that area of the world. I am pissed.
I was planning to one day take an extensive chillum tour of the area, area's that friends travelled around for years. and now that is just a little more dangerous. all because no one can calm down, have a bowl and see that the people are not that different.
the culture isn't evil and aerial bombardment is not the way to get a terrorist leader.
Now half the people think that the Pakistanis are terrorists.
They cannot handle the weapons.
This from the country with the take a missile for a ride whenever policy of it's airforce.
America.
Complain about this comment
#117
The more I hear this garbage from MAII, the more I am concerned about the well-being of people in his general vicinity. He seems rather on the edge, to put it politely. Perhaps it would be worth get in contact with the authorities moderators? It's harmless on here but he has issues
Complain about this comment
To #83. Simon21 and everybody else who compare US, Israel, China, Russia, UK, France to Pakistan, Iran, N.Korea.
I have 5 points metric to check if state can be trsuted. This metric roughly measure political stability, and how much gov able to cares about own people.
Pakistan, Iran, N.Korea and ... Russia don't score well.
1. State don't kill own citizens in numbers.
You can expect that government will avoid enormous civilian losses that associated with any major/nuclear war at any cost. It also give other states influence polices by applying pressure.
Iran know for it brutality during war with Iraq 'human waves attacks' cost 1,000'000's. So Pakistan. N.Korea lost 1,000,000's to simple starvation.
2. State has proven record of passing power from one gov to another without major troubles.
It insures that next gov will not suddenly change curse. Other countries have time react by politics not force.
Pakistan had more cups than election. Who is next leader of Iran/N.Korea?
Democraticy works the best here.
3. State don't raise kids in hate/nationalism.
It takes ~7-10 yrs to grew generation of 'hate' using school system. 'Generation of hate' supports war and make society very unstable.
We all were/are subjects to 'Patriotic' education. What about school plays about suicide bombers like in Iran? What about geography lessons where maps Great Persia/Pakistan/Korea cover half of neighbor states? What about injustice lessons that fault West/infidels for everything?
4. Individuals who hold powers come from general society not from 'elite groups' like clerics or nobles.
Elite groups often don't have kids and/or disconnected from the rest of society. They also cannot quickly produce new leader quickly to replace aging guy who hold power. Sound like Iran's Ayatollah & N.Korea Kim's.
5. State has history of successful passage through crisises.
Israel scores the best :). Russia lost territory/had cups. Pakistan faces regular cups/lost territories/enormous casualties at wars. Iran lost territory/ enormous casualties at war. N.Korea enormous casualties at war, lost population even at peace time.
I also see that all nuclear powers don't engage other nuclear powers. Once first shot fired they rush to negotiations (Russia/US, Russia/China, US/China).
I see Iran constantly engages US. I see Pakistan engages India. see N.Korea constantly engage US.
Israel/UK/France/US scores perfect.
India/Russia scores so so.
But Pakistan, Iran, N.Korea.
Complain about this comment
dave number 49127376809109426
"109. Hello, MarcusAureliusII. Where are you from? It's hard to guess based on your posts. It appears as if you hate everyone."
Well that would disproves Simple Simon's assertion that I am a racist. See, I don't discriminate after all. Racists by definition discriminate, in their case based on race. Hatred is far too valuable an emotion to be thrown around carelessly or indiscriminately. If you are going to hate someone, you should know exactly who it is and exactly why you hate them. Unreasoned hatred based on someone's racial, religious, or ethnic circumstance of birth is irratonal. If I hate people it is not for who they are but for what they are and what they do. That is a very major point of distinction.
Complain about this comment
SKV USA
Nice . I like the way you use those authoritative numbers as if they make the points less blunt.
But points like the ruling elite.
UK is OK.
GW didn't make it in and bring us to the brink because of family either. right?
As for killing own citizens in numbers.
does that mean if you claim they are not yours really but you have TOTAL control over them they are not counted?
Iran Iran Iran..
but was it them that attacked?
No. So because hey tried to defend against the west backed Saddam but were beaten back by chemical weapons and did not use any thing they could get hold of . they are to be told No.
as for you reasoning about hatred and training. Have you watched anything out of Wholly Wood.
Did you see 24 and the beat a forn looking guy thing. the OK to Water board shows.
the rest of the "look he's scary cause he looks different" shows that don't end up showing a marriage at the end.
America has been arab bashing and saying it's OK to kill some hill giuy over there because he threatened to kill us if we invaded his land.
but that is not state sponsored.
what is this state sponsored rubbish all come out with.
America could probably privatise it's military (if it were not for the entitlements that would cripple them and the affordability of health care)
Oh wait they did "blackwater" I forgot for a second.
State sponsored terrorist. by anyone standards.
But they are OK because they fit you oh so convenient list and your oh so convenient thoughts on history.
Nice Numbers.
Complain about this comment
bere54 (49)
"So does that mean atheists can come out of the closet and get elected to national office now? Since tolerance is mandated? Just wondering."
No, tolerance of belief does not imply support of belief.
I agree that an atheist has no chance of being elected to national office. For the vast majority of Americans, religion and morality are inextricably intertwined. Atheists are simply not trusted.
My feelings on the matter differ from my countrymen if your curious.
Complain about this comment
SKV USA
BTW France would fail that test wouldn't it.
They get invaded and taken over all the time.
hardly know where the border is with Germany.
that passing of power and back was not trouble free.
Not their fault either, really.
I do agree that Pakistan, Iran and NKorea should all be prevented from getting nukes, I just add the rest to the list.
the list the includes them not included but we can be cool with that because they would never lie to us would they.
"I see Iran constantly engages US"
UM and the US...........?
Complain about this comment
auqaarizonalgal (52)
"I will say once more that the Pandora Box is open and will not be closed."
Well, I agree with you there. My point was simply that the box was never closed. The scientific community will investigate all aspects of the universe to the extent that they can.
Proof of theory by experimentation is a fundamental concept of science. So, I guess I take your point that setting off a nuclear device to prove the theoretical physics was inevitable. It wasn't however motivated by actually wanting to see hundreds of thousands of people die. In the end it came down to Truman wanting to end the war. And he did, too.
Complain about this comment
115. At 4:40pm on 05 May 2009, yet_another_dave:
In a post (now deleted, but not because of me, I thought it was so obviously lunatic it needed to stand) he said (I paraphrase) he was glad not to be descended from any race or people that had ever populated the USA.
He's a Dalek. Obviously. Been trying to explain that for ages. (It's the way he keeps yelling "Ex-ter-min-ate!" that gives it away. But don't worry, as long as he doesn't have access to a lift he can't get at us.)
Complain about this comment
120 SKV
having numbered points doesn't make them real.
or your assesment real.
the conclusions of your own tests would stop most of them countries being on the list.
just over 100 years ago americans were slaughtering each other.
they were killing their own in more recent times than that.
(where did all the Indians go)
Kids here playing with their guns watching them war films never get brainwashed like kids doing plays. right?
Some of them countries you think are OK have attacked all they can.
but their OK?
your test is biased.
your history must be as well to come to the conclusions you have from your own test.
Complain about this comment
Ref #48 Marcus Aurellius
Is that it? Is that your military strategy?
You're plan is: "A nuclear strike that would eliminate Pakistan" by India or USA.
When would India launch this nuclear strike of yours on Pakistan? Before the Taliban take control of the nukes - or after?
If not by India, then by USA. What stage would you launch a nuclear stike from USA? The Taliban are now just 60miles outside Islamabad. You want to wait another week?
You say "A nuclear strike". Is that just one nuke you're going to launch? How many?
Are you going to tell India to evacuate its people in advance? There's approx 200 million that would be affected.
Are you going to evacuate everyone from Afghanistan as well? Including the 40,000 US troops based there? How would you evacuate all 40,000 US troops without anyone realising what you're planning?
The radiation will certainly drift across China's rich oil fields in the Xingjiang region. Is it a "finger crossed" strategy of yours that China won't retaliate when USA blocks their future oil supplies. How do you think they're planning for this possibility?
Are you thinking of relying on support again from Britain with our large Pakistan communities?
After 9-11 when it became very apparent to the world just how unpredictable Bush was, Russia-China relations improved, a lot of meetings went on. What planning was going on? How confident are you that in threatening China's oil interests they'll roll over? Like China, India don't want American radiation all over their country either. Nor does Russia want it over their client states. Some would say that threatening Indian, Russian and Chinese interests all at the same time is extremely foolish. What do you say?
Do please tell us how your "nuclear strike that would eliminate Pakistan" plan is going to work.
Complain about this comment
126 lol Brit it was not you it was me.
sorry. but I'm not repeating the last year with the same crap.
Complain about this comment
british-ish (#126) "He's a Dalek. Obviously."
Brilliant! A Holmesian deduction, indeed.
Complain about this comment
126 Dalek fly these days now the budget was raised.
Complain about this comment
Marcus Aurellius
What type of nuclear weapons would you use in your plan to "eliminate Pakistan?"
Complain about this comment
ref #103
No Simon, I don't hate the Iranians you seem to be taking a page out of the DNC playbook any criticism of Obama makes you a racist.
I hate the Mullahs and wish some brave Iranain would remove the war criminals from power.
Complain about this comment
132
"What type of nuclear weapons would you use in your plan to "eliminate Pakistan?" "
he was thinking of offering them some help with building a reactor which being professional would be done to the best of his abilities.
(previous claims of Nuke expert taken into account)
BOOOOOM
Complain about this comment
Ref #2 Marcus Aurellius
"...to be open to nuclear attack at any unknown time and place in the future, a circumstance that no civilized nation would find acceptable"
That's an interesting point you raise. How does that compare to the present situation?
Complain about this comment
To#125 Andypost
I completely agree with what you have said. I think that we have both been saying much the same thing. An end to the war was most desperately wanted and scientists had found a new weapon. I do not believe that anyone at that time truly could comprehend what they had wrought upon the world or how it would haunt us.
If you look at those times, so much of the technology we take for granted now was so much science fiction then or only theoretical. I have only read a little about this but I understand that some of the bomb's creators were later truly horrified at the actual physical results.
I love science and much that research and theory has given us. However, a good question that perhaps might be first asked is: 'Just because we can does this mean we should?'
Peace to you
Complain about this comment
131. At 7:56pm on 05 May 2009, happylaze wrote:
126 Dalek fly these days now the budget was raised.
No, that's just to scare us. It'll turn out they still can't really climb stairs in the end, I'm sure. Or why would that one still be in a trailer or a caravan? I suppose it could be it never evolved.
Complain about this comment
What is it with the moderators?
Why can't you call terrorist or Islamic facists war criminals?
Complain about this comment
To #124,#127 happylaze.
France would score about 4 on my scale :). Good enough to be trusted.
"just over 100 years ago americans were slaughtering each other." Not on scale of N.Korea or Iran. When American got rid of Indians they didn't saw them as 'own kind'.
As usual You missing the point :).
I disn't said that countries that score well are 'good' countries. I said that they can be trusted with nukes.
1. If country value lives of own kind they she will bend to threat. That what kept Cold War from getting Hot. Russia/US were afraid of huge human loss. N.Korea that starved 1,000,000's to death for nothing. Would N.Korea leaders afraid of using nukes if they trust their bunkers?
2. I was somewhat subject to mild 'hate schooling'. I have good idea about this subject. Imagine whole generation === 1,000,000s young people who honestly ready to fix injustice and go to war. They don't have kids/jobs/obligations to pull them back. Germany 1930's, Iran, Taliban and N.Korea the scale of brainwashing you cannot imagine.
Complain about this comment
Why should anyone 'hate' anyone? Hate seems like such a harsh word to use. One might disagree with someone or dislike what a person does or says but 'hate' just seems too over the top. Hate, to me, is such a vile and vicious a word when applied to fellow human beings.
The use of 'hate' leads to wars, unspeakable cruelty and violence against one another. Perhaps this is why we have debates over just which group should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. Which group is less hateful? Are there really any?
Complain about this comment
#138. At 9:12pm on 05 May 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
"What is it with the moderators?
Why can't you call terrorist or Islamic facists war criminals?"
BBC reserves words "war criminals" for State of Israel and Nazi. They expect you use words "militants"/"resistance" to address so-called terrorists.
Words "Islamic facists" offends all peaceful people who recognize that extremism is direct product of 2000 yrs of President Mr. Bush policies.
You must laws consider that critical posts may damage Palestinian/Liberation/Colonizations causes and may trigger aggrssive response from people who keep they religion dare.
Complain about this comment
50. At 02:38am on 05 May 2009, s2akbar wrote:
"the Iranian Mullahs are opposite sides of the same evil coin."
What is the basis of this comment may I ask? I mean I understand why the Taliban are evil....but why are these guys evil? they seem to be running a normal country. Fine, women there aren't allowed to please our eyes by wearing skirts, but besides that it seems all okay to me.
Iran undercover operations across M.East support sectarian fight in Iraq result in 10,000 Muslim dead. It supported fight against US again 10,000 muslim dead. Iran suport Hezbloah that hijacked Lebanon and provoke war with Israel. Again 1000 muslim dead. Iran using Hamas to fihgt Israel and Fatah that again result in 1000's muslim dead. Iran known to trigger unrest during hajj.
Should we go over 1,000,000's Iranian live wasted in human waves attack during Iran/Iraq wars...
I count only what 'peaceful' Iran does bad to Muslim.
Iran also supply/supplied weapons to kill British/Americans/Israeli. But that seams to be Ok here.
Complain about this comment
110. At 4:24pm on 05 May 2009, brilliantdanish
"WHAT IS WITH THE INDIAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS??PAKISTAN HAS GOT THE MOST BRILLIANT COMMAND AND CONTOL SYSTEM.SOMETHING THAT INDIA CANNOT HAVE"
Hey man. People who think like you are the problem not India :).
Pakistan had more cups that elections and posses nukes that way beyond ability of 'MOST BRILLIANT COMMAND' to control. They still pretend to fight India while Taliban on doorstep of Islamabad. I am afraid that 'MOST BRILLIANT' scientist Khan will present Taliban with nukes. Or somebody confuse BIG RED BUTTON that happens to launches rocket with the one that opens microwave.
Complain about this comment
So, if they ARE dispersed, these Pakistani nukes. Or as is quite likely, if various components are dispersed too-requiring assembly to make two components into a viable weapon, pray tell how 'bombing' will work if you do not know where they are?
The idea of 'destroying' the whole country not being worthy of answering.
What seems to be forgotten by those who advocate such an idea, is that, believe it or not (this will require major ego adjustments), it is not the US, or the West in general, who have the most to fear from any prospect of these weapons falling in to the wrong hands.
It's India.
One reason why the Pakistani response to Islamic extremism has been so patchy, is that the Pakistani security apparatus is still fixed on India.
India is the reason they built their bombs in the first place, after the defeat of 1971 then the first prototype Indian test in 1971, Bhutto said Pakistan would have the bomb even if it meant the cost of doing so meant they had to 'eat grass'. (No Happylaze, not THAT sort of grass!)
India is next door, India is where groups that once, or maybe even still, armed, trained and at least partially controlled at some period, have carried out attacks.
In 2001, such an attack in India nearly brought the two nations to war.
It also almost kicked off two years before.
If it was possible to take reasonable pre-emptive action, if the security of some or all of the Pakistani stockpile was insecure, it will be done by India.
They will have had, most likely, made contingency plans for such an event.
Another limiting factor in any action, done by say inserting Special Forces, is the estimated size of the Pakistani nuclear stockpile.
Around 200 weapons, I'd have thought prior to this news, it would have been more like a tenth of that.
For all of the corruption, factions within the government and security network, the Pakistani government have one great incentive to also prevent losing control of the weapons.
If the Islamists win, they'd be the first to be strung up.
This political elite, unlike most of the nation they rule, do quite nicely, live well.
Also not the sorts of things to endear them to the Islamists.
If, and it would be a big if, these weapons looked to becoming insecure, then you could not rule out US action, but it would have to be alongside ones with more local knowledge, India, again.
Either aiding with intelligance, logistics etc, such a Special Forces insertion, or that and some manpower involved too.
However, forget any Hollywood type depictions of special operations, when you also consider that such a mission would almost certainly be carried out in the midst of a civil war or something close to it.
My own view is that if threatened by such a thing, the Pakistani state itself would dispose, make safe the bombs. (Removing the fissile material?)
Because in that situation, even the most obsessed with India types, would have to smell the coffee.
This would also be the best way of keeping Indian and possibly other foreign forces off their soil.
Complain about this comment
SB
"pray tell how 'bombing' will work if you do not know where they are?
The idea of 'destroying' the whole country not being worthy of answering."
This shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of the threat, the capbilities of these weapons, and the potential consequences of not accomplishing the mission completely and pre-emptively. A single nuclear weapon detonated in say Mumbai would effectively send India back at least 100 years. The only nuclear war fighting strategy the US had at the time of the Cuban missile crisis as Kennedy found out was to burn down evrything from the Danube River to the Pacific Ocean. Nuclear weapons strategists only ask their commanders for a list of targets and whether they want the targets reduced to boulders or dust. Wiping out Pakistan would only require a small fraction of even India's likely arsenal let alone America's.
Al Qaeda is not merely a threat to the US, India, or Israel. It is a threat to the entire civilized world. It proved that countries which thought they were safe from attack because they were Moslem such as Indonesia and Saudi Arabia could be targeted just as readily by them as America, Britain, and Spain. There are no safe havens from them and with access to nuclear weapons, the notion that they could be smuggled out of Pakistan to be secreted in other countries until the opportunity to deploy and detonate them is a prospect the world should be very much worried about. I'd guess that if the US does not act alone or in concordance with India if it it appears that the Taleban will actually overthrow Pakistan's government and assume control, they will act unilaterally themselves. I could hardly blame them if they did given how many times they've been attacked by terrorists based in Pakistan already.
Complain about this comment
aquarizonagal (136)
"Just because we can does this mean we should?"
