WWIII - US & Pakistan tensions increase

[gobbledonk]

Pakistan is a joke - how the fuck did these people get a nuclear arsenal ? I seem to recall something about a French dipshit helping them set up their nuclear program (or was that Iran ?) - the prick should be shot.

 

For a long time, I saw the whole India-Pakistan thing as little more than a sideshow, but its a dangerous sideshow. As for the latest threats from Al-Qaeda, am I the only one who is heartily sick of their self-righteous bullshit ? The only group more annoying is the fucking Tea Party - I'd like to put them all in a room with loaded AK-47s on the table.

 

Apologies for this little rant, but most of us have lived our entire lives with the prospect of some sort of annhilation hanging over our heads - now that the Russians are out of the (public) frame, we have a new group of fuckwits to deal with. Great, just fucking great.

[Bangkoktraveler]

I think most rational people know that Pakistan has its own agenda and is not a real ally to the USA or the west. The biggest problem is how to deal with it or deal with it at all

 

 

How the USA handles this situation may be the key factor to make the Taliban weaker or stronger.

 

The USA should also be careful of the religious aspect. We are looked upon as heathens and no matter what we do, we still are heathens.

[Steve]

From the little I've read about the relationship, it seems that both sides feel that they are better off with each other.

 

Pakistan hasn't been the greatest ally by a distance but it will be much harder for America to fight terrorism in the region without Pakistan.

 

Also, can Pakistan afford diplomatically, economically, etc. to end the relationship and make an enemy of America? The answer from what I've read is no.

 

The Pakistani government has the same issues as a number of Moslem nations do. They have a populace that hates America and to keep power or at least maintain popularity they have to feed into that and seem like they are not American puppets. They also have to appease America as well. Its a tight rope and its a very, very difficult one not only for Pakistan but also for Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and others. Oftentimes these countries have fostered this animosityh towards America in their countries so they have a boogeyman to blame for their inept or corrupt administration of their countries.

 

So, is the U.S. better off without Pakistan as an ally? Trying to get Pakistan to become a better ally has not been successful. It is what it is. Those that want to end the relationship will then have to accept that this so called war on terrorism will become infinitely more difficult.

 

As far as Pakistan and India. I am not fearful that any exchange between the two will include nukes. Its similar to America and the USSR and the M.A.D. theory. Both sides are well aware they can't survive a nuclear attack. At least survive it enough to be a functioning country after its done.

 

I read an article somewhere that there is a committee that has to decide on firing off a nuke missile. It could be too big and diverse of a committee to be timely.

 

I've heard that a country that gets nuke capability is akin to someone buying their first gun. It hits you that you possess something that can end life and it becomes an awesome responsibility. Anyone that owns guns can tell you that you don't feel like the Robert DeNiro character in Taxi Driver. You are careful. Very, very careful and worry about having it. The LAST thing you want to do is having to use it. Even justifiably. The same for nations. I've heard when you're part of that select group of nations with nuke capability those nations realize of not only the awesome responsibility but feel MORE vulnerable because their enemies know or suspect they have it and instead of retreating become antogonistic. Nations spend billions on getting them and can't use them. You are an international pariah if you do for any other reason other than if they are used against you first. Why didn't America or the USSR use them in the wars against Vietnam and Afghanistan? Because the political consequences were greater than winning the wars and they'd rather lose the war than risk political suicide. Winning those wars with nukes was worse than losing it without it.

 

This is a strange day and age in warfare where nations have weapons that can win the war but will not use it. Has never happened before in warfare pre the nuclear age. If you had a greater weapon you used it.

 

Anyway, as usual I digress but the point is nothing will come of this. Pakistan and America, at least for now, need each other and neither will end the relationship and it will continue to be dysfunctional. The people of both nations may want to end the relationship but the governments know real-politik and will keep it going.

[shygye]

Lots of supplies for the NATO mission come from Pakistani seaports and through the Khyber Pass.

[gobbledonk]

CS, I think you are being naive. The big concern with Pakistan's internal security is that it seems more sympathetic to the Taliban than to the West - even if that is only perception not reality, they dont seem sufficiently competent to prevent extremists getting their hands on the material for a 'dirty bomb' or similar. Imagine something like that in the NYC subway.

[chuckwoww]

The Taliban are basically Pashtun nationalists. Pakistan would cease to exist without them.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashtun_people

[Flashermac]

A Pakistani friend who is a very moderate - even questioning - Muslim told me long ago that the US should be pouring its aid into Pakistani education, not the military. The wealthy in Pakistan send their children to expensive private schools. There are simply not enough public schools for the rest, so poor parents send their kids to madrassas (religious schools) where they are indoctrinated in extreme Islam. My friend's argument is that building enough public schools so poor children will not have to go to madrassas would do much more for the country than making the generals happy (and rich).

 

 

 

[Steve]

CS, I think you are being naive. The big concern with Pakistan's internal security is that it seems more sympathetic to the Taliban than to the West - even if that is only perception not reality, they dont seem sufficiently competent to prevent extremists getting their hands on the material for a 'dirty bomb' or similar. Imagine something like that in the NYC subway.

 

Fair enough. Do we end the relationship then? I don't know. I only know what I've read and it seems to be that we need each other. Or don't we?

 

 

[Steve]

http://www.cfr.org/pakistan/controls-pakistans-nuclear-technology/p7742

 

Since 2000, the nation’s key nuclear institutions have been under the unified control of the National Command Authority (NCA), a ten-member body, comprising the president; prime minister; chairman of the joint chiefs of staff; ministers of defense, interior, and finance; director-general of the Strategic Plans Division (SPD); and the commanders of the army, air force, and navy. Decision-making power regarding nuclear deployment rests with the NCA. Its chairman, who is the president of Pakistan, casts the final vote. The army, air force, and navy each have a strategic force command responsible for planning, control, and directives on the use of nuclear weapons. The Strategic Plans Division acts as National Command Authority’s secretariat, is in charge of developing and managing nuclear capability and exercises day-to-day control. The operational security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, experts say, is the responsibility of General Khalid Kidwai, the three-star general who runs the SPD.

 

also, it seems we have a hand in their nuclear security as well:

Since September 2001, the Bush administration has spent almost $100 million on a highly classified program to help Pakistan secure its nuclear arsenal, according to a November 2007 New York Times report. The aid, part of the federal budget, paid for the training of Pakistani personnel in the United States and the construction of a nuclear security training center in Pakistan that is not yet complete.

Media reports also point out that the United States helped Pakistan develop Permissive Action Links (PALs), a protective fail-safe system that the United States uses to guard against accidental or unauthorized launches of nuclear systems. PALs requires a code to be entered before a weapon can be detonated. Pakistan reportedly requires the “standard two-man rule,†that two separate operators enter codes or turn keys to arm and launch nuclear weapons. The Strategic Plans Division has about ten thousand troops to ensure security at nuclear sites.

 

[chuckwoww]

"Since September 2001, the Bush administration has spent almost $100 million on a highly classified program to help Pakistan secure its nuclear arsenal,...."

 

Which the Pakistanis probably see as a way for special forces to swoop in and grab the nukes.