If Pakistan were to fall into an anarchic state where no one was in real control of the machinery of state, would you support an effort to move in and seize their nuclear weapons?
If not, would you change your mind if it appeared that India intended to move in on their own initiative?
If India were to make a move and it triggered a nuclear exchange, do you know of any good sites that discuss the environmental impact (including radius and likely drift of fallout) and loss of life projections?
We really need to get out of Iraq. We have much bigger threats to deal with now.
link.
if anything’s changed,l suspect it’s that the timetable, as well as the number and type of spec. forces/ops units has been moved up, as in to RIGHT NOW.
and reading between the lines of this recent article…dec 19, 07…l also suspect they know exactly where everything is:
as to the possibility of a major military incursion, l would hope that that doesn’t occur. the blowback from such a move would likely be substantial in terms of increasing the odds that an already radicalized population would resort to much higher levels of violence, directed at u.s. forces as well as musharraf’s govt.
in reading thru some of the links in the thread at ET, it would appear that the wahabiist’s…saudis?…may have had a hand in this as well as the usual suspects like AQ, ISI, etc.
the arrogance and incompetence of BushCo™, especially in foreign affairs and relations is staggering.
lTMF’sA
If both Bush & Cheney resigned, then whoemever the next president would be, I could support probably whatever they said would be needed.
My problem is, that I have just zero faith in Bush at this point. Everything he does is tarred with his prior ineptitude and bad faith.
My thoughts durring the Florida recount and the Supreme court decision were similar. I had said then, that as long as the decision was 9 to 0, I could live with any outcome, but when it came down 5 to 4. I had no trust or respect for the people that made that decision any longer. Bush has lost any chance of ever having anything he does viewed in anything approaching a reasonable light.
He could hand out $100 bills to the poor, and i would see some conservative agenda in it any more I am affraid.
Just my .02 anyway.
I don’t trust them either. Immediately after 9/11 I felt like I had to trust them, even though I didn’t.
I don’t feel that way anymore.
But, my question is about whether it is a legitimate use of force.
I don’t think it is a legitimate use of unilateral force. The U.S. isn’t the only country in the world that has a vested interest in not having radicals running around with nuclear weapons. And if we invade yet another predominantly Muslim country, even if we thought the ends justified the means…I feel like that would be big, big trouble.
“whether it is a legitimate use of force.”
No.
That you can even ask this shows how deep goes the corrupting influence of neo-con thinking.
It would be an illegitimate use of force, simply and plainly. Obviously.
Oh yes, and will it work?
Probably not.
The failure here is twofold: Our thoughts of Islamic radicals are pure paranoid fantasy. There is nobody, nobody at all, trying to shut down the US, and the plain proof of this is that–as it would only require a few teams of a dozen people cutting communications and energy distribution nodes–the fact that it has not happened means that there is no one trying to do it.
Secondly, an operation to seize a nation’s nuclear arsenal would need the co-operation of the custodians of that arsenal, to have any hope of success. Against opposition? There are many things the opponents of a seizure strike could do, most of them embarrassing, some of them more than embarrassing.
Americans seem unique in the world, in that they daily threaten the world with nuclear holocaust, but believe themselves immune–by divine right.
It would be funny if it weren’t pathetic.
Meanwhile, only this:
Do not discount the price of failure, when you conceive an operation.
As soon as it became clear that Osama bin Laden was the mostly likely force behind the 9/11 attacks, I started telling people that I thought his main goal was the destabilization of Pakistan.
Why? Because it’s a nuclear power.
He knew that the US couldn’t resist attacking Afghanistan (remember them, they’re the “other war”) and hoped that this would cause Pakistanis to revolt against their pro-western government. And it has. Not enough yet to have toppled the government, but then not everything happens overnight – nor do I think bin Laden (unlike Bush) is so short-sighted. I think he, and others like him, are in it for the long-slog. And any attempted short-term “fixes” will at best, only slow down the inevitable confrontation. Or at least such a show down is inevitable if the West, and the US in particular, continues to use military force as their primary “tool” to control world governments and economies.
Our main threat is, and always has been, our own willingness to commit violence against others. Unless the West can radically change its need to dominate the world, than payback is coming.
It’s tough. And Bush’s “plan” for that part of the world made everything worse.
India stands to lose a lot. I hope they move prudently.
I worry less about nuclear bombs than most people though. Sure some maniacs could use one. It wouldn’t be that easy to deliver, however. And if one were used, there would be hell to pay for the one who used it. I suppose there are some people hell bent on self-destruction, but most groups/nations wouldn’t want the retaliaton.
there are two concerns.