Oh, good Lord, no. Perish the thought. One of the things science has clearly shown us is how fragile we are as a species. What the world needs now is restraint (on all sides).
Oh, and love, too.
Complain about this comment
# 126 british-ish wrote: [of MAII]
"He's a Dalek. Obviously. Been trying to explain that for ages. (It's the way he keeps yelling "Ex-ter-min-ate!" that gives it away. But don't worry, as long as he doesn't have access to a lift he can't get at us.)"
I can certainly see why you think he's a Dalek.
- Contempt for everyone not the same as him.
- Endless repetition of slogans - 'We are the supreme beings!'; 'We will take over!'; 'Die Englander Pigdog!' [or words to that effect].
- He keeps coming back, and is unable to see when he's beaten.
- Hatred and violence are his solution to most problems
But - having said all that - a Dalek?
Do you really think he has sufficient compassion or enough of a sense of humour to be a Dalek?
Complain about this comment
REF #145 MarcusAureliusII
You've provided two paragraphs against SONICBOOMER'S question but haven't answered the question you've pasted. My question to you in #128 is similar. So would you like to try again:
#144 Q) "pray tell how 'bombing' will work if you do not know where they are?"
#128 Q) "Do please tell us how your "nuclear strike that would eliminate Pakistan" plan is going to work."
Complain about this comment
John in Dublin
"We will take over!'; 'Die Englander Pigdog!"
I thought that was the IRA's slogan. I'm not too fond of poets either...especially mediocre ones.
S&M
How did it work in Germany? How did it work in Japan? How would it have worked on the USSR and China? The same except more efficienty.
How is the plan to eliminate Pakistan going to work? Don't you know that the plans are already on the table along with plans to eliminate Iran and North Korea too? What do you think military strategists do all day between wars except to make various contingency plans for "what ifs." All they are waiting for is the right circumstances and an order from the President. Someone with some frinds in the military told me that if the orders came through, N korea would be gone in 10 minutes. I don't think Pak would take much longer.
I am certain there are lots of books you could study to explain military strategies in the nuclear age that contemplate the possibilities of nuclear war against just such an enemy. If there aren't, why don't you write one? Perhaps you could get a speaking engagement at a war college to sell it. Now here's a frighening thought, you in the Pentagon building. Sacrilege!
Complain about this comment
To all you chickenhearts in Europe and on the American left, I've shown you why the Taleban and al Qaeda cannot be allowed to have access to nuclear weapons and what has to be done to stop them. I've also shown you what the dire consequences of the alternative would be if someone doesn't stop them. Now what exactly is your problem with it?
Complain about this comment
Ref: 149 MarcusAureliusII
No nuclear weapons were dropped on Germany, nor Russia, nor China. Only on Japan, which is an island. Nuclear bombs create radiation. I have read military strategy books and the effects of nuclear weapons, and with that knowledge gleaned, I can't see how your plan will work. Sonicboomer holds the same view.
So - please tell us how the plan, that you advocate will work.
Complain about this comment
"When American got rid of Indians they didn't saw them as 'own kind'."
No they sawed them for bein forn don't they.
Complain about this comment
137 British-ish Ah the power of tele to confuse the truth.Special effects= special lies. I was convinced they'd overcome that problem.
so if they can't climb stairs now I get why there are so many.
Basta opps almost swore. they are silly stairs are hard to skate on. you have to be better than me.
-----------------
Sonic Truth
Nice post.
Richard.. lol but that has been tried before .;)
Complain about this comment
Apparently only nations who attack other nations can be trusted with nukes.
GREAT argument.
Complain about this comment
"How did it work in Germany?"
They bombed population and industrial centres.
"How did it work in Japan?"
They Bombed population and industrial centres.
"How would it have worked on the USSR and China?"
They would have bombed population and industrial centres.
Noticing a theme here? Now, where are Al'quaida and the Taleban strongest? In rural areas far away from major populations centres and any real authority. So how the hell is nuking them going to actually wipe them out, unless you're planning to blanket the entire country, which would kick up enough fallout to poision half the planet? Radiation sickness won't kill them all and any survivors are going to be really REALLY ticked off. Not to mention the rest of the middle eastern muslim world who, I suspect, aren't simply going to sit there and let one of their own get wiped off the map. The whole idea is folly.
Complain about this comment
S&M, America has multiple delivery systems in the region including ALCMs, SLCMs, Tridents, B52s I think in Diego Garcia, and there are always Minutemans and MXs based in the US that could get the job done. The targets would be selected to destroy all possible hiding places within Pakistan and the plan of choice would be executed by either missile strikes, manned aircraft or a combination of both. America still has a wide selection of different types of armaments for matching the particular targets to be hit. BBC gave their US nuclear weapon of choice for an attack on Iran's underground installations in an article some years back and I gave mine. A summary of the currently available weapons is given in the link below including their yields, delivery methods, and the available numbers in the US Nuclear Weapon Enduring Stockpile.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Wpngall.html
It is true that radioactive fallout downwind is a very serious problem and for others as well in the region. Longterm it would have an effect worldwide. But it is not nearly as bad as waiting for al Qaeda to strike somewhere first. At that point the world would face exactly the same dilemma knowing that if it didn't act, it would be hit again and again and again until it did. My you Europeans are dense. Didn't World War II teach you anything? You waited far too long to attack Germany and look at how many unnecessary dead Brits it cost you. I know you'd like to see the US attacked again but Britain is not immune and is probably a much softer target. Imagine if you can London in the aftermath of an al Qaeda nucler attack. Britain would be devastated. BTW, the intended target for the first atom bomb was Berlin. It was only spared because the war in Europe was over before the bomb was ready. After my experience in the German Rathskeller in Le Lac Bordeaux in the spring of 1973, I wondered if it was really too late just because the war had ended 28 years earlier.
Complain about this comment
REF 149,150 MarcusAureliusII
We all know there are stupid people, who advocate a government policy without considering the practicalities. Who just spout knee-jerk reactions, without a second thought to the consequences. I'm sure you're not one of those stupid people.
I for one, and SonicBoomer for another, don't understand how your plan would work (see #128, #144). So instead of insulting us, please blog, which I can see you like doing, and tell us how your plan will work.
Complain about this comment
Happylaze
I love your posts. When I read them, I can often 'hear' you saying the words, but I haven't a clue what you're saying most of the time. Your screename certainly seems to suit - and you make me laugh. Do you 'light up' before you log on?
Complain about this comment
Kettle, this is the pot calling you back again;
"So how the hell is nuking them going to actually wipe them out, unless you're planning to blanket the entire country, which would kick up enough fallout to poision half the planet?"
Maybe, but if you do nothing and al Qaeda starts using Pakistan's nuclear weapons as it most certainly would, that would happen anyway.
"Radiation sickness won't kill them all and any survivors are going to be really REALLY ticked off. Not to mention the rest of the middle eastern muslim world who, I suspect, aren't simply going to sit there and let one of their own get wiped off the map."
There won't be much they could do about it if they really cared which they probably don't.
"The whole idea is folly."
No, MAD. Anyone got any better ideas about how to stop them? Maybe you'd like to jaw-jaw with them Kettle.
Complain about this comment
150.MarcusAureliusII wrote:
Now what exactly is your problem with it?
This:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vZ0KgLifjI
just to begin with. (Courtesy of absent friends who prefer not to engage with you, Mr M A Weiner, any more.) Words by Nazim Hikmet, Turkish poet.
Complain about this comment
Happylaze ....continued.
I siad in my last post #158 , that I don't understand what you're saying. For example, in #153 you said "Richard.. lol but that has been tried before .;)"
What has been tried before? Also, in same post you say"they are silly stairs are hard to skate on. you have to be better than me."
What does that mean? I'm obviously not tuned in to your wavelength, but don't let that stop you - its probably me. Keep it up.
Complain about this comment
Ref 156 MarcusAureliusII
Thanks. So what would you do about 40,000 US troops in next door in Afghanistan? And the huge number of people living in North West India? You're planning to take out some 160 million in Pakistan, another 100 to 200 million in India, plus most of Afghanistan, a large number in Iran, a large number in China - say 400 million people altogether? When would you strike Pakistan - before the Taliban take control - or after its been confirmed they've toppled the Government? What about about China defending her oil interests - they'd have to abandon their oilfields for years.
Complain about this comment
I never said that nothing should be done or that talking to them would help, I simply said that trying to vape an entire country wouldn't work. You have yet to give an answer as to how it would.
Personally, I suspect that the intelligence community in America, Britain and possibly India (I chose those three as they'd all be quite high on the target list) already have a fairly good idea where most, if not all Pakistani nukes are stored so that, should the scenario we're discussing occur, where Pakistan is overrun by the Taleban, they will be able to respond with surgical strikes with either special forces teams to secure and extract the nukes or air-dropped/cruise missile precision strikes to destroy the storage facilities. Probably the former over the latter, as it would be a more reliable way to remove the possibility of Al'quaida acquiring the weapons.
Complain about this comment
british-sh
The singing voice was awful and the noise became intolerable less than two minutes into it. Much of Pakistan supports al Qaeda from what I can tell. I've seen videos where you can buy Osama Bin Laden tee shirts and other 9-11 memorabelia celebrating the attack on the US. People get the government they deserve. If they want al Qaeda or will allow it to take over without the strongest possible internal resistance, they will have to suffer the consequences.
I've posted elsewhere that I don't think the world will be around a whole lot longer. Some of you haven't accepted that fact, others seem disturbed by it. There isn't much that can be done now. Just look at how quickly the polar ice caps are melting. Who can doubt if we haven't passed the so called "tipping point" where runaway climate change is inevitable, we will soon. Even if the US shut down completely, the contributions by China and India would assure that. China continues to bring on two new coal fired power plants a week. I've noticed Europe has stopped yammering about global warming the way it once did now that China is the number one producer of GHGs. So if it's radioactive fallout this year or next or catastrophic climate change in five or ten years it will hardly matter. Enjoy the time you have left, it probably isn't long.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAurelliusII
Its well known that Pakistan and the Taliban are inter-linked, to what extent I don't think anyone knows.. The Pakistan Inter Services Intelligence, the ISI, have close ties with the Taliban Intelligence Bureau, the Istihbarat. The state loyal parts of Pak Army have tried many times to kill/capture Baitullah Mehsud and his Taliban commanders. They've all failed because he's tipped off by ISI. That allegiance is not confined to the ISI. Large parts of Pakistan Armed Forces, conservative muslims with a strong belief in sharia law, have a great deal of sympathy with the conservative Taliban who also advocate sharia law, and less in common with liberal political leaders. In theory, the political leaders have authority over the nuclear command. In practice, its a division of the conservative army, overseeing somewhere between 70 - 140 nuclear weapons. Knowing how sloppy USA has been with nuclear weapons, it's quite conceivable that a few of Pakistan's nuclear weapons might go missing - especially with distractions like leadership changes. Which officers would report it - and to whom? Who visibly counts them? With sympathies for the Taliban by the Pakistan military in varying shades of grey, and little military confidence in political leadership, its difficult to know who can be completely trusted.
So a question arises, how is Taliban influence over the nuclear arsenal determined. Which makes the question of timing when India or USA would launch a nuclear strike all the more difficult to determine, hence my question to you. After launching some strikes, how do you determine when the nuclear threat from Pakistan is over? Some weapons I'm sure are underground. How do you find the weapons?
Also, how do you know that Russia, China, India are just waiting for their moment. They might decide to launch a joint pre-emptive strike on whole of USA, before USA attacks Pakistan - to avoid any American radiation on their soil. From their perspective it makes sense. Bush destroyed any confidence created by Reagan, Daddy Bush and Clinton - as he did in Europe. China, Russia, India might have just decided they deal with USA now, rather than later, especially if USA are going to contaminate the area. Little radiation from nuking USA. The more USA threatens the nuking of Pakistan, the more likely they are to get it first.
Views?
Complain about this comment
Hi, MarcusAureliusII,
I am not fun of Islam or Mullah with nukes. But you are out of touch.
You cannot bomb whole country out for 3 reasons:
1. We are not AlQueda to bomb civilians just because we can!
2. We are not terrorists to kill just because we have excuse!
3. If 1,2 are not enough for you: We will achieve nothing.
For me it is still moral issue. But for 'practical guy' like you are here is military crush curse:
Pakistan has ~ 200 nukes. They all design to be used with mobile rocket launchers like SCADs. During both wars in Iraq US failed to destroy single launcher before SCAD launch!!!
Assume that Pakistan has 50 launchers. They are constantly moving between multiple fortified silos (2-3 per launcher) ~100-200 km apart. How can you take them all out? Only if somebody in Pakistan military/government decides to save the World and gather all launchers in one location you can talk about few strikes to destroy all Pakistan nuclear/missile capabilities. Given the current state of this so called State they all will be running for their lives in couple yrs.
Home work: take Google map and find single Pakistan launcher on road.
You cannot bomb whole country out for 3 reasons:
1. We are not AlQueda to bomb civilians just because we can.
2. We are not terrorists to kill just because we have excuse.
3. If 1,2 are not enough for you: We will achieve nothing.
There is no technology today that will eliminate even 10 rocket launchers with reasonable certainty.
The only good point that most Pakistan nuclear missiles use liquid. That implies frequent & complex service and without functioning state they should be out of service within 1-2 yrs.
The bad point that it takes just 2-3 hr to launch it.
US can crush N.Korea Iran etc. But cost in their lives is prohibiting high. They are brainwashed but it doesn't give us right to kill them.
Now my tern to dream...
Most likely US/China already busy denying Pakistan some parts to maintain trucks/guidance systems/fueling etc. Most likely some people in Pakistan military cooperate - they don't what nuclear war on own territory. In disparate act US/China may try to capture/destroy some nukes in direct military operations.
Why China? Because China as closest neighbor will suffer first in any nuclear conflict.
Complain about this comment
kettle, your plan is too risky. The odds of failure and the unacceptability of consequences far too high. America should prepare contingency plans for emergency evacuation of all personnel in the area and probably has one. Implimentation would be a nearly certain sign that an attack is likely imminently. As for the rest, they will be the casualties of the war terrorists have waged against civilization and the world's unwillingness to respond forcefully and effectively up to now. Are you prepared for a world run by the Taleban where you will live as a Moslem with unquestioned devotion to Allah and the Koran all of your life and nothing else? That's the alternative they will offer you. That or beheading. And from their video of the WSJ journalist, they don't do a very quick or painless job of it. More like saw saw.
Complain about this comment
#154. Happylaze
"Apparently only nations who attack other nations can be trusted with nukes.
GREAT argument."
0. Don't deny yourself gift of second thoughts :).
Most European nations, Japan, Australia etc will fit my metrics and can be trusted with nukes. But it doesn't imply that they seek nukes.
Only nations who expect to be involved in conflicts spend enormous resources to acquire nukes.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAurelliusII
Flattening the entire area of Pakistan would create a massive amount of radiation, smoke, and soot. It would be roughly the same as obliterating all of Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky. Thats a huge cloud, guaranteed to cause a 'nuclear winter' and upset the world climate. They can last for years. It would be enough radiation to drift across several continents, if not the world. And all because USA wouldn't accept the Talibans offer in October 2001 to handover Osama Bin Laden for trial in an independent country.
USA knows best.
Complain about this comment
Ref #167 Marcus Aurellius
Your last post got referred. I didn't even see it. Re-post again without expletives, insults, porn or whatever else you put in it.
Complain about this comment
#164: MarcusAureliusII
Markus read again your own posts. Man you full of hate && fear!!!
"Much of Pakistan supports al Qaeda from what I can tell. I've seen videos where you can buy Osama Bin Laden tee shirts and other 9-11 memorabelia celebrating the attack on the US."
MARKUS YOU CANNOT KILL PEOPLE JUST BECAUSE THEY HATE USA.
At least 3/5 of the World Population hates US... You cannot kill them.
That what put US apart of them. We don't kill just because we can and have excuse.
Using nukes to get out other nukes...
1. You kill 10,000,000's civilians.
2. Most likely China/India/Russia will retaliate if US start fire one nuke after another. They are all close to Pakistan. They just cannot afford nuclear desert next door.
3. You will not destroy more that %40-%80 of nukes. The whole infrastructure was design to withstand nuclear strikes. From missiles to truck to silos to electronics.
Again cool down. Don't post something that will make your sorrow to read tomorrow.
Complain about this comment
150. At 02:34am on 06 May 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
To all you chickenhearts in Europe and on the American left, I've shown you,"
That you drink a lot.
Complain about this comment
"138. At 9:12pm on 05 May 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
What is it with the moderators?
Why can't you call terrorist or Islamic facists war criminals?2
Why can't you call Lieberman and his gang neo-fascists? Neo fascists with nuclear weapons
Complain about this comment
#172
Simon I think you have created a fun game :
#150. At 02:34am on 06 May 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
To all you chickenhearts in Europe and on the American left, I've shown you..."
That you've lost your medication.
Complain about this comment
About time too!
- "The Obama Administration has signalled a tougher approach towards Israel ahead of fresh talks on the Middle East peace process by insisting it must endorse the creation of an independent Palestinian state. "
It's a start, but on a long and difficult road.May the God(s) smile upon the effort.
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace
Complain about this comment
MarcusAurelliusII
Thanks for your replies. So the reasoning behind your policy to launch : "A nuclear strike that would eliminate Pakistan"
1) What it would achieve: not considered
2) Strike before risk known : not considered
3) India, evacuation of 200m civilians: not considered
4) Withdrawal of 40,000 US troops : not considered
5) Radiation effects across continents: not considered
6) Targets to strike: "All possible hiding places within Pakistan"
7) Sequence of military events: not considered
8) Breadth and scale of the strikes: not considered
9) The type of weapons to be used: Anything from USA arsenal
10) Total number of casualties: not considered
11) Change in risk before and after: not considered
12) Chances of success: not considered
13) Alternatives considered: "Anyone got any better ideas?"
14) Worldwide environmental effect: not considered
15) Escalation into full nuclear war: not considered
Thanks for that Marcus. Most impressive.
Would it be fair to say all the insults you've hurled around at people , such as: "fools," "dense," "lack of understanding" might, more aptly, apply to just one person?
Complain about this comment
138. At 9:12pm on 05 May 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
What is it with the moderators?
Why can't you call terrorist or Islamic facists war criminals?"
Why aren't Avigdor Liberberman and his gang under arrest?
Why isn't Alan Dershovitz dismissed?
Why does complicit war criminal Ariel Sharon linger?
World is full of mysteries
Complain about this comment
Toi #176. Richard_SM
"MarcusAurelliusII
Thanks for your replies. So the reasoning behind your policy to launch : "A nuclear strike that would eliminate Pakistan"
Richard you wasting network traffic & time on him.
1. He fascinated by nuclear attack and believes that pressing the BIG RED BUTTON soloves all problem.
2. He doesn't understand that destruction of Pakistan doesn't translate into distraction of Pakistan's nukes.
3. He doesn't understand that non of Pakistan neighbors - China/India/Russia will allow US make nuclear desert next door.
Complain about this comment
#179
He doesn't understand that not everyone in Pakistan wants to see his country destroyed. Thankfully many are smart enough to realize not every American is like him!
Complain about this comment
Now what do you suppose the real meaning of Holbrook's words are once the diplo-speak is filtered out?
"He said America's most vital national security interests were at stake in the region and that the US "cannot succeed in Afghanistan without Pakistan's support and involvement"."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8035020.stm
S&M
"And all because USA wouldn't accept the Talibans offer in October 2001 to handover Osama Bin Laden for trial in an independent country."
No, because al Qaeda having access to a nuclear weapons arsenal would have the direst of consequences for America and the entire world, just the way a heavily re-armed Germany had for the rest of Europe and the world. I sometimes wonder if thick headedness, the refusal to see reality for what it is, is cultural or genetic.
Not only would Pakistan have to be cauterized if such a prospect were likely and imminent, but there would be no time to lose, no second chance if there is procrastination waiting for some political process to run its course. Once the malignancy has taken hold and has a chance to spread, there will be no containing it. Just like the swine flu.
Whatever the side effects of the cure, the consequences of letting the disease go unchecked will be fatal. That would be the worst possible outcome. Same with Iran.
Complain about this comment
To #177. Simon21
You missing point.
BBC posted your private opinion:
"Why aren't Avigdor Liberberman and his gang under arrest?
Why isn't Alan Dershovitz dismissed?
Why does complicit war criminal Ariel Sharon linger?"
None of these statements proven 'beyond reasonable doubt' while they are insulting to Liberberman, Sharon and Israelis who supports them.
(Liberman still under investigation, case against Sharon was dropped in 2002 on technicalities).
The point was: why BBC allows insult Statesmen of Israel while don't allow using the same language toward Islam/Palestine/Quaran etc.
I don't really care how you call Liberman or Sharon.
But I feel that BBC use very strict rules when it comes to post about HAMAS/Gaza & HEZBOLLAH/Lebanon. May BBC just worry that HEZBOLLAH/HAMAS can retaliate against BBC 'independent' reports in Gaza/Lebanon.
Complain about this comment
Oh Sainted One
"He doesn't understand that not everyone in Pakistan wants to see his country destroyed."
More than enough do to matter and among them are the wrong ones such as those in the military and intelligence services.
Complain about this comment
180. At 2:23pm on 06 May 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
Now what do you suppose the real meaning of Holbrook's words are once the diplo-speak is filtered out?
"He said America's most vital national security interests were at stake in the region and that the US "cannot succeed in Afghanistan without Pakistan's support and involvement"."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8035020.stm.
God how profound. Afghanistan and Pakistan are connected.
Astonishing
"No, because al Qaeda having access to a nuclear weapons arsenal would have the direst of consequences for America and the entire world, just the way a heavily re-armed Germany had for the rest of Europe and the world. I sometimes wonder if thick headedness, the refusal to see reality for what it is, is cultural or genetic."
In your case I think we will have to conclude it is genetic. Few Americans are as stupid.
Al Queda takes over the world! If ever Osama needed a morale boost he would only have to read your drivel.
Hanging out in the hills and he has the Americans trembling. Amazing.
Complain about this comment
179. At 2:16pm on 06 May 2009, SaintOne wrote:
#179
He doesn't understand that not everyone in Pakistan wants to see his country destroyed. Thankfully many are smart enough to realize not every American is like him!"
But he is amusing. The idea of atempting to nuke Pakistan. Hilarious.
As if the Russians would ever give permission for a nuclear strike near their border.
Complain about this comment
lol Rich SM.
Yes I do. but not just before i log on.
lol
Marcus is a long time ignorer of truth and reason.
look way back into the summer and see that Jacksforge and all spent a rather long time reasoning with the unreasonable.
No matter what proof or reason you show there will never be a conversion of that one.
Or his other half TT.
Deliberate wind up. no belief in it's self.
just promoting the hatred of Americans and people from Israel (though now he lets TT do most of the Israeli talking)
He has spent a long time here being unreasonable and you can argue till the cows come home but it is falling on a thick ear.
Carry on if it amuses. but don't think there is a change coming on that one.
MA has so far managed to successfully get so many predictions wrong it is truly statistically unusual.
normally the odd correct answer would be expected, right?
So consistant that there is no point in arguing.
you will be at it feeding his ego, for that is what is happening.
Ignore him and he will eventually turn into a TT.
If you must address him use his real name MATT or mostly erroneous.
though I have always liked the Marcass
Glad I could amuse.
have fun and have at it.
Eventually you will feel like a bully though.
You know the guy that starts a fight at school because he thinks he is tough(but really just a pip squeek).
the one that got away with it because teachers stopped others "bullying" the aggressive little runt., who just has to start some thing.
well that is what you face.
Complain about this comment
Oh and stairs and all was talking with Britishish about Daleks who apparently can't climb or fly .
I was greatly mislead by the doctor into believing they could. And am now so relieved that I am safe should they invade.
Though I have little to worry about because I am smart and instead of tin foil I use lead roofing flashing for my hat.;)
Complain about this comment
To #179. SaintOne,
Hi, there is little love to loose between US & Pakistan.
Today Pakistan poses much more power that she can handle. Pakistan had stolen technology that doesn't fit into state with 1/3 territory under tribal rule and with 2 times more military cups than elections.
1. Pushtu tribes that make core of Taliban and also make ~20% of Pakistan military.
2. Pakistan ISI (intelligence) known to attend in masses 'Red musk' the most hardcore musk in Islamabad. It is also known to keep very connections with Taliban.
3. Most post on BBC from Pakistan praise military and more concern with India than possibility that nukes will make to Taliban.
From my point nothing stays between Taliban+military+intelligence and the rest of the country. Pakistan as civil society is doomed in next 12 mo.
We really face possibility that 'Islamic nukes' will make its way to jihad warriors.
I just don't see how bombing Pakistan will solve problem.
Complain about this comment
SKV I get your point. I really do. it is that you are bias.
In all your ramblings you exclude one nation from the bad list that many here would see as the most dangerous.
the same ones that have attacked others many times and killed large numbers of people who they have left in limbo.
I don't want to discuss Israel but you are forcing it in by continually insisting that they have the right to bombs despite failing every one of your tests.
So drop them out of this discussion and carry on and much of what you say I can see the point in. The moment you add them to the equation it falls apart.
I will not discuss this further because the thread is not about Isreal.
Complain about this comment
"I sometimes wonder if thick headedness, the refusal to see reality for what it is, is cultural or genetic."
You tell us, seeing as that paragraph displayed both. Seriously, if you quote someone, you should try to make your next comment at least somewhat relevant to what they've said, rather than just repeating your points from earlier in the thread.
Complain about this comment
"The UK has been able to ban people who promote hatred, terrorist violence or serious criminal activity since 2005, but the list was only made public for the first time this week."
but not here.
Complain about this comment
181. At 2:47pm on 06 May 2009, SKV_USA wrote:
To #177. Simon21
You missing point.
BBC posted your private opinion:
"Why aren't Avigdor Liberberman and his gang under arrest?
Why isn't Alan Dershovitz dismissed?
Why does complicit war criminal Ariel Sharon linger?"
None of these statements proven 'beyond reasonable doubt' while they are insulting to Liberberman, Sharon and Israelis who supports them.
(Liberman still under investigation, case against Sharon was dropped in 2002 on technicalities).
Hmm how many so called terrorists are tried "beyond reasonable doubt". Very few, fewer than mobsters in one large US city.
Lieberman is a self confessed rascist.
"The point was: why BBC allows insult Statesmen of Israel while don't allow using the same language toward Islam/Palestine/Quaran etc."
I wouldn't insult Israel by calling Lieberman, Sharon and their defenders "statesmen".
I suppose you think Mugabe is a "world leader"
"But I feel that BBC use very strict rules when it comes to post about HAMAS/Gaza & HEZBOLLAH/Lebanon. May BBC just worry that HEZBOLLAH/HAMAS can retaliate against BBC 'independent' reports in Gaza/Lebanon."
No maybe read the BBC before commenting.
Why is it OK for Lieberman to act as an FM whereas if he was not nice and white he would be denied a visa to visit anywhere.
Can you beleive a US FM who openly stated he thought all US blacks potential traitors being accepted?
Complain about this comment
172. At 09:50am on 06 May 2009, Simon21 wrote:
150. At 02:34am on 06 May 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
To all you chickenhearts in Europe and on the American left, I've shown you,"
That you drink a lot.........of methylated spirits.
Complain about this comment
187. At 3:30pm on 06 May 2009, SKV_USA wrote:
To #179. SaintOne,
I just don't see how bombing Pakistan will solve problem.
There will be no nuking of Pakistan. Russia will not permit it.
And I strongly suspect if things continue the Russians will announce a defenisve alliance with Iran.
Complain about this comment
Also SKV I would thank you for not inciting hatred of Pakistanis as another is.
thanks for recognising there are factions not nations involved here.
Gherkin there is a difference.
Israeli people are not the targets of the "left" anger it is the Gov.because of it's actions.
here the anger is at the people of Pakistan and the people had nothing to do with 9/11
That is racist.
Like SKV says it's not illegal to hate america.
It's not illegal to hate Pakistan either.
But the BBC is not there to promote hate (supposedly).
Complain about this comment
Rich just to provide an example look back in the archives in may under "talking to OBL"
when I mentioned that a friend helped put up a hydro generator in afganistan I got a long lecture on how they had huge oil reserves and no hills.
And yet no back down over it.
there is no need to waste your time unless it amuses you. it is however making my scroll button get fritzy.
Complain about this comment
What is 'terrorism?'
The clue is in the name, to create TERROR.
Since Al Queda, like others including the Baader-Meinhofs, Action Directe, Provisional IRA, ETA, can never actually 'win' in a military fashion, their goals are to force policy change by terrorising the populations of their targets to pressure their leaders.
They also hope to create a backlash by this pressure, to force governments to bring in restrictions or even outright repression, which in turn will create a backlash against them by their own populations.
Therefore, the best answer to terrorism is not to be unduly frightened by it.
Since 300 million Americans living in a vast country under a huge military/security complex, are safer than most against such terrorism, one wonders why some do Bin Laden's work for him, by calling for such repression, by wanting to strike out, even in the case of one on here, carryout mass genocide and massive worldwide enviromental effects (which no one would be immune to)- not to mention the economic ones and scope for further conflicts.
They must be the ones who Bin Laden and co have really beaten, since they are the most irrationally frightened.
Where is the self respect here?
I live near and work at, a place the CIA reckon is near the top of likely terrorists hit lists, in an industry they have attacked and are obsessed about.
I spend a lot of time in a city already attacked by them, using a transport system that was the specific target last time they did strike.
So why am I not scared?
Bravery? I don't think so.
How about self respect?
If my parents as small children, could have childhood's under Hitler's bombing, without turning into paranoid and frightened people, I don't think it's much to ask of me.
That was war, not whooping and punching the air watching 1000's of miles away on TV, someone being bombed by their nation.
War was having to squeeze in relatives bombed out of their homes, with some of their friends dead in the rubble.
War was ducking as a V1 flew over, war was hearing the blast of a V2 impacting-the delivery system you did not see or hear coming.
War was months and months in 1940/41 of weekly-sometimes nightly, casualty levels similar to Sept 11th 2001.
Since then, we've had the IRA (who perhaps contary to the beliefs of some, did NOT always give warnings of bombs).
We've had the spill over from Mid East conflicts too.
100 years ago, East European Anarchists were exploding bombs in London, then the first city to be attacked from the air-by todays standards puny, but imagine if the first time you've ever seen a flying machine for real, be it a Zeppelin or Gotha aircraft, it's dropping bombs on you.
So what did I do on 8th July 2005?
Since I had tickets for a concert in Central London, I went to it.
Sure, I had to jump off the underground before I usually would going to that destination-since the next part of the line had the wreckage and bodies of a bombed out train there, but that just meant you got on a Bus the rest of the way.
The venue (outside at Somerset House) was full so everyone else or most of them, had done the same.
Rather more enjoyable and productive a way to spend the evening than cowering at home shaking your fist to the world.
Terrible as the previous day had been, it was not totally unexpected.
We knew something was likely to happen.
If you let them get to you, they've won.
I have better things to do with my life than let a bunch of suicidal misfits with narcissism issues change my behavior.
Above, we were, en-masse, called 'chickenhearted'.
This seems to be like someone with impotence boasting of their recent bedroom adventures.
The term is 'Chickenhawk', blowhard right wing Americans of a certain type (including the previous Vice President) are excellent examples of this breed.
So, speak for yourself.
Is there a potential threat of nuclear terrorism?
Possibly.
But I seem to recall living through the Cold War when there WERE 1000's of nukes pointing at us.
You wonder how those that quiver so at real or imagined threats coped then.
This sort of attitude reminds me of that incident in the 1930's, when Orson Wells did a radio play broadcast of H.G. Well's 'War Of The World'.
Apparently, many hundreds, if not thousands of poeple, were convinced the aliens really had landed and were zapping people with 'death ways'.
None of these were residents in mental facilities, they were it seems mostly ordinary folk.
A film depicting this event was made in the 1970's though I have not seen it in a long time.
But was it not largely set in New Jersey?
Coincidence?
Complain about this comment
To #191 Simon21,
"Can you beleive a US FM who openly stated he thought all US blacks potential traitors being accepted?"
I agree on Liberman, but officialy he yet to be labeled 'racist'.
BTW: During WWII US detained all Japanese Americans on a ground that they cannot be trusted...
After all good and bad Sharon stays high in Israel as Great Statesman, so if you respect this State accept their judgment about their affairs.
Regarding BBC view on HEZBOLLAH/HAMAS. I am not limited to BBC or English language media. I was exposed to news from Palestinian's view for decades. Don't teach me how they look inside. There are tons of corruption/hate propaganda/racket/etc that don't even surface on BBC & etc. The only thing you see: Bad Israel pounding poor Gaza and starving W.Bank.
Complain about this comment
#193: Simon21
"And I strongly suspect if things continue the Russians will announce a defenisve alliance with Iran."
What is the single reason why Russia need Ayatollah besides dumping obsolete weaponry and keep pressure on US & EU?
Do you know meaning of 'Defensive alliance'?
It means they have to protect each other in case of conflict!!!
Iran has few friends while constantly engages US/EU/Israel and Arabs using terrorists (HAMAS/HZBOLLAH) and undercover ops. Why Russia needs to be involved on Iran side? Iran rightfully hated even outside Western world.
Russia/China uses Iran the same way Iran uses HAMAS/HEZBALLAH.
They stays on top of the straggle between Iran and US/EU/Israel/Arabs.
Once US/EU offer good price they cut oxygen to Iran.
Complain about this comment
I find it amazing that one troll is able to dominate the thread with his deliberately crazy ideas, the only purpose of which is to whip the gullible into a frenzy. All you responders who think you are clever by pointing out the lunacy actually only show your ignorance. By responding, he gets what he wants and wins. Doh!
Complain about this comment
#188. Hey happylaze,
Do you thank me? Wow!? What a day.
It looks like the best way to make friends is to join against somebody :). That time we keep front again MarcusAureliusII. Poor kid consumed by vision of Pakistan bombed to the ground.
Just to keep you high today I will not assess Israel on my Nuke trust scale from #120.
Complain about this comment
198. At 7:22pm on 06 May 2009, SKV_USA wrote:
#193: Simon21
"And I strongly suspect if things continue the Russians will announce a defenisve alliance with Iran."
What is the single reason why Russia need Ayatollah besides dumping obsolete weaponry and keep pressure on US & EU?"
Because it will irritate teh Americans
Unless it has escaped your notice Russia is feeling surrounded and an alliance with Iran will stymie these attempts dead.
"Do you know meaning of 'Defensive alliance'?
It means they have to protect each other in case of conflict!!!"
Yes that is my point. It would quite a coup for both countries
"Iran has few friends while constantly engages US/EU/Israel and Arabs using terrorists (HAMAS/HZBOLLAH) and undercover ops. Why Russia needs to be involved on Iran side? Iran rightfully hated even outside Western world."
Iran has not invaded any country for 200 years and as for supporting hezbollah, hamas, many beleive the US support for the ethnic cleansing and massacrtes of the palestinians are far worse.
Hezbollah is not occupying Tel Aviv.
iran is less hated than you think it is.
"Russia/China uses Iran the same way Iran uses HAMAS/HEZBALLAH.
They stays on top of the straggle between Iran and US/EU/Israel/Arabs.
Once US/EU offer good price they cut oxygen to Iran."
And when Russia feels threatened enough it will do what is necessary. And it willn ot hesitate to form an alliance with whoever it choses.