Both of those are of the gravest possible importance. But it would be nice if the US of good old A didn’t have to take all the responsibility for this kind of shit. I think China, Russia, and India all need to be consulted and on board for some kind of coordinated response.
The Pakistani intelligence services and military have a lot of ties with the Taliban, and not unlikely Al Qaeda. While it’s true that heads of state, generally speaking, are rational actors who don’t want to see their capitals turned into smoking craters, there are a number of radical, non-state actors involved who really wouldn’t give a damn if Islamabad ended up a smoking crater. Or if it turned into all-out war with India. Or if they started something with Shiite Iran. Or if the entire region were consumed in paroxysms of unbelievable violence.
People who really are every bit as nuts as the Bushies claim their most hated national leaders are could get access to nukes and perhaps control of the government in Pakistan. They really want global jihad, in ways Cheney only imagines that Ahmadinejad and Assad do. That must not happen.
NRDC sez
Pretty appalling.
Move in with what? Our vaunted Spec forces? Wake the hell up. We have moved in all over the world and where have we gotten? You pick the place and don’t even bother looking deeply. Wherever we have “Moved in” the shit has hit the fan.
A foreign policy based on military assistance fails every time. Fails.
Support people, not Dictators. And most definitely not now.
Its nice to read that fallon has jumped on the bandwagon.Does anybody think that aggressive actions such as invasion or whatever one calls it wins hearts and minds, get your heads out of your asses.
Look at the opposite approach and look how far it has gotten.MOVE IN! OMG!
Oh by all means, us going into Pakistan to “secure WMDs” is exactly what Bush, Osama, and the Neocons want. Let’s try to keep that in the forefront.
How are we supposed to “Secure” these nukes? If it gets that bad, to the point where the Musharraf government (such as it is, and let’s also not forget there’s a decent chance that Musharraf was at least partially responsible for this, what an ally) totally breaks down, we’re not going to be securing ANYTHING.
Those nukes will be long gone by the time we get there. We’ll only see where they end up…the hard way. In the end it’s actually pretty moot whether we go in or not if we’re playing the “Pakistan Collapse” game.
We designed it to collapse.
.
Take the approval ratings. President Musharraf, 38 percent. Osama bin Laden, 46 percent. That’s right. Nearly half of Pakistanis on the front line of the war on terror favor Osama bin Laden over their own president. And in the northwest frontier province, where bin Laden is likely hiding, he enjoys a 70 percent approval rating.
2001 – Gallup Pakistan Poll
Rawalpindi is a city near the Northern Frontier with much support for the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
≈ Cross-posted from my diary — Pakistan’s Benazir Bhutto Assassinated ≈
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ
Go 6:10 in this interview with David Frost. It does not sound like she misspoke.
sorry for the off-topic comment, but I’m curious what others think.
Too late, Booman.
With this one assassination, the vehicle is now headed over the cliff.
Too late.
We couldn’t succeed at doing it even if we WANTED to do so. Not without preemptive use of nukes ourselves, and we would be going in there to try to STOP that genie from escaping its container. Catch-22, over and out. We have so destabilized the whole region and so successfully driven the majority of Muslims securely into opposition camps…including of course a good part of the Pakistani military…that we will be FORCED to stand back and watch. Maybe meddle some in covert manners, of course, but other than that…what CAN we do? Pull out all of our forces from Iran and go invade Pakistan?
Get real.
Iran: Population roughly 65 million.
Pakistan: Population roughly 165 million.
Iran: Armed with non-nuclear weapons.
Pakistan: A nuclear power.
We cannot even handle Iran.
Invade a country with another 100 million people, a number of whom are quite capable of suicide bombing using nuclear devices?
Please.
We already done fucked up.
Time to bring the troops home, set up a cordon of real security around this country, tell people that our nuclear forces will turn any country that fucks with us (or uses nukes on any OTHER country) into a glass parking lot, and prepare to stop basing our economy on cheap oil.
It’s over, Booman.
Or of course…it is just beginning.
I guess it depends on how you look at it.
But WE are over as a world cop.
Time to take early retirement and start pinching some pennies.
Bet on it.
AG
Not Iran.
Duh.
AG
In that event, the US should support Indian efforts to secure the nukes as they are the nation they would most likely be aimed at. Also, they have the manpower. Russia would probably get on board because of their historical support of India. China, also has a stake in keeping nukes out of the hands of Islamic terrorists, but they would likely want to have a veto over all actions.