Do you know meaning of 'Defensive alliance'?
It means they have to protect each other in case of conflict!!!
Complain about this comment
seanspa, having beaten all of Britain, Europe, and the American left here on this thread (and all others I've posted on) with facts, logic, and history as my only weapons, I am most pleased when the opposition is reduced to calling me names like troll. It is a sure sign of surrender as they have no rational arguments left to offer. So call me more names, throw more insults my way. I love it. I win, you lose. No surprise. I expected it. And there is no loser worse than a sore loser. That for me is the icing on the cake as they say.
Complain about this comment
200 cheers.
much ' preciated.
I thank a few people occasionally for making comments that show there is not viciousnes s behind their reasoning.
Like I said I do not see you as trying to PUSH hatred.
I disagree with some assessments but I can recognise the difference between supporting "legion" and saying what you see.
You didn't mock all our intelligence,here. so why should I mock you, here.
Admittedly we may differ if the " I "subject is brought up, but till then ..
Complain about this comment
#201. Simon21
No Simon you still don't understand the meaning of 'Defensive alliance'.
It implies that Russia may have to be involve in real war with US/EU/Israel.
And by join this particular 'Defensive alliance' Russia will enforce Iran hand and make war even more likely.
Do you see Russia enforcing Iran hand to trigger war on Russia border? War that can easy go nuclear. Even you agreed couple posts ago that Russia afraid of nuclear war.
Everybody see Iran as state with strong leadership. Nobody see Iran as State with conscience leadership.
Russia will not jump into real war with US/EU/Israel on behalf of Ayatollah.
I happen to be from Russia :). Russia has own mouthful with Islamic extremism. She fought 2 wars in Chechnya; 1 in Dagestan. You
I cannot convey you Russian feeling about Iran without breaking BBC rules and here is why:
Here about peaceful Iran. Iran is coward state that don't engage enemy directly. Iran uses Arabs proxies and don't count their Muslim blood!
1. Iran undercover operations across M.East support sectarian fight in Iraq result in 10,000's Muslim dead.
2. It supported fight against US again 10,000's Muslim dead.
3. Iran supported Hezbollah that hijacked Lebanon and provoke war with Israel. Again 1000 muslim dead.
4. Iran using Hamas to fight Israel and Fatah that again result in 1000's Muslim dead.
5. Iran known to triggered unrest during hajj that result in 100's dead.
Should we go over 1,000,000's Iranian live wasted in 'human waves' attack during Iran/Iraq wars...
No dear Simon,
Trust me, Russia is not going to appear on the list of Iran proxies. And most of The World sees Iran just like Russians.
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace/Mir
Complain about this comment
Sonic Boomer
Solid post again. nice punch line.
The reaction of half this nation seeming to be in shock after 9/11. the stories of kids here in Oregon traumatised by the event were peculiar to say the least.
Self induced hysteria.
It was not OBL that scared them all.
And I personally had to laugh.not at the terrorists but at the parents etc who should have just brushed it off.
It was the other side of the continent. yet people in Oakland Oregon seemed to think they were in danger.
Another bunch of narcissists .
Complain about this comment
seanspa
you may not notice but I have tried to be a good boy.
;)
I was trying to steer Rich over to the same way of thinking.
Complain about this comment
To #202. MarcusAureliusII
Sorry man, discussion with you like talking to TV. You simply don't response. You didn't address a single point of my posts to you while peddling you idea of bombing Pakistan to the ground. #166, 171, 178 are waiting for your "facts, logic, and history".
Emperor Marcus Aurelius was recognized as 'The thinker on throne' while alive. Your majesty should somehow gain the same recognition before hijacking such name.
You should rush:
"Most geniuses have passed away without recognition".
Complain about this comment
skv USA.
it is strange that you seem to have such a problem with countries defending them selves.
If the USA were attacked (not by a few crazies,but really attacked) they would be sending kids to die.
Did you hear of Vietnam.
How many americans were sent to that war to die.
Seems there that the USA would fail the test. they sent Thousands to die. not even defending their land.
They have used the nukes.
there is no way you points hold water when you take the history of the countries you defend.
Did the fRench test their bombs in France or did they endanger some Islanders. same with the USA and the UK.
Expendable?
In Russia there was film out of a battle exercise where they dropped a bomb on their own troops.
Same stuff happened with the others.
Ask those ausies that had the brits bomb their back yard?
OK not people. but the danger to the land was ignored.
look at the states now. in order to get those bombs they are still not cleaning up the waste that is getting into the rivers.
They care about their people?
America and the soviet union had the cold war brewing for years. their PROXY wars.
The USA used the muhajadihn(now talliban) to fight the soviet union.
Proxy or not.
The USA has been fighting and sacrificing the kids for their ideology driven wars for a long time.
The Indians were their people.
but as I pointed out in a post not put up . to say that they were not recognised as their own people is silly.
The Kurds were not recognised by saddam. does that make him OK because he killed them?
By that logic the talliban who fight others (as well as amoungst themselves) are to be applauded for taking their frustrations out on others.
Complain about this comment
207 lol
but seriously leave the dog alone. it barks and we all have a head ache.
Complain about this comment
SKV_USA
I answered your questions in 166. Unfortunately the moderators didn't like my response any more than you would have had it been published. The gist of it is that ultimately there would be no choice. The threat once allowed to extend beyond the borders of Pakistan would be undetectable and uncontainable. The prospect of sending in special forces to attack what will surely be very heavily defended difficult to access underground bunkers and other inaccessible places the weapons are secured at are slim. Our own troops would be at grave risk of nuclear attack in Afghanistan if we did nothing especially since we are at war with the Taleban. Areas that are fortified by our troops in Afghanistan are within range of Pakistan's missiles. Our troops could be targeted and destroyed quickly by sympathetic Pakistani military units who gained control over these weapons or under orders of the Taleban. Facing unpalatable choices and choosing the least worst course of action is an inevitable consequence of living in a dangerous world if we are to have any chance of survival at all no matter how slim. With all of the dire consequences of a full scale pre-emptive nuclear first strike, so far nobody has proposed a better solution. Negotiations would be a laughable suggestion. These people like the Iranian Mullahs are beyond compromise. They have their instructions from god himself and intend to carry them out if they are at all able to, no matter what. BTW, in a nuclear war against the USSR and China, we probably would have been responsible for the deaths of over 2 billion people who were directly targeted by the US nuclear arsenal and that is not counting later casualties of radioactive fallout. And just when you thought the threat of nuclear war ended with the demise of the USSR.
Complain about this comment
More on the fairness of the Iranian justice system. So just how do we know that Saberi got a fair trial?
Complain about this comment
#208. happylaze,
I don't see World as Black and White.
Yep USA/UK/Germany was killing extra of own kind here and there. Yep. This is bad. US still struggles overcome Vietnam war that cost USA ~60,000.
Here is another numbers:
Spring 1945 Russia sacrificed extra 300,000-500,000 by crushing through Nazi defense lines to capture Berlin before May 1 (Big Soviet Holiday). There were many reasons for such assault. But no reason justifies extra 300,000-500,000 dead.
Yep USA did bad in Vietnam but is was by 240,000 less bad than Russia.
War implies casualties but different countries accept different level of casualties. France surrendered in WWII once Germany got around defenses and were about strike big cites. Reason - fear of civilian casualties. England accepted some casualties from bombing raids. US accepted European civilian casualties :). If you go into details of WWII you will see that civilian on Western front was a big concern even for Nazi. Russia left 10,000,000's civilian behind and bombed them later on occupied territory.
Nobody looked good: French coward/chickens; UK/US killed civilians; Russia - barbaric.
But I like UK/US more.
Iran touched my nerve because she pretend to be Protector In Chief of Oppressed Muslims. In reality Iran is steering every conflict around using people blinded by hate as weapon that results in staggering life loss.
I don't say US is good but Iran looks way worse.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAurelliusII
Have you gone into hiding again?
You're like a cheap street trader, hawking your wares, claiming its the best product. But when I call your bluff and look in the box - its empty. There's nothing in your box. Your claims are based on lies - like you claimed Ms Roxana Saberi had been killed by Iranians. Completely false. Like you claim to have a strategy for Pakistan - but when I look in the box - its empty. Your argument is completely hollow. No substance. A fraudster. When caught out - like the street trader who realises he's been rumbled you run away and hide.
Another example was on Monday. After my post #455 on last thread disintegrated your argument into tiny pieces - you ran away. Hiding behind the refuse bins down some side alley. Three times in a row I've whipped you.
But, I'm generous. Let me give give you another chance to set out the reasoning behind your policy to launch : "A nuclear strike that would eliminate Pakistan"
I challenge you. You have one more chance to beat me. Think you can do it? Be prepared to have all your facts scrutinsed, but have another go if you're brave enough.
Do try and set your case out without swearing, insults and lies. Without reeking of garbage - even though I knocked in it.
Complain about this comment
199 seanspa
Thank you, but attempts such as yours at reason fall on deaf ears. Some seem to think that allowing the troll to go unanswered is surrendering, but the more we respond, the more power we give him to disrupt, and pretty soon the entire dialogue is consumed in tit-for-tat responses.
Let the water roll off of our backs, Grasshopper- it has no power over us if we so choose.
Complain about this comment
Troll (from ON troll, of unknown origin)
"(Internet) A person who posts to a newsgroup, bulletin board, etc., in a way intended to anger other posters and to cause drama, or otherwise disrupt the group's intended purpose.
(Internet) A deliberately inflammatory post to a newsgroup, etc."
(from Wikionary)
Just so there is no confusion over the terminology.
Now, can we get back to the topic of this blog?
Complain about this comment
Perhaps I'll be a lone dissenter on this one, but I think it's far too soon to write Pakistan off yet. The Taliban has made big inroads in some rural areas, and militant Islamists have made cultural inroads, but that does not mean that the show's over.
It will take a while, I think, for their government (not ours) to figure out the best response. It's delicate, because 1. the govt. is not particularly strong right now, 2. cracking down too hard- i.e., using excessive force- will drive the relatives of the wronged to the Taliban in droves, and 3. they need to come to terms and deal with the conflicting loyalties within the ISI and military.
The best thing for the US to do for now is to be supportive- but from the sidelines. Our presence there is only causing the govt. difficulties. And, for the love of all that is Holy and/or good, depending upon your religious preferences, call off the drones- this is absolutely one circumstance where airstrikes and drone strikes are nothing but a blatant provocation.
I'm disappointed that the administration hasn't figured this out yet. Lopping off the head of the hydra only causes two new ones to spring in it's place...
Complain about this comment
213. Richard_SM:
Forget it. Won't happen. He's trolling elsewhere all over other BBC blogs, complaining that all his posts are now being pre-moderated.
Complain about this comment
215. At 01:53am on 07 May 2009, Via-Media wrote: "Now, can we get back to the topic of this blog?"
It suffered so much damage so early, I'm not sure anyone's quite sure what that was.
But, I'm getting rather depressed about the American media reports I see: "General Patreus says Pakistan has two weeks". . ."The Pakistani Army needs to be retrained to counter insurgents" . . . "the Pakistani government/army must do this, that and the other . . ."
Orders without plans, tactics without strategy, constant blame . . . none of that works. I never understood why the American Right began demonising it years ago. Another disastrous international mis-step that can't be put right in a few weeks. And Clinton saying "oh, so sorry we've killed yet more of your nationals by mistake": well, how would you feel when another country took it upon itself to bomb your villages? Even if you don't like some of the inhabitants that much? It's all too reminiscent of the nineteenth century.
Diplomatically, as well as militarily, US interference in that part of Asia has been a total disaster. First, the Mujahadeen are good, because they are against the Russians. The Pakistanis are good because we've got them to train, arm and finance them. Then they turn bad. Then we think we like India better. Oh, and now Pakistan is full of terrorists. . .
"Trust us, we're America, we know best."
Maybe we would be better off relying on Led Zep.
Complain about this comment
S&M
"Your claims are based on lies - like you claimed Ms Roxana Saberi had been killed by Iranians. Completely false."
What is completely false is that I ever said that. What I said is nobody knew what her current condition was, her visit from her parents had happened several days earilier when you cited it. You are putting words in my mouth I never said.
"Completely false. Like you claim to have a strategy for Pakistan - but when I look in the box - its empty."
Wrong again. But each time I post it, the moderators censor it. "Your posting is awaiting moderation." Let me clue you in, it isn't getting any more moderate than it is. I will not soften what I say to please a BBC censor. Not even on a stupid blog site. "Your posting has been referred to the moderators, wah wah wah."
My censored postings had no insults in them...unlike yours just did.
I've beaten you so badly so many times S&M I don't know what the internet doesn't just put a tombstone over your moniker saying R.I.P.
Complain about this comment
212. At 10:19pm on 06 May 2009, SKV_USA wrote:
#208. happylaze,
I don't see World as Black and White.
Yes you do.
Here is another numbers:
Spring 1945 Russia sacrificed extra 300,000-500,000 by crushing through Nazi defense lines to capture Berlin before May 1 (Big Soviet Holiday). There were many reasons for such assault. But no reason justifies extra 300,000-500,000 dead."
The reason these people died is because a mad German dictator insisted every soldier fight to the death or be killed.
The rusians did not kill their soldiers themselves.
Just be grateful these men brought an end to one of the worst regimes the world has ever seen and liberated the death camps.
"Yep USA did bad in Vietnam but is was by 240,000 less bad than Russia."
A completely idiotic comparison. Soviet troops in Afghanistan would be a better.
After all Vietnam had not invaded the US in an attempt to annihlate inferior races had it?
"War implies casualties but different countries accept different level of casualties. France surrendered in WWII once Germany got around defenses and were about strike big cites. Reason - fear of civilian casualties. England accepted some casualties from bombing raids. US accepted European civilian casualties :). If you go into details of WWII you will see that civilian on Western front was a big concern even for Nazi. Russia left 10,000,000's civilian behind and bombed them later on occupied territory."
Russia was invaded genius by an army that was intent on annihlation. Ever heard of the Action squads and Baba Yar?
"Nobody looked good: French coward/chickens; UK/US killed civilians; Russia - barbaric."
Oh and the Nazis were what "irritating"?
Those Russian "barbarians" liberatred Auschwitz. Read what Primo Levi wrote on seeing one of these "barbarians" on horseback at the gates.
Denigrate the Russians all you like. Blame them for their own suffering. But do not forget without their efforts the Nazis would have won in Europe.
And that is a fact.
"Iran touched my nerve because she pretend to be Protector In Chief of Oppressed Muslims. In reality Iran is steering every conflict around using people blinded by hate as weapon that results in staggering life loss."
Gibberish. Lots of countries claim wild things. in the 1960s the US claimed to defend freedom around the world, but had no trouble with Stroessner, Pinochet, Papa Doc. Now it has no problem with Mubarak, House of Saud etc.
Iran has not invaded anyone for 200 years. That is a good record. If all countries had such a record we would have less misery in the world.
That doesn't make Iran a paradise (keeping the death penalty means it cannot be regarded as completely civilised) but compared to practically every other country in its region it is practically a beacon.
It also has a significant jewish population - odd since all Iranians are supposed to be foaming fanatics
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
219. At 03:03am on 07 May 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
S&M
Oh so the fact none of us ever see your comments mean you win every debate.
And, going by the same logic, the fact we never see your face means you defnitely have two white heads (but no brain)?
What did I say about staying off the booze?
Complain about this comment
Simple Simon
"Oh so the fact none of us ever see your comments mean you win every debate."
I didn't plan it that way, the moderators took it out of my hands. But in retrospect, it does seem like a clever strategy. After all, if you don't know how I beat you, you won't be able to dream up usable countermeasures for the next time and I can use the same argument successfully again. All that's important for you to know is that you lost...badly :-) Nothing unusual there. Very predictable.
What makes anyone think it would be hard to invent strategies to fight a devastating nuclear war against a single country? NATO and the Warsaw Pact had many of them against each others entire alliances for decades. Compared to the USA or USSR, Pakistan is a small target and easily reached by modern weapons just like any other target in the world. Look up the website I referenced for the large array of choices the US and NATO have.
Complain about this comment
I've got it. Marcus is Dubya! The only other person stupid enough to declare that he's won while the fighting's still going on and nobody can see what he's actually doing. :p
Seanspa, that news report you linked to was talking about the death penalty in Iraq, not Iran.
Complain about this comment
To #220. Simon21,
1. WWII...
Here you just don't now history details. I more that thankful to Russian soldiers who saved world including me from Nazi. Unnecessary lost of live was wide spread through the whole history of Russian military. 'Race to Berlin' in spring 1945 one of the most staggering examples. It was not aim to liberate Auschwitz. Two Russian Generals - try to outpace each other and capture Berlin before May 1 to please Stalin. The end of war was in sight and more prepared assaults would spare 100,000's lives.
2. You still missing my point
Some countries like Brits/Germany/US/Israel notoriously try to preserve life of each solder. It goes from military doctrines -> to arms design -> to battle plans. Other countries like Russian/China/Iran etc notoriously known for wasting solders lives.
Germany fought on 3 fronts (Africa/E.Europe/W.Europe) against (Russia/Brits/US/France/Poland & co) and military losses ~ 5,500,000 (including last phase of war) while Russia lost 12,000,000 on single front.
Again I am Russian, like most Russian I hold military rank (not anymore) and have huge respect to Russia role in WWII. But I also very critical of Russian military losses.
3. "The Russians did not kill their soldiers themselves"
a. Unprepared/unjustified attacks seen as crime and murder even in Russian military.
b. Again you don't know WWWII history. Study about 'Zagrad otryadi' aka 'Rear Guards' and 'Shtruf bats' aka 'Committed to death'. Both were part of regular regiments.
4. "It also has a significant jewish population - odd since all Iranians are supposed to be foaming fanatics".
You seams to redefine word 'significant'. 25000 doesn't look significant for 77,000,000 population. But it is significantly SHRINKING:
1948 ~100,000; - 1979 ~40,000; 2004 ~25000 (some put as low 11,000). Most don't immigrate of fear of Regime retaliation against relatives.
5. My comment about 200 yrs of 'peaceful' Iran stays. You don't deny fact that Iran heavily involved in undercover warfare using proxies like HEZBOLLAH/HAMAS/Iraq militias etc.
Instead You try to justify such Iran actions by pointing that US/Egypt/Israel/etc do even worse things. Even if US/Egypt/Israel are 'bad' does it make Iran look good? Does make Iran more attractive as partner in 'Defensive alliance'? :)
Complain about this comment
223. At 2:35pm on 07 May 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
Simple Simon
Have you put the glass down?
"I didn't plan it that way, "
You agree!!! FOr haven's sake you actually think the fact no one can see what you say means you are an effective debater!!!!
"the moderators took it out of my hands. But in retrospect, it does seem like a clever strategy."
Clever, saying nothing is clever?
well I have to agree in your case. Its your best strategy.
"After all, if you don't know how I beat you, you won't be able to dream up usable countermeasures for the next time and I can use the same argument successfully again. All that's important for you to know is that you lost...badly :-) Nothing unusual there. Very predictable."
So you end up raging and debating yourself?
There's a word for people who indulge themselves in this way.
It ends with r.
"What makes anyone think it would be hard to invent strategies to fight a devastating nuclear war against a single country? NATO and the Warsaw Pact had many of them against each others entire alliances for decades."
But people in Nato had brains and a knowledge of other countries.
Whereas you.
" Compared to the USA or USSR, Pakistan is a small target and easily reached by modern weapons just like any other target in the world. Look up the website I referenced for the large array of choices the US and NATO have. "
And that is the basis of your "strategy" i e bilge.
The US will never nuke a country near Russia. It will not get permission.
So any other bright ideas
Complain about this comment
#224, thanks. Memo to self - use reading glasses.
Complain about this comment
to #210 MarcusAureliusII,
"The prospect of sending in special forces to attack what will surely be very heavily defended difficult to access underground bunkers".
You wrong your majesty.
Pakistan has no known underground launch pads like US/Russia.
AFAIK they are all on mobile platforms. That implies they constantly moving from one silo to another. That the reason why your proposed bomb strikes on Pakistan will fail. Do homework before talking about non-existing things.
"We probably would have been responsible for the deaths of over 2 billion people".
Your majesty you wrong again.
US will not trade risk of [nuke strike from Pakistan to US installation in Afghanistan] to risk of [Russia/China nuclear strike on US mainland]. From US point of view while first sound real bad second sound like global suicide.
From Russia/China point of view they cannot accept risk of US strikes so close to their mainlands. Nor they want to risk uncertainty of retaliation strikes.
Most likely US will use Afghanistan as base to hunt down Pakistan mobile launchers. We can expect certain degree of cooperation from Pakistan. After all most of Pakistan nukes personnel are afraid of any retaliation.
Complain about this comment
Simon21 (#220) "It also has a significant jewish population - odd since all Iranians are supposed to be foaming fanatics."
There is nothing at all odd about this. What is odd is your claim that people "suppose" this. Iran has several ethnic, language, and religious minorities. No rational person would think that such a large country would be homogeneous, or that the character of the people would be a mere reflection of the few who hold power there.
Complain about this comment
220 simon the russians shot you for not walking into the fire. .
some seriously were not given a gun but expected to pick it up off the dead guy in front. If not you were shot.
Sorry.
Via I'm with you. I think people write off others as fallen all the time.
only to get kicked in the ass.
SKV back to the authoritative numbering technique to lend legitimacy to your argument?
sorry but I thought you said you would leave Israel out of this.
"notoriously try to preserve life of each soldier."
I do not see how Attacking a nation over one soldier shows me any reason why I would accept that nation having big bombs.
It seems like a bit of cock eyed reasoning if ever there was.
The world could have been destroyed several times over if every country thinks like that has a bomb.
but fortunately MOST don't.
As for proxies.
ALL the players you have mentioned used proxies.
ALL of them.
To go into examples . look at the mess in south america.
(Kept their own people safe though eh?)
Look at the mess in africa
kept the "OK" countries safe though.
'Lets fight over there so as to not have to possibly face a few casualties here.'
GW line.
Great un aggressive tactic that never caused any to get worried that america was acting in a unilateral way.
No , never.No proxies in the pakistan army or the afghan army or the Iraqi army.
they are not proxy armies but then , they are.We finance them.
PS Israel set up opposition to the PLO to split it up. It worked. TOO well.
point 4 on population.
the way you put it all them would be in prison camps they are not. CIA fact book says 66,000,000 not 77 000 000
small discrepancy numbers and probably different sources so OK, but not to get mighty and high over it just
all your excuses are just that.
Pakistanis are a good bunch of people. they see injustice and fight. They are dying for our war. The talliban would never have gained any support if it were not for the WAR against peoples.
Not enemies, just peoples.
No one bothered to check the people they were hitting because they were so busy making sure their soldiers did not get hit. but no concern for civilians.
that is Why Gen Patroneous said - stop. Protect the locals. protect the people. then they may have some concern to protect you.
No one has passed a test of worthiness to hold these weapons.
NO ONE.
Well maybe the UK ;)
Complain about this comment
"132. At 7:56pm on 05 May 2009, Richard_SM wrote:
Marcus Aurellius
What type of nuclear weapons would you use in your plan to "eliminate Pakistan?""
Thermo-nuclear. That's the best kind...and the only kind we've got.
SKV USA;
"Pakistan has no known underground launch pads like US/Russia."
Not the launch sites, the protected arsenals where the warheads, missiles, and other components are revetted. And they let you people drive, vote and everything. No wonder the world is in such a mess.
"We probably would have been responsible for the deaths of over 2 billion people".
Your majesty you wrong again."
Are you kidding? 20,000 nuclear weapons were targeted at among other places every significant population center in China, the USSR, and Eastern Europe. Well over 1 billion deaths within the first few hours would have occurred in China alone. Nothing would have been left of any of it.
"Most likely US will use Afghanistan as base to hunt down Pakistan mobile launchers. We can expect certain degree of cooperation from Pakistan. After all most of Pakistan nukes personnel are afraid of any retaliation."
That strategy will not work. By the time American forces got to them, they'd be out of the country on their way to someplace safe for later use. And at that time, the Pakistani military will be under the control of the Taleban already. Nobody in Pakistan will willingly turn over nuclear weapons or inform where they are hidden to outsiders.
Complain about this comment
229. At 4:10pm on 07 May 2009, Gary_A_Hill wrote:
Simon21 (#220) "It also has a significant jewish population - odd since all Iranians are supposed to be foaming fanatics."
"There is nothing at all odd about this. What is odd is your claim that people "suppose" this. Iran has several ethnic, language, and religious minorities. No rational person would think that such a large country would be homogeneous, or that the character of the people would be a mere reflection of the few who hold power there."
But that is the impression created. The fact that Iran's constitution specifically protects Iranian jews is practically never mentioned in the western press. The fact that the "anti-semtic" president of Iran gave a large contribution to the largest jewish hospital outside of Israel is also missed.
Complain about this comment
SKV and Rich.. ............?
Complain about this comment
Via-Media (#215), I'm pretty sure that "troll" derives from the fishing term, not from the Old Norse usage.
Complain about this comment
Sorry Via.. but it was PAKISTAN. right?
Complain about this comment
To #223. MarcusAureliusII
"Compared to the USA or USSR, Pakistan is a small target and easily reached by modern weapons just like any other target in the world."
You are again consumed by Western military might.
Sorry Your majesty, Talking military, you seams to be casualty of US schooling.
1. Don't mistaken Pakistan on map with actual size of country. Map are usually drawn in scale 1:1,000,000 :).
2. US army fail for 8 yrs find a man in this tiny country.
3. I ASKED YOU 3 TIMES ALREADY.
PLEASE FIND 1 (ONE) MOBILE MISSILE LAUNCHER OUT OF AT LEAST 20-50 THAT CURRENTLY ROAMING PAKISTAN ROADS. This time I even give you extra clues - they are all within 80-200 km from India borders :).
I already pointed out that during Desert storm USA failed to hit single mobile missile launcher before they were able to fire SCADs. After arrival at firing position SCAD takes another ~45 min to prepare for launch. Plenty of time for object recognition software to
You are dramatically naive.
Have you ever been outdoors? All human maid objects are lost to scale of natural terrain. All our mighty military hardware destroys any target once you point it.
But it is next to impossible to locate target especially moving target.
At least try to use to google map terrains view without labels and start from full US view and zero down on your home. (just Don't hit this 'big red button'!!!)
Complain about this comment
#230 Hapylaze
"ALL the players you have mentioned used proxies. ALL of them."
My only point that statement "Iran for 200 yrs was peaceful nation" didn't hold water. You also seams to compare Iran to our waring countries like US. So no disagreement here.
the way you put it all them would be in prison camps they are not. CIA fact book says 66,000,000 not 77 000 000
small discrepancy numbers and probably different sources so OK, but not to get mighty and high over it just
all your excuses are just that.
"Pakistanis are a good bunch of people. they see injustice and fight. They are dying for our war. "
I try to protect poor Pakistan from MArcus bobms for 3-rd day :).
Taliban has nothing to do with protecting people against 'war'. Once big enough area losing central authority you get gangs that fill the void. They use terror and few local informants to establish rule over locals. Locals usually see it as smaller evil compare to lack of any authority at all. I lived through that... Thank G-d on much much much smaller scale.
Complain about this comment
To #223. MarcusAureliusII
"Underground protected arsenals where the warheads, missiles".
Russia/US have extra-nukes in storage because they disarm.
Pakistan/India don't have extra nukes to keep them in "Underground protected arsenals". They are for real they all deployed!!!! Each silo is also maintenance facility.
Te whole idea of nuclear deterrence that you cannot possible destroy all nukes in 1,2,3 even 10 strikes !!! So possible adversary always in danger of imminent retaliation.
Even US cannot simple wipe out Pakistan nukes.
So you back in business to hunt down at least 20 mobile missiles launchers.
Complain about this comment
#236, I like point 1. In an inverted scale, do you think you could spot his brain?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
SKV_USA
"Te whole idea of nuclear deterrence that you cannot possible destroy all nukes in 1,2,3 even 10 strikes !!! So possible adversary always in danger of imminent retaliation."
You really don't understand it, you are way out of your depth. America's and Russia's arsenals are immune to being taken out on a first strike because of several factors which do not apply to Pakistan. There is early warning, up to half an hour for some land based missiles. This is due to the distances involved and the worldwide ground and space based radar systems to detect launches and track missiles. Planes carrying bombs and ALCMs can be in the air in minutes. There may still be perpetual around the clock planes in the air as there was during the cold war. Land based ICBMs can be launched within a minute or two. Sea based Tridents on submarines are virtually invulnerable because they are undetectable. Once they begin to launch, the all their birds can be on their way before the sub can be taken out by an emeny stike.
By standards of nuclear weapons Pakistan is a relatively small target. A few dozen warheads would probably be sufficient to annihilate the entire country. (A single Trident submarine can hit nearly 200 targets with half a megaton each in well under an hour, enough to burn down all of Europe.) No hiding places in country would survive. The need for a "bunker buster" nuclear weapon is absurd. 270 feet of rock will not protect Iran's nuclear weapons from a one megaton 100 million degree blast on top of it. A coordinated attack would arrive virtually without warning. Pakistan does not have an undetectable naval based retailatory capability. Deterrence against nuclear attack only works if your ability to launch a retaliatory strike cannot be taken out by a first strike or if you have the capability to launch an effective retaliatory strike on warning. Pakistan has neither unless it moves its nuclear weapons beyond the borders of its country. The major nuclear powers have these capabilities (not sure about China but it probably does.)
Khrushchev once bragged he could wipe out all of West Germany with 8 nuclear weapons. He was probably right. When Russia tested Tsar Bomba at half power, it was believed that 12 such weapons a full power would be all that was necessary to take out the entire continental United States. Major military efforts have been focused on having many smaller nuclear weapons to hit more targets but there is actually no limit to the size a thermonuclear weapon could be built to.
Complain about this comment
To #239. seanspa
I still hold hope :)
-SKV
Complain about this comment
According to this webpage below, Pakistan does have access to nuclear capable ALCMs. That does mean they have retaliatory capability, although looking at ranges they'd only be able to hit US bases in Afganistan and Iraq. Maybe Diego Garcia too. Not entirely sure on that one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
But there's a bottom line that no-one's mentioned yet. Wiping out an entire country with nuclear weapons? That's genocide. None of the leadership of the USA at that time would ever be able to leave their country again because every country in the world would be happy to arrest them and hand them over for prosecution at The Hague. Not so great for international diplomacy. Also worth considering would be the fact that suddenly every nuclear capable country in the world would start pointing their weapons at America to make sure they don't suffer the same fate.
Short form of all that? Wiping Pakistan off the map would destroy America. And despite what some people like to think, the USA would have a very hard time living without the rest of the world. It's a side effect of the global market it's been pushing so hard.
Complain about this comment
#241. At 8:12pm on 07 May 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
You talk about 500 kilotons!
I didn't relise that you that bad.
It is too late to talk to you about value of 300,000,000 human lives in Pakistan. That the reason why we relied on deterrence for so long. Even mad person like you are should be afraid. But you probably not :((.
Russia/China will retaliate immediately on first blast on 500 kiloton scale.
1. After first blast and several missiles in transit their window to retaliate will be on scale of minutes. Don't forget about multiple warheads each can deviate 100-1000 miles. No time to call Washington.
This weapon will affect neighbor countries that happen to be most most populace countries 1,200,000,000 India and 1,400,000,000 China.
Even Mr. Bush would think 3 times before commit crime on such scale.
Still you lost with simple point:
No technology today allows locate 20-50 mobile misses with high degrees certainty. ~25% of them will survive.
Here are result of life test of 40KT nuke 1954 Trotzki poligon Russia.
Blast was carried during life military exercise.
light armor survived outside 600m zone.
Military non-armored vehicles survived outside 1200m zone.
Hill slope opposite to blast reduce effect at least 2x.
Concrete shelters survived the best. I was not able to get exact numbers but text implies with-in 100-300m.
So even with 500K nuke on open area you have to hit with-in 12km from launcher that travels with 30-40km/h. Goooood luck.
BTW Early warning system gives ability to retaliate but doesn't give you enough time to avoid strike unless you have shield.
Complain about this comment
#243. Kittle
We are ok. Only one of us so far wants to wipe out Pakistan. We went through moral arguments a day ago and... lost badly. The problem that moral arguments implies that we share the same values. Our chickenhawk friend values thrill of of nuke strike the most.
So we are reduced to technical discussion that blast doesn't produce result that he claims as excuse for nuke strike.
Here I do just fine :).
Complain about this comment
244
Hmm: according to your facts and the following assumptions the MAs plan is impossible (as we already knew):
First of all, the typical western warhead is in the range of 100-120 kilotonnes, smaller than Russian design and smaller than the weapons from the cold war. The reason for this is that Western weapons are far more accurate than Russian and Chinese nukes therefore allowing them to be smaller (saving money and providing more tactical options).
Since you quoted 40 kilotonnes we can assume that a 120 kilotonne warhead will cover an area three times the size (effectively destroying the scuds within in 3.6km).
Pakistan has an area of 803000 km squared. To covered the country would require 1970 nukes.
Ah, ever so slight snag, the USs current official nuclear stock pile is somewhere in the region of 5500 (and some of these are mothballing).
So according to MA IIs plan the US should expend its whole arsenal committing one of the greatest acts of genocide in human history with no realistic chance of achieving. That his plan requires irradiating two nuclear countries (China and India) that could launch nuclear strikes at the US without fear of retaliation is pure genius (if you apply the term loosely).
So if I was a member of the CCP, what bit of America would I want
Complain about this comment
#246 Hi youngandcynical,
I kept things simple for his majesty MA.
Practically speaking most launchers scattered with-in 80km-120km from India borders (expected adversary). 80-120 km comes from range of tactical conventional missiles/artillery.
Launchers roam between 5-10 known maintain facilities and big unknown number of artificial/natural shelters like bridges/tunnels/forests/silos/canyons that also possible launch sites.
Obviously Pakistan military knows own terrains best and for sure avoids open plains (If there are any in Pakistan).
Russian MAZ-547 launcher has range ~400 km. They refueled by tankers en route on demand and often roam in wildness off roads. They have own somewhat network of trails.
I assume Pakistan reuse Russian mobile doctrine and Russian(chinesse made) hardware.
Complain about this comment
Kettle, the pot calling you back again;
Whenever I hear Europeans talk about genocide, I just shake my head. Who on this planet has more guilt than they do? Besides, what do you think NATO's plan for thermonuclear war was?
SKV, the W88 is 450 KTs. American weapons including MIRVs have a very high probability of detonating literally within yards of their targets. There are over 5000 nukes in the active stockpile, over 4000 remaining in the reserve stockpile. The figures I gave you are on the web site I referenced.
I still haven't heard a better plan. There is no negotiating with the Taleban or al Qaeda. Even Pakistan's government's recent negotiations with them in the Swat valley have broken down. Anyone who thinks this can be talked out is dangerously naive. If they get them, there's little doubt they will use them on us. Retaliation against the US by Russia or China would be suicide for them and they know it. The US stockpile is more than sufficient to wipe them both out many times over, its early warning systems more than sufficient, its political will unquestionable. It would mean the end of human life on earth without doubt and they know that too.
Once you filter out the diplo-speak Congress has been saying pretty much the same as I have here.
Am I scared? You bet I am. I've been scared since 9-11. Only a fool wouldn't be.
So far nobody has offered an alternative that has a high probability of denying al Qaeda and the Taleban access to Pakistan's nukes if they take over the government. Unlike Europeans though, Americans don't do the ostrich thing. Facing grim reality and dealing with it on its owh terms is something we've become used to. Waiting for the other side to attack would only make things worse. India undoubtedly sees it the same way. Israel undoubtedly sees Iran the same way. I've said before, rogue staes with nuclear weapons like Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan under rule of the Taleban make them all but certain target for a pre-emptive strike. If the US is struck first it could become a real rogue state when its constitional rule of law is gone. Then what would the world do?
Complain about this comment
yea all the countries that bring us global warming want to complain about Pakistan having a few nukes.
mmmmmmM
certain problems for maybe's.
OK lets clean the world up then complain.
Complain about this comment
REF: #219 MarcusAureliusII
You wrote on the previous page Roxana Saberi was "dead," "literally" "dead" at the hands of Iran. "They have a history of it." you wrote. Your very words in several of your posts. Undeniable Marcus. But its not just you. A poisonous stream started trickling down from the top eight years ago. It became obvious many people in senior positions at state and federal levels were, let me be generous and say 'bluffing' their way through, instead of carrying their duties to the American people responsibly. Accountability was increasingley delegated to "spokesmen". Few in USA can tell truth from fiction now. I hear it constantly. Smokecreens. Zigging and zagging. Perjury. This poison has trickled right down to those at the bottom of the heap. Check your post #213. The proof is on the previous page.
It permeates through all organisations. Look at the loss of confidence in the New York Times. Do they print truth or fiction? In 2002 its sales went into decline. Its a shadow of its former self now. Its also happening right under your nose, Marcus, if you didn't know. At the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in New Jersey which a "spokesman" says is "safe", yet I read it caught fire soon after the safety inspection earlier this year! The next month it was found to be leaking radioactive water!! Then came the discovery the safety shields designed to contain radiation are severely corroded!!! And now, one of the two tranformers has broken down completely!!!! Who'd want to live there????? They should call it the Oyster 'Creek and Leak' nuclear power plant. A Chernobyl about to happen. Americans must be completely disillusioned if what I read about the FBI is correct: they've failed to update the national terror watchlist when new reports have been supplied. Can you believe that? Letting terror suspects roam the states, not knowing where they are, what they're up to.
Back to topic after responding to your post about lying. You ought to consider how many of those nukes have gone missing in Pakistan. Do you think they're more vigilant in Pakistan than your own FBI? Half a dozen nukes, maybe more could have "disappeared" and been shipped overseas, taken into America by some of those "terror suspects" who aren't on the FBI national terror watchlist. One could be driven in a small Ryder truck and detonated in New York. Other ones driven into Chicago, Houston, LA, Orlando, Washington. Anywhere. Forget Detroit - that place is dead already. 'Deadbeat Detroit' I call it. Maybe Fort Dix - now there's a thought. How is bombing Pakistan going to help in that scenario? Here's another angle for you to consider: nuking Pakistan completely would lead to around 400 million fatalities, plus many more with radiation sickness, say at a guess, another 100 million. Total 500 million give or take. While the White House is deliberating on whether to obliterate Pakistan, the chiefs in Russia, China, India might be seeing it from a different perspective. Why let USA hit 500 million, when we could hit USA with only 300million people. It saves 200 million people. Not only that, it stops India and China having radiation on their soil. It stops Russia's client states being affected. And it rids the world of the country that's caused so many world problems. They never need to worry about another crazy Neo-con getting in the White House ever again. As America's only friends, Britain and Israel might be expected to respond. But if the "Big Three" deliver an ultimatum to Britain and Israel just as the hundreds of nukes are fired at USA, to stay out of it, I don't think we'd object. We'd be mad to come to your aid. So would Israel. We'd both take our chances alive - instead of dead. We'd probably have to give up our nuclear arsenal. But hey - i'd like to learn some Mandarin, some Russian, some Hindi or Gujarati. My brother has already learned Mandarin, so he'll help me. It would be a shame - but you can't ignore the fact that mathematically, it would be the right thing to do. Saving 200 million lives has to be the right choice, don't you think? Probably not.
Complain about this comment
I think Pakistan should launch what they have from a merchant ship very soon. all they have straight at new york. New jersey even. I'll be fine here in Oregon.
Who would miss New York.(marbles get out).
there would be no consequences.
Americans are blood thirsty maniacs ready to destroy the world. and the bit of dust thrown into the air will help cool the planet down.
they all side with murderers and support terrorism. they pay taxes willingly and indoctrinate the kids into hating the rest of the world.
The Un should call for all nations to help and sneak in their subs to help.
totally feasible way to sort two problems out at once;)
Complain about this comment
247 and others, SKV.
I raise my glass of Stolichnaya to you, and drink in one gulp, to the last drop. Now I turn and throw the empty glass into the fireplace.
I would drink hot black tea with you any day.
Thank you for your attempts on this thread to teach Dr. Strangelove some truths. It is a fool's errand - we have all tried before, but thank you for trying anyway. Your comments give a different and interesting perspective. Hope you will continue to post, whether on this topic or others.
Yours,
I.F.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
happylaze;
"they pay taxes willingly and indoctrinate the kids into hating the rest of the world."
With people like you in it, it's small wonder. But our kids don't need to be indoctrinated. All they have to do is look at it with their eyes open. Much of it speaks for itself, no BBC or other news spin is needed.
Uninteresting Foreigner, you threw away a perfectly good glass. Why? for the sake of some inane ancient ritual? You must be European too.
Complain about this comment
I will say it yet once again: please, please DO NOT FEED THE TROLL. It is baiting you, shifting arguments, drawing you into unending banter. By responding, all we do is disrupt any intelligent conversation we might have. A number of posters have tried to steer back to the topic, and been pretty much run over by the running battles.
Answering gives the troll power- please, ignore it! Maybe we can have a serious conversation about Pakistan, and safeguarding their nuclear weapons.
Complain about this comment
Viagra Media
Your definition of a troll is anyone who vehemently disagrees with you and beat all of your arguments to a pulp. Tough.
Complain about this comment
255. Via-Media:
For those who might wish to contribute something sensible, I suggest a look at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7601748.stm
which may help us to regain some of the geographical perspective that that malevolently destructive troll is so woefully ignorant of.
Complain about this comment
256. MarcusAureliusII:
For you, of all people, to write of "facts" "logic" and "arguments" is the height of absurdity. You have deliberately, insistently and viciously destroyed any possibility of rational debate on this thread almost from its very beginning. It's not the first time; I don't suppose it will be the last. You falsify and misrepresent people's views, history, geography and facts; you break the BBC House rules in almost every post you make by distorting contributors' user names to try to belittle them and insult them.
Real tough guy. I don't think.
Complain about this comment
"But our kids don't need to be indoctrinated. All they have to do is look at FOX NEWS with their eyes open."
Fixed that for you Marcus. ^_^
"Am I scared? You bet I am. I've been scared since 9-11. Only a fool wouldn't be."
And there, I think, is the problem. You're scared and lashing out. You guys thought you were so invulnerable over there and when that conceit was proved wrong, some of you just totally lost the plot and became willing to do or support anything to try and make you feel safe again. I find it quite amusing the way Marcus and people like him are so terrified by these terrorists that they let the fear consume their lives. You have to wonder how they would have dealt with living through The Troubles, where we had decades of being under constant threat, from our own people no less. Perhaps that's one of the reasons for his resentment of Europeans, that we can face terrorism and then just get on with our lives, whereas he can't escape the fear? Food for thought. No need to reply Marcus. You'll only throw more insults at me and further embarass your country.
Complain about this comment
I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a better solution that will likely work. So far all I've heard are moral objections which are irrelevant, political consequences which won't outweigh the threat, and objections about whether or not the mission could be accomplished as I say which seems to me to show ingorance of the military power of these weapons. Here's what the Russians would probably use if they were confronted with the same problem. One or two of these babies at full power is all it would take and good-bye Pakistan forever;
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html
Complain about this comment
260. At 04:50am on 08 May 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a better solution that will likely work.
That is because your lunatic proposition is, as usual, based on nothing more than an opinionated assertion which takes no account of the actuality of the al Quaeda movement and ideology; nor of the origins, aims and actual diversity of the Taleban; an utter misconception of the concept of Jihad, Islam, and an utter ignorance of the politics and geography of the region.
None of which, since you never take any notice, is worth even attempting to explain to you any more.
It's as simple as that.
Complain about this comment
Marcus I will say no more on this topic since you fail to do even simple math and I have do it for you again.
0. In posts #244, #247 I gave you enough DETAILED info to see that even 1000KT yield will only trigger retaliation from Russia/China and killed 10,000,000s-100,000,000 in overpopulated countries India/China/Pakistan. But it will destroy only few mobile launchers.
1. Yield.
Lets take 1000KT (it is more than 2x time bigger than w88). It will cover ~ 50km circle. But in 50 km circle even in desert we have more than enough natural hill/canyons to dissipate blast power and shield MAZ-547 that is less than 5m high. Pakistan is mountainous/hilly country. Even on flat plain it will take ~50 1000KT nukes to cover 1200km x 100km area to the point that no single MAZ547 left :).
2. Precision.
Precision was important to hit Russian underground missiles sites. Their location was well known. That was exactly the reason why USSR switched to mobile launchers. Did you find a single MAZ-547 on google map? Please cheat and just search for picture. There are remarkable off road vehicles. How can you hit something with in 3 feet if you dont know its location?
Let pretend that you do know location. Vechle is moving away at speed 25-40 km/h. Your missile will arrive only with-in 30 mins. MAZ will be 10km away. Every turn may put it behind natural protection like hill/canyon or forest. And your nuke will hit precisely nothing. They know local terrains and dont bound to pawed roads. BTE If you know precise location why you wouldnt use a simple bomb/conventional missile/MRLS?
3. Previous experience.
As I pointed already several times: During Desert Storm US was not able to locate destroy single MAZ-547 before missile launch. Even before launch it made stop for 25-45 minutes. US brought special teams to hunt down SCUDs with big number satellites redirected to Iraq and spy plains. This took place in Iraqi desert not Pakistan hills/mountains and US failed badly. Israel had to use Patriots to shut them down.
Dont use 9/11 as excuse. You have nothing to do with 9/11.
I live in NJ and see a lot of reason in happylaze post. Most likely they will load couple launchers to cargo ship and see them to NYC/London/LA. Yep. I am afraid. But it doesnt make me wish to wipe Pakistan.
Complain about this comment
247
Well, I tried to keep things simple as well. Of course, there will be issues such as range, logistics and the desire to place the mobile platforms away from densely populated areas or areas where there are anti-government forces that will decrease the number of places that Pakistan is likely to hide its nukes. I also failed to factor the terrain (which as you pointed out is mostly mountains) and the psychology behind those that will actually launch the weapons (will they press the big shinny red button? Will they have to deal with people under their command who may not want them to press the big button).
The plan is made mad! Mad Marcus! Your pills are on the counter over there by the window.
Back to a more sensible discussion of what to do with Pakistani and its nuclear weapons:
One course of action would be to persuade the Pakistani government to hand over its nuclear weapons in good faith. This is likely to be very difficult and would have to involve convincing them that India is not a threat as well as providing some such of incentive (economic and military aid springs to mind). Like I said this is difficult but not impossible, several nations (South Africa, Ukraine) gave up their nuclear arsenal of their own free will because they felt safer without them (or in South Africas case because nukes didnt stop us taking a very dim very of Apartheid)
The other sensible option would be to convince the Pakistanis that this is their fight rather than just ours. Military intelligence could be passed onto trusted Pakistani field commanders (thus cutting out the untrustworthy Pakistani intelligence service) and possibly giving these field commanders the ability to call in US and allied airstrikes. These measures, if nothing else, could persuade the Pakistani population that west really is on their side, which would make it harder for the Taliban to extend its influence beyond the tribal areas.
Complain about this comment
262. At 05:58am on 08 May 2009, SKV_USA wrote:
There is no point arguing with this idiot. He hates europeans because of thier colour and assumes Pakistan is like Cleveland only smaller.
It is like trying to explain fine shades of colour to a blind man, there is no understanding.
He drinks rather heavily on evidence.
The whole discussion is cod.
The US will not even think of nuking Pakistan without getting permission from Russia
Russia which is already enraged over Nato etc will not give it. Ditto Iran.
If the US were to agree to abandon Georgia, withdraw from dfensive alliances with Poland et al then there might be movement, otherwise no way.
And if the US went ahead and ignored Russia.
Well it might be a good idea to leave Poland, Kiev, Tibilis and of course Taiwan.
Complain about this comment
263. At 09:35am on 08 May 2009, youngandcynical
I don't think you've thought this through. First, no sovereign power ever has, or ever will, hand over its prime weapons. There is considerable suspicion among both the population, military, and politicians in Pakistan that the US does want to control its nuclear capability. (See The Nation, on this.) These things are not sharp knives that can bee collected and handed over to some responsible parent for safe keeping for a month or two.
Nuclear disarmament in the region is a possible option, but in the very long term: India will not give up a nuclear capability while China has one, or vice-versa; Pakistan will not give it up while India has one. No-one is going to give an up while a divided Kashmir remains a problem.
To divide an army into those 'with us' and those 'against us' is thoroughly dangerous. If you had, say, the 101st Airborne taking orders from a Russian General, you would call that treason, wouldn't you?
And for them to call in foreign airstrikes on their own territory would probably amount to the same; as it is, the attacks over the border by drones have not "persuaded the Pakistani population that west really is on their side", far from it. (See The Nation, again.)
It is possible that the Taleban in the tribal areas of Pakistan might temporarily be effectively disarmed, but that is something that has not yet been achieved in Afghanistan, is it? There hasn't even been any kind of 'containment'. The territories would have to be put under military occupation for decades.
And a long process of changing both religious and cultural attitudes would have to take place on both sides of the border. That's what financial resources would be required for. And a lot of time. Some of these areas have been effectively autonomous, independent, and left to themselves for centuries.
There seems to be a current fashion for the US telling certain countries that "our problem is really your problem now. You fix it." It disregards entirely that a political fix for Paklistan in the North West would have a lot to do with a political fix in the South of Afghanistan; the conditions are not necessarily the same; the fixes would be divergent. But you can't have one without the other.
And a very obvious heavy-handed intervention or takeover is the last thing that would persuade India, China or Iran to help. After all, why should they not, goiven some plausible change of US policy, be next to receive a demand for the surrender of some weapons, the voluntary subversion of their army, the suggestion they 'invite' a foreign power to bomb their own citizens.
What (inadequate) discussion I have so far seen in the media of all this by the various pundits (including a pathetically inadequate piece in the NYT recently by Kalilazad) addresses none of this; merely reverts to the methods and imperial attitudes of the 19th century, with nothing new for the 21st. And, it seems to me, a damn sight less knowledge and interest in both the peoples and the history of the region.
Complain about this comment
264 Simon 21
The US will not use nuclear weapons, period, even if Russia gave their blessing. The world is vastly different than it was in wartime 1945; even 65 years ago, there were a number of policymakers with grave doubts as to the use of the atomic bomb. Which proved right.
Non-proliferation will not work unless the wannabee-aspirants to the nuclear club see the members of said club voluntarily dismantling their nuclear apparatus.
263 british-ish
Brilliant summary of the situation. South Africa did voluntarily discontinue its own nuclear program (as did Sweden, before it completed a weapon, in the 60s,) but I can't see Pakistan giving it up while it continues to see India as a threat.
Complain about this comment
Marcus,
To contemplate a nucular strike on a smaller different culture is the most disgusting train of thought that you have come up with so far.Use a another subject to draw attention to your self.
Why oh why are you so rude , nasty & plain angry with every one??
I think the problem that causes all this anger lies at the center of your being,small but elusive leaving you quite unable to put your finger on it.Whilst airing your difference ,you are unable to lift your game to the challange ,with civility & gentleness that is far more lightly to achive the disired out pouring of passion & idears,that when one is permanantly angry.
Long ago you said to me "I am irripressable as Hycintha Bucket"there is nothing wrong with gender change if it helps alevates anger.
Think about it, after all you have very little to lose !!.
Complain about this comment
british-sh
It is you who is the lunatic. You refuse to recognize that al Qaeda would have not hesitated to use nuclear weapons against Londoners on 7-7 instead of home made bombs if they'd had access to them instead. This is why capturing suspected terrorists and using the most severe interrogation methods on those who may know of such plots will become more important than ever. With the first intelligence failure that results in a nuclear attack on America, all Costitutional law will cease and the most Draconian methods will be implimented against all external threats. America's nuclear arsenal is invulnerable as I pointed out in another posting.
SKV
Reading the description of Tsar Bomba, one thing that has to strike anyone familiar with these weapons was how clean it was. Only 1.5 MT was the result of fission, the lead tamper in place of HEU reduced the fast fissiom component by 50% and radiation by 97%. Using the data in the report, the existing radiational levels in the late 1950s resulting from atmospheric testing were the equivalent of 200 Mts of fast fission or 400 MTs total. This from the statement that had the weapon been tested at full power it would have increased total atmospheric radiation levels by 25%. This means many hundreds of MTs could be used against Pakistan without nearly as much fallout as was experienced in the 1950s and 1960 before the test ban treaty. From the indifference of Russia's, China's, and India's governments to environmental polutants including the failure to alert the local population near Chernobyl for days after the accident, this may not be as big a factor locally as you make it out to be. In any case, there will be increased radiation sickness and cancers, an inevitable consequence of nuclear war. That cannot be helped. The only choice open when you have an implacable enemy who has no regard for human life and access to nuclear weapons is whether you strike him first or wait for him to inevitably strike you first. It's really no choice at all.
Viagra media
Not Russia nor anyone else has a veto over American use of nuclear weapons once America decides using them is in its best national interest. It works the other way around too. For example the US could not stop Israel from using them on Iran. India may decide to attack Pakistan before the US does. They've had incessant attacks from Pakistan based terrorists, understand their vulnerability, and I think have the mettle to act. What will you and those of your position say if the nuclear attack on Pakistan originates in India? How will you gratuitiously bash America and Americans for that?
Simple Simon, you defeatist attitude, resignation at the first sign of aggression and dire threats against you, refusal to face unpleasant realities and deal with them effectively are only a few of many valid reasons I have for hating Europeans. But you certainly made this case clear enough in your posting. Americans really are made of different stuff than Europeans. You'd be even more disheartened if you listened to what members of Congress are saying as you could hear first hand on C-span and C-span two. Read between the lines and it's exactly the same as what I've posted. There is nothing Europeans can do about it and they hate it but they should learn to accept what they can't change. Their contribution fighting the Taleban and other Middle Eastern terrorists like Saddam Hussein has been one of almost complete indifference. Now they will have to live with the consequences along with all of the rest of us.
Complain about this comment
265: Hi British-ish
To be honesty British-ish, as you know, we have a very difficult situation here: An unstable country, an enemy who is not rational (see suicide bombers), some very ill-defined boarders, nukes and no real plan of action. No good solutions just some which may be less worse than others.
Firstly, nations have given up nuclear programs, even nuclear weapons (see some of the examples, I could also add Libya onto the list). However, you are right, Pakistan is different the countries did abandon nuclear programs (and weapons) didnt have a boggy man or reasoned, in the case of the Ukraine, that these weapons wouldnt do them much good. Pakistan will probably never give its weapons while India has nuclear weapons, India will never give up weapons while China has weapons, ad nuseasua. As for Pakistani suspicion of America, Im well aware of it, I know some Pakistanis who are convinced that this whole war is purely American imperialism (we can argue about this later). That is why I said it would be difficult.
As for providing Pakistan will tactical aid (not boots on the ground). Whats the problem? British forces regularly rely on US airstrikes in Helman province, the various nations in the coalition share their intelligence. Pakistan is on our side (supposedly), offering them support rather than attacking targets inside their country without their permission has to be better right?
I wasnt implying that we were to give orders directly to the Pakistani army or vice-visa. I was simply saying that treating the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan as being one and the same and the Pakistani government and army as a potential ally rather than as an obstacle or something to be ignored may help.
Mind you, this solution carries the risk that it could end up with British, American et al being dragged into fighting on Pakistani soil like Vietnam.
Other options would be:
Give up go home and forget about all this and hope our mess will sought itself out (if history tells us anything this is most likely what will happen).
Seize Pakistans nuclear weapons by force (ground operations or air attack). Weve done this one to death, it will backfire terribly and be immoral.
Provide troops to help guard these warheads (will they accept this?)
Carry on as we are and hope it gets better.
Any other suggestions?
But at least there is only one person thinking about nuking the place. Thats some hope
Complain about this comment
Silly me. One option I have forgotten. Diplomacy. Can we talk to these guys the Taliban?
Complain about this comment
Actually, the 7/7 bombers are a good example of why extreme measures can never protect you from terrorism. They were all British citizens, taking their cue from Al'Quaida but totally independent. They worked alone, with no-one outside their group knowing what they were doing. The only way we could have stopped that would have been to lock up every muslim in the country. Same with the guys who tried to attack Glasgow Airport. They weren't just radicalised by what they found on the internet, but also from watching what our government and yours was doing to muslims in other parts of the world. Extremism breeds extremism. Your attitude only makes things worse. But then, that's what you want, isn't it?
Complain about this comment
Kittle,
- "Your attitude only makes things worse. But then, that's what you want, isn't it?"
Too right!- "XXI. What leads to peace is not violence but peaceableness, which is not passivity, but an alert, informed, practiced, and active state of being. We should recognize that while we have extravagantly subsidized the means of war, we have almost totally neglected the ways of peaceableness. We have, for example, several national military academies, but not one peace academy. We have ignored the teachings and the examples of Christ, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and other peaceable leaders. And here we have an inescapable duty to notice also that war is profitable, whereas the means of peaceableness, being cheap or free, make no money..."
Why We Fight"Thoughts in the Presence of Fear"
XXII. The key to peaceableness is continuous practice. It is wrong to suppose that we can exploit and impoverish the poorer countries, while arming them and instructing them in the newest means of war, and then reasonably expect them to be peaceable.
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace
Complain about this comment
270, This is one point where Marcus and I are in complete agreement. Diplomacy would never work with these guys because their demands would be untenable. They can't be reasoned with because their demands are unreasonable and at odds with basic human rights law. You can't reason with religious fanatics. You just have to wait for them to die off and hope that the next generation of religious nutters is smaller or less extreme. It's a long process though. I mean, we're still waiting for the Catholics to die out. :p
Complain about this comment
Kittle,
- "Diplomacy would never work with these guys because their demands would be untenable. They can't be reasoned with because their demands are unreasonable and at odds with basic human rights law."
Are you referring to the Americans? The Taliban broke off negotiations when the Americans made unreasonable demands...just ask Condi Rice:- "According to Afghan, Iranian, and Turkish government sources, Hamid Karzai, the interim Prime Minister of Afghanistan, was a top adviser to the El Segundo, California-based UNOCAL Corporation which was negotiating with the Taliban to construct a Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline from Turkmenistan through western Afghanistan to Pakistan.
And now, he's the "democratically elected" leader of Afghanistan...Karzai, the leader of the southern Afghan Pashtun Durrani tribe, was a member of the mujaheddin that fought the Soviets during the 1980s. He was a top contact for the CIA and maintained close relations with CIA Director William Casey, Vice President George Bush, and their Pakistani Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) Service interlocutors. Later, Karzai and a number of his brothers moved to the United States under the auspices of the CIA. Karzai continued to serve the agency's interests, as well as those of the Bush Family and their oil friends in negotiating the CentGas deal, according to Middle East and South Asian sources...."
Oiling the wheels, as usual.
Complain about this comment
MARCUSAURELLIUSII = 0
Marcus your time's up. You've failed. Quite miserably, I would say. You're all hat and no cattle. A fraud some might say. You've been unable to put together any cohesive plan:
#144 Q) "pray tell how 'bombing' will work if you do not know where they are?"
#128 Q) "Do please tell us how your "nuclear strike that would eliminate Pakistan" plan is going to work."
My post #162 showed you'd applied no thought whatsover. And # 176 exposed you completely. Showed your up your street trader brain. Have you cleaned yourself up yet after hiding in the refuse bin?
4 - 0 to me Marcus. It's a little too easy walking all over you. But then I knew it would be. Are you still maintaining Roxana Saberi is dead? You lost. Her appeal is next week. Back from the dead. Standards in justice USA might learn from. Perhaps Obama should beg Ahmedinejad again for a meeting. If Obama is polite, treats him with respect and apologises - he might just agree to a meeting. Tthat would be funny.
4-0 :-)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9VxnCBD9W4
who's BAD
Complain about this comment
272 and 27
Im in two minds over the use of diplomacy.
On the one hand talking is usually better than shooting and some of these people we are fighting are more interested in keeping the west out of their land than anything else. It would be interesting to find how many of these fighters are motivated by jihad or are simply following the time honoured tradition in that part of the world of grinding foreign armies to dust.
Having said that, these guys are led by fanatics. Their beliefs are horrific (killing girls because they go to school, not 21st centaury behaviour). They are also in a position of strength in Pakistan because it is unlikely that Pakistan will divert too much of its army from Kashmir to fight them. The result is that they could be able to negotiate a treaty that would favour them as opposed to a treaty that favours us (who are the good guys). There is the other, political problem, will America really negotiate with people they see as terrorists? I doubt it.
So as you say, diplomacy is proabably a dead end.
Like I said, this situation has no good solutions just some that are less worse than others.
Whats my (possibly) final thoughts on the region? Im pessimistic, I believe that this war will drag on, tens of thousands of more innocent people will be killed or displaced by the fighting. In the end Afghanistan will end up have another warlord style government (least we forget that the Taliban were originally fanatical tribesmen armed and trained by the USA, too bad that Regan never took a good look at or never cared about some of their beliefs before sending them to fight the Soviets). Meanwhile Pakistan will limp on as an unstable nuclear state while Al-Qaida (or similar organisations) set up shop somewhere in East Africa.
Complain about this comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bls1ahTJOPI&feature=related
this is what the world need Not a mat to wipe their feet on.
Remember those that live in the states , hate unions and hated the soviet union.
" Solidarity "
It was they who broke communism. Not america.
the Unions broke the soviet union.
Now think of pakistan.
Complain about this comment
Ref 274 Hesiodos
That was a good link in your post containing some information I hadn't read before. It simply re-inforces the view that this whole crisis is purely the result of Bush's bad decisions. They thought Afghanistan was going to be a walk-over: a twelve week project. The Taliban made a fool of Bush and the US military. America, with all its 'highly trained' troops; technological weaponry; computer aided targetting; advanced communication equipment and full logistics support. When things get dangerous, the Army call for air force back-up to fire precision misslies at targets rather than risk US casualties. Its all managed by the best officers West Point Military Academy can be produce and yet - after seven long years they still haven't been able to beat the hillside tribesmen, who aren't even a proper army.
Complain about this comment
268. At 12:20pm on 08 May 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
Simple Simon, you defeatist attitude, resignation at the first sign of aggression and dire threats against you, refusal to face unpleasant realities and deal with them effectively are only a few of many valid reasons I have for hating Europeans."
The bottle and the colour of the Europeans being the other.
I'm not european marcus but have another belt.
I also think advocating the death of my countrymen from a comfortable bar stool is a bit comtemptible.
" But you certainly made this case clear enough in your posting. Americans really are made of different stuff than Europeans."
But what colour Americans Marcus?n This seems to be a big thing with you?
" You'd be even more disheartened if you listened to what members of Congress are saying as you could hear first hand on C-span and C-span two. Read between the lines and it's exactly the same as what I've posted. There is nothing Europeans can do about it and they hate it but they should learn to accept what they can't change. Their contribution fighting the Taleban and other Middle Eastern terrorists like Saddam Hussein has been one of almost complete indifference. Now they will have to live with the consequences along with all of the rest of us. "
Sorry. Is there a point in ths Marcus?
Complain about this comment
young and cynical. your preposterous Idea's of diplomacy are quite right really.
only a small percentage are hostile because of religion. most that are hostile lost something or someone.
no wonder they were angry.
the only people that will help them with revenge are the taliban. who else are people against america going to fight with.
If you wished for other reasons to fight america not religion but because of loss or sovereignty issues who would you side with.
or will you be called taliban anyway by those you shoot.
The taliban are not faction-less. they can be talked to easier than a unified group.
(note after divide and conquer the PLO one party talked and the other were talked about. we pick who ever pretends we are the best for our interests and we call them allies.
problem I see with this continual attempt to divide peoples in order to conquer is that it does just lead to smaller factions better hidden.
it always seems to have disastrous results.mostly with people being killed.
Unify your enemy then negotiate. bring them all in.
Complain about this comment
how about a pact between India and Pakistan being sought?
so that Pakistan will know there will be NO attacks on the Kashmir border.
I hope all efforts are being made to allow Pakistan to feel free to do this before we just irradiate the east.
Complain about this comment
Ref 276 MarcusAureliusII
I take it you say uncle. Outwitted. Out-boxed. Out-of-time. I even gave you another chance, Marcus, not that I was obliged to, but I knew you were 'out in the left field' as you Americans say. You have no answers to reasoning, logic and facts.4 - O in a straight row. :-)
Complain about this comment
here's a song seems someone could do with listening to it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_H7TEG4uu0&feature=related
Complain about this comment
S&M
"I take it you say uncle. Outwitted. Out-boxed. Out-of-time."
No S&M, you killed me off by boring me to death. You are just too tiresome to waste any more time on. Debating you is like swatting a gnat who somehow gets away each time. Annoying enough to be occasionally bothersome at times but not important enough to get out a can of Black Flag and spray you dead. Flit away on your broomstick if that makes you happy.
Complain about this comment
It was easy to criticize Marcus it is hard to make proposal.
I see several steps that to make safety net that will capture most of nukes.
1. We cannot talk to Taliban, because there is no single authority there. Taliban is bunch of tribal leaders with switching alliances.
2. We cannot persuade Pakistan gov give up nukes. Post #110 say it all :).
Pakistan civil state will be gone well before they realize that they lost control over nukes. But cooperation from Pakistan gov is crucial to any effort. They have to keep retract nukes as they loose control over territory rather than abandon them. But at some point Pakistan Army starts falling apart and some nukes will disappear. We saw it before with Russian nukes and Iraqi chemical weapons. The balance between Gov effort and decaying Army will determine how many nukes will fall in limbo.
3. Weapons
Pakistan has:
Long range liquid fuel missiles
Long range solid fuel missiles
Short range solid fuel missiles
Mid range liquid fuel missiles
Short/mid range solid fuel missiles
3.1 All liquid fuel missiles on complex MAZ-547 launchers are huge logistical headache and require STATE to operate. They will be naturally retracted on bases once it becomes to dangerous to operate tanker fleet for refueling. I guess it is already happening.
3.2 From these list only Short range solid fuel missiles can be stolen AS-IS.
They are transported by regular truck and required little maintenance . It is back to Pakistan gov to remove them from troubled areas.
4. China/US/India can work to deny spare parts to Pakistan nukes/missiles/trucks. Broken truck/missiles/nukes again will become stack at bases.
Once heavy staff and broken equipment removed to well protected bases they can be captured/bombed/surrendered to Marcus :).
5. The biggest problem are Short range missiles (SRM).
5.1 Military use: They are deployed close to border. In 2004 India bought the most powerful MRLS from Russia. It has range of 80-90km and cluster munition wipes clean ~ 1sq.km. Combined with reconnaissance flights/spy they provide somewhat quick response capabilities to destroy short range launchers and deny them mobility. (Nuke missiles with 300 km range must be fired very close to border). Still SRM has advantage.
5.2 Once captured by Taliban they can be hidden/disassembled/shipped and used again in couple yrs. Unless they have design flaws that required maintenance. From my experience with military hardware that always the case. But some pieces die in couple days some in couple decades.
6. Last line of defense.
Pakistan can be relatively easy blockaded from sea to prevent nukes/missiles be en-route to US/EU/Japan etc. There are also few roads go through mountains passages and outside the country. Theoretical one can has chance to control traffic to prevent nukes been smuggled from country...
7. Once on high sea they can be sailed in sight of any country and ... check #251 from happylaze.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
You don't get it either SKV. Terrorists don't need missiles to launch a nuclear attack. A container from a bogus company in a third country on a cargo ship is all that is required. Once it's in the harbor of the target city, it can be detonated while it's still in the hold of the ship. That is why once the Taleban control these weapons, there won't be a moment to lose.
Complain about this comment
To #289. MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"You don't get it either SKV."
Finally you get it right. Through my post I noted couple times that it doesn't offer complete solution.
At best this is "safety net that will capture most of nukes."
Even worse!
Group with good expertise like former crew of missile launcher or trained special force can penetrate my 'defense' with high certainty. We are well beyond of point of no return on Pakistan nukes.
We come close to this point with Iran & N.Korea. But Pakistan is worse.
It is falling into tribal anarchy like Somalia where every tribal chief is Chief in Charge and nobody answres for the whole country.
The only good point that it will take resources and organization to deliver nuke/missile through anarchy/roadblock/blockage/seas to the US/EU/Japan.
So there is a hope.
-SKV
Complain about this comment
Young and cynical (278),
- "Having said that, these guys are led by fanatics. Their beliefs are horrific (killing girls because they go to school, not 21st century behaviour)."
Don't believe the stereotypes. "The Taleban" are not a uniform monolithic entity.For example, These secular schools operate with their 'blessing'.
- "The idea for the Afghan Schools Trust started with three young men from the remote northeastern province of Nuristan who had been educated as refugees in Pakistan during the 1980s Russian occupation and who, from age 11, had been trained to fight in the many real battles needed to keep their secular schools open.
Perhaps some of your youthful cynicism should be applied to the demonisation coming out of the Western media.In 1996 they came in contact with Robin Ade, a visiting fisherman from Scotland who, over the following few years, encouraged them in their dream of bringing education to the illiterate population of upper Nuristan and offered to provide the initial funding. The dream became reality in August 2001 when the first secular, co-educational primary school was opened with permission of the Taleban authorities. Messages were exchanged by hand between the pupils of Lumrukdesh primary school and those of Carsphairn primary school in SW Scotland."
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace
Complain about this comment
Ref 286 MarcusAurelius NIL
Marcus, you've just thought of re-naming 'humiliating defeat' to boredom. I can see right through you.
Your new point is contradicted by the FACTS on this page. You've made attempts to put your case but failed. Take your post #145 on this page as a clear example: you copied and pasted SonicBoomer's point and then wrote two paragraphs totally failing to address his point. You tried again in your post #156. Fractionally better but still hopeless.
That really sums you up: lots of words, which fail to address the point. You run around the bush aimlessly. You try, but fail.
The score at 4 - O is 'water over the dam.' My advice to you Marcus,: give up now; go away and re-build your strenghth; then have another go, another time, if you dare. I'm just too good for you and getting stronger.
:-)
Complain about this comment
Young and Cynical (278),
- "The result is that they could be able to negotiate a treaty that would favour them as opposed to a treaty that favours us (who are the good guys). There is the other, political problem, will America really negotiate with people they see as terrorists? I doubt it."
Treaties shouldn't "favour" one party over another. We're the "good guys"? I thought you were smarter than that.As to America negotiating with "terrorists":
1. Who made America the unitary authority?
2. We can only hope "America" may stop looking through Mossad-tinted spectacles. I believe there is reason to be hopeful.
3. Whose country is it anyway?
4. Small is indeed beautiful. See the Afghan Schools link.
Peace
ed
Complain about this comment
To #291. At 6:36pm on 08 May 2009, Hesiodos
""The Taleban" are not a uniform monolithic entity."
That is exactly the problem. They are bunch of warlords/tribes/clans that changing sides and opinions and don't have authority outside of couple terrorized villages. Don't pretend that they represent something unique.
The right thing is to stay outside and wait for Top Dog to emerge (The most brutal and ugly) and talk to this guy.
Complain about this comment
290. At 6:35pm on 08 May 2009, SKV_USA wrote:
"But Pakistan is worse. It is falling into tribal anarchy like Somalia where every tribal chief is Chief in Charge and nobody answres for the whole country."
This seems to be the fashionable American fear-mongering view of today. Look at a map. Since there are, in some Indian states, very serious tensions between nationalist and 'fundamentalist' Hindu groups and Moslems, you could draw a similar conclusion for India. But that country (just for the moment, but who knows when the Pentagon pendulum might swing again?) is not being demonised as next year's American 'enemy'.
The provinces of Pakistan which are of concern vis-a-vis the Taleban are not the whole country. Look at the dam' map! (257).
Thanks to the few who have tried to return this thread to some form of sanity, but I think I've had enough. As it is, I don't see much sympathy for those potentially half-million refugees, the (probably, by now) hundreds dead and injured. Why not?
Complain about this comment
278, young.
"Im in two minds over the use of diplomacy. On the one hand talking is usually better than shooting and some of these people we are fighting are more interested in keeping the west out of their land than anything else. It would be interesting to find how many of these fighters are motivated by jihad or are simply following the time honoured tradition in that part of the world of grinding foreign armies to dust.
Having said that, these guys are led by fanatics."
Whoops? Your first paragraph is correct. As to the following comment, we "perceive" them as fanatics while they are fighting primarily for independence from the West.
Complain about this comment
To #295. british-ish
"I don't see much sympathy for those potentially half-million refugees"
I am the one who in details explain why we should not bomb Pakistan and create 300,000,000 refugees.
"Indian states, very serious tensions"
As long as India gov has reasonable control over nukes and is not in imminent danger of losing control over big parts of territory I let India gov handle this issue.
"The provinces of Pakistan which are of concern vis-a-vis the Taleban are not the whole country. Look at the dam' map!"
1. ~1/3 of the Pakistan belongs to tribal areas. These area grows and grows fast.
2. Pakistan is by far more unstable country than India. It had 2x times more military pouches than elections. I feed bad for many Pakistanis who forced back to tribal ages of peaceful Islam that in XXI century look more brutal than it was in XV. But this is not of my business.
Pakistan as STATE shows many signs of disintegration - that also should not be of my concern.
But this so-called-state has 200 nukes and bunch of people with proven record of attack near my home and office. (I live in NJ work in NYC).
Once this so-called-state falls we back to my post #290 and happylaze #251.
Complain about this comment
lol SKV I was making a delusional plan there , including getting the rest of the world to donate missiles and help in the cause of wiping this centuries(lol just started) most bloodthirsy nation.
It is a rediculous suggestion that I made.
Any state with bad security can let a bomb loose.
I doubt all the bombs in Pakistan could be captured by the Taliban if the Taliban are as in-cohesive and the deployment of missiles so wide.
They might luck out and get one.
but not all.
It was a ridiculous statement that I made in 251 but it seems to have been taken seriously.
Like I said and you pointed out. relatively few deaths compared to the genocidal ideas abounding by the twit.
Complain about this comment
Unless we of course manage to alienate Every Pakistani by calling them all terrorists.
Marbles has it right there.
If we are to not accept the eastern ways in their own lands why should they accept us in their country.
not many americans like being told how to run america.
some got offended that Obama was liked by Europe.
"Not like a european in our country"(said in snide voice.
"well this is AMERICA,Stupid we don't do it that way here!"
"Who Are you to tell us how to live?"
Now imagine they had an army here (just imagine , don't tell me how impossible it would be or how they already have but in secret) would americans say.
" Cool, you banned my Guns, because it is not your way"
People are angry because they are being told what to do by mr abroad and they don't like it.
Just like america doesn't like facing their environmental crimes and went so far as to deny them fears for years.
They started wars for Oil just because they wanted to ignore the warnings.
Pesticides etc are killing off the wildlife needed to support the planets people changing the air,changing the seasons, decimating wildlife. But global warming can be ignored because AMERICANS do not believe science done in other countries.
Then they claim others don't listen.
Complain about this comment
Ref #276 MarcusAurellius
In #268 I noticed you wrote accusing others of : "defeatist attitude, resignation at the first sign of aggression and dire threats against you, refusal to face unpleasant realities."
Just four hours later you accepted in #276: "it is pointless for me to continue."
Would you say that's an example of the"defeatist attitude"you mention and shows the"refusal to face unleasant realities"? These are your words, not mine.
Would you also say that's an example of what psychologists call 'Projection': they 'project' by accusing someone else of their own unacceptable faults?
A Possible Solution To The Nuclear Crisis:
Returning to the topic, one very practical solution to this problem in Pakistan might be for Britain (and France) to join forces with India, China and Russia in the eradication of the aggressive nation. The choice the world faces is simply a matter of determining the lesser of two evils: it seems a straight choice between 500million casualties in Asia OR 300 million in USA. Its a no brainer. Besides, it was largely the Bush Administration that got us all into this mess. The Pakistani people in our former colony are our first priority. Britain has knowledge of the American nuclear sites right through USA, and all the mobile carriers. This could be passed on to the China/Russia/India alliance to ensure a successful pre-emptive elimination of all USA nuclear and military facilities. Hundreds of missiles fired from so many different locations around the world would be impossible to stop. It would be regretable, but the lesser of two evils.
Discuss.
Complain about this comment
Ref #299 happylaze
These are very good points you've made Happylaze:
"If we [USA] are to not accept the eastern ways in their own lands why should they accept us in their country."?
not many americans like being told how to run america.
some got offended that Obama was liked by Europe.
Now imagine they [Taleban] had an army here [USA]
"People are angry because they are being told what to do by mr abroad and they don't like it."
You've got it exactly. Others take note.
Complain about this comment
297. At 8:00pm on 08 May 2009, SKV_USA wrote:
"But this so-called-state has 200 nukes and bunch of people with proven record of attack near my home and office. (I live in NJ work in NYC)."
Countries of origin of the 9/11 hijackers:
Saudi Arabia (15)
UAE (2)
Egypt (1)
Lebanon (1)
Complain about this comment
The fear of the Taliban somehow seizing nuclear weapons is truly remote at best... The vast ethnic, linguistic, and cultural differences between the tribal areas and the rest of Pakistan is so great that even the non-secularized Pakistanis would never accept it. Such a tiny minority would never be accepted, and they lack the cohesiveness, determination, or weapons to make even a feeble attempt.
The Pakistani military has perhaps Islamist factions, but some of this is due to the historical antagonism toward India. The conflict in the NW I think demonstrates that their army will respond to any perceived threat.
And, as I stated earlier, responding with brute force (whether by US drones or by Pakistani regulars) against an insurrection will only breed more insurrectionists. I think history has proven that only by winning the cliched "hearts and minds" can insurrection be defeated.
Complain about this comment
Martians or man on the moon? Discuss.
Complain about this comment
Here's another Solution To The Crisis In Pakistan Solution No:2
Alternatives ideas were asked for by people SKV_USA in #287 and MarcusAurellius.
Obama gives the Taliban a full apology; the people of Afghanistan a full apology; the people of Iraq a full apology; the people in Palestine a full apology. He also hands over Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Libby, Wolfowitz, Powell, Rice, plus any others they want, like Bolton, Karl Rowe etc . They also get a substantial funds for them to re-build their own countries.
In exchange - Obama gets the nukes.
How's that?
Discuss.
Complain about this comment
british-ish (#302), yes but the Taliban have provided a safe haven for the Al Quaeda group whose members were from several middle eastern countries.
Complain about this comment
#302. British-ish
"
Countries of origin of the 9/11 hijackers:
Saudi Arabia (15) UAE (2) Egypt (1) Lebanon (1)
"
I pointed to Pakistan only because lawless tribal area was/is/will be staging ground for attack.
Complain about this comment
To #305. Richard_SM,
Good idea Simon,
Don't stop there, let go through second line of apologies:
Brits & India will also apologize to Pakistan;
Russia to Chechnya;
Or they also must be scared of nukes as retaliation for sufferings.
You also missing second line of apologies
Darfur Blacks will apologize to Sudanese;
Iraqi sunni will apologize to Iraqi Shea;
N.Alliance in Afghanistan will apologize to Taliban;
Iraq will apologize to Iran and Iran to Iraq;
Turks must apologize badly.
But here you seams to go easy and forgive bustards without apologies.
I just wondering what is difference between you and Marcus.
Once want to bomb everybody out of fear another out of hate.
Complain about this comment
305 well said.
PS stop bugging my room;)
I really do believe that would be great, but unfortunately I'm in a minority here I suspect.
Complain about this comment
happy, can you get a grant for that?
Complain about this comment
294,
- "don't have authority outside of couple terrorized villages."
Again, the cliché! You agree they are not uniform, but insist on lumping them into your poorly-informed view of what they are. Have you met any of them? I haven't, but I have close friends who have.Salaam, etc.
Complain about this comment
Gary (306),
- "Taliban have provided a safe haven for the Al Quaeda group whose members were from several middle eastern countries."
Almost entirely Saudis until we became their best recruiting agents...;-(Complain about this comment
There seems to be a thickness and density here that some people refuse to get past so whether this blockage is deliberate or just a failure to understand what is happening I will translate American diplospeak into plain English for you. When you hear President Obama, someone in Congress such as the Chairman of the Senate or House Armed Services Committee, or a General such as Patraeus say that nuclear weapons must not, can not, will not be allowed to fall into the hands of terrorists or state sponsers of terrorism and that nothing is off the table, that is a thinly veiled warning to Pakistan and Iran among others that should this prospect loom large and imminent, the United States will do whatever it takes from a full scale invasion to executing a pre-emptive nuclear strike to prevent it. Those words can have no other meaning. When the time comes, we'll see if they are empty threats.
I have to wonder what President Obama said to the President Zardari of Pakistan these last few days to get him to step up the war against the Taleban and al Qaeda in his country but it may have included just such words spoken in a way that was both understandable and tolerable to him.
Complain about this comment
26. U13937281 wrote:
"If everyone in the world could acknowledge there is only one (same) god / allah / jah etc then people may start to cool down their temper and live peacefully instead of warring over religions".
Sorry to be a killjoy but Hindus believe in 30 million + gods, what bout them? Let's talk some logic.
It is more difficult to prove existence "one and only one" god than to prove the existence of one or more gods. Polytheism is more justifiable than monotheism. For monotheism, if you prove existence of one god that is not sufficient because you also have to prove that no other god exists.
In other words monotheism is (proper) subset of polytheism not otherwise.
Complain about this comment
Marcus, it is sad to see people trash you here.
I think Americans have better options than you suggested. Pakistan has been supporting Taliban in Quetta(Mullah Omar is here) to fight against Americans (from Ahmed Rashid's "Descent into Chaos"). American can act similar. They can fund and arm the decades old Balochistan insurgency(which is secular) and help remove Pakistans gas resources, which are in Balochistan, from which it benefits $1.6bn a year.
Sindh also has minor separatist movement which is more or less secular. With these actions NWFP can go to Afghanistan and Pakistani Kashmir(and Northerm areas) to India. That leaves land locked Punjab(new Pakistan) at the mercy of its neighbors at which point the region(Punjab i.e. new Pakistan) will meltdown economically. These actions need some strategical thinking and patience.
Some people here say that Indians will act against US/Pakistan. That is laughable. Indians as usual are laid back. They do not care if Taliban gets nukes, neither do they care if US nukes Pak. More than 6 months since Mumbai attacks, not a single action outside the country. They are still figuring out if Kasab((the lone captured terrorist) is minor or not.
Marcus, there is another problem with your arguments. If you have many enemies you remove them one at a time, not all at once(like Bush's simultaneous Iraq and Afghan). Shias are not considered Muslims enough by Sunnis. So a better strategy will be to befriend Iran temporarily and neutralize Sunnis. But that would also involve Saudi. That is why US needs to move away from oil based economy, to which Dick Cheney is/was the principal enemy.
Once you neutralize Sunnis you can think about Shias, but I think Shias are relatively peaceful compared to Sunnis. They just need to do some "growing up".
Someone suggested that Russia will object to US nuking Pakistan. Russian border is more than 2000 km away from NWFP. I do not know why they would care if US uses multiple small nukes instead of few large ones, which ensures localization of radiation. In fact if a Sunni state is neutralized Russia may be able to finally crush the Chechen separatists, who are also Sunnis. That leaves China, which may or may not be willing to take on the might US, since a large market for its products will be lost.
Those arguing based on morality really should not be discussing politics. Those asking about the difference between "us" and "al Queda" should know that when it comes to survival all options are on the table. It is bad enough US can not officially torture even if they capture someone they know for sure is a terrorist, e.g. Khalid Sheikh Mohammad(they did water-board him but they had to change the official definition of torture. I do not care if they torture him(or bin Laden) for days to get some little information.
Complain about this comment
#311. Hesiodos
Dear Hesiodos,
When it comes to Taliban I also have friends who meet them. I merely missed by 2-3 yrs my chance to meet them in person.
My school did teach me about "the histories, cultures, arts of the Islamic nations." among others. Arabs and Islam are big integral part of World history/culture. Why school need put special accent on Islam including language... Should we put accent on Hindu?
In my free time I still read books on history China, Rome, Mongols, Europe, WWII, Medieval warfare and Bubonic plague. I didnt find history of Islam or US or S.America particularly fascinating. But I dont see why my kids must spend more time on Islam than on Europe, China, math or physics.
Lets bridge education gap.
How much of world culture/history people study in Medresse?
Just as example:
Back in you home country, Did school curriculum included history of Pre-Columbus America or Russia and how many hours?
About tolerance and cliché
There are a lot of terrifying cliché about Taliban. I think that it is horrible that such things become cliché. But you start on wrong end. Talk to Taliban that they are known for horrible things Dont tell me that there are some Taliban who dont do terrible things. I know. Why you would not go and spread word of tolerance among them first.
Complain about this comment
SKV (316),
- "But I dont see why my kids must spend more time on Islam than on Europe, China, math or physics."
I didn't say "more" (Nor did Mr Berry, who I quoted), but rather that we should address the present deficit.- "How much of world culture/history people study in Medresse?
Again, there are many such deficits, but "two wrongs..."Just as example:
Back in you home country, Did school curriculum included history of Pre-Columbus America or Russia and how many hours?"
- "Talk to Taliban that they are known for horrible things Dont tell me that there are some Taliban who dont do terrible things. I know. Why you would not go and spread word of tolerance among them first.Talk to Taliban that they are known for horrible things Dont tell me that there are some Taliban who dont do terrible things. I know. Why you would not go and spread word of tolerance among them first."
Indeed, and this is very much an aim of the Afghan Schools project with which I am (peripherally) involved.- "The dream became reality in August 2001 when the first secular, co-educational primary school was opened with permission of the Taleban authorities. Messages were exchanged by hand between the pupils of Lumrukdesh primary school and those of Carsphairn primary school in SW Scotland."
Tp paraphrase the BBC's motto, "And village shall speak unto village."Peace and Conversation
Complain about this comment
To #317. Hesiodos,
I really wish you good luck on your project "Afghan Schools project"
Complain about this comment
SKV,
Thanks, Namaste. It's a real case of "small is beautiful", and my friends (for my involvement is truly peripheral) are able to operate well below the level of "NGO"s, for which many have a low regard. This is truly a project which has its impetus from "the bottom up", and is between real individual human beings. Believe it or not, the funds are usually transferred from hand to hand ("in used notes of small denomination"). It's personal.
There is an excellent book about a similar (unrelated) initiative, called "Three cups of tea". Uplifting stuff!
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace
Complain about this comment
Hesiodos;
When the time arrives when it appears Iran will have the capability to build nuclear weapons, which country do you think will be the first to act to erase it from the map, America or Israel. Both have more than ample cause to be alarmed, the USA is known to have the means. Many of us including me believes Israel also has the means. So which one will it be, which one will pull the trigger first?
Complain about this comment
Marcus,
By what twisted logic do you imagine such a move would be justified?
Complain about this comment
marcus 313
"I have to wonder what President Obama said to the President Zardari of Pakistan these last few days to get him to step up the war against the Taleban and al Qaeda in his country but it may have included just such words spoken in a way that was both understandable and tolerable to him."
If Obama did have anything to do with Pakistan's actions in the Swat valley then he has shown excellent diplomatic skills in getting Pakistan to try to sort out its own domestic issues before they reach the stage of becoming global issues, requiring intervention.
I don't personally like the fact that half a million refugees are being created, but somehow this situation must be resolved. This is better than direct US involvement. As with so much of politics, there is no good option, only the "least bad" option.
Complain about this comment
pkkmres
It is more difficult to prove existence "one and only one" god than to prove the existence of one or more gods.
It is impossible to "prove" the existence of any god, therefore it cannot be more or less difficult to prove mono- over poly-theism.
You either believe in god(s) or you don't (faith).
Complain about this comment
RomeStu,
Say it is given that one god exists, then from that point monotheism is less defensible than polytheism. Because polytheism(as defined by belief in any positive number of gods) requires one less "clause", the "only" part. If it is given that one god exists, polytheists are done as defined above. Monotheists still have to prove the "only" part.
I know this is all just philosophical(and hypothetical) fun, but the god business in general is just that, hypothetical.
Dear MODERATORS,
My previous post has been referred 2-3 days ago, but no decision yet. I do not believe I broke any rules, I was just using the language from previous posts and discussing a possible strategy to stabilize the region. Please go through the content and save me your PC.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS