Should we support a nuclear strike on Pakistan?

[BenBurch]

I think the present government in Pakistan is illegal and needs to go.

We need to remove ANY aid from them NOW.

And we need to disable their nuclear capability at the same instant.

And the only way to do that is one or two LARGE nuclear weapons on their stockpile and their production facilities. 15 MT would likely do it.

The alternative is we continue to be blackmailed by their bombs and support a regime that has done more to FOSTER terrorism than any other in that region.

I don't like the idea.

But I wonder if the alternatives are actually WORSE?

Discuss.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Bit harsh.

Would look cool though.

 

[BenBurch]

Bit harsh.

Would look cool though.

If we just LEAVE, what keeps the weapons out of Bin Laden's hands?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

If we just LEAVE, what keeps the weapons out of Bin Laden's hands?

I'd say a fair bit. I don't think the missile silo's are activated by a button under musharraf's desk.

But, using nuclear bombs to stop nuclear bombs being used? That is a contradiction that will destroy the United States image for centuries. The slaughter would be horrific, and I think we need to have more respect for the dignity of all human life than that.

 

[Bikewer]

Most of the pundits are not shy about calling Pakistan potentially the most dangerous place in the region.
It's no secret that the "Northern" provinces are heavily into the radical Islamist camp, and have been supporting the increasingly problematic Taliban incursions into Afghanistan.
Just this morning, they announced that the Taliban had taken over three provinces that they had been ousted from previously.
The prospect of an Islamist uprising in Pakistan and the transfer of the nuclear arsenal to these people is disturbing, to say the least.

I hesitate to say that preemptive strikes (nuclear or not) are unlikely; we probably know as little about the location of Pakistan's deployment of weapons an facilities as we do Iran.

 

[Thunder]

This is a bad situation. If Musharaf is deposed, we will have to keep a very close eye on their nukes. We cannot allow nukes to be in the hands of religous fanatics. If they do take over the country, we might have to make some hard decisions. Too bad we dont have a strong leader.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Plus, despite the hostility to the Shia in the Muslim world, they carry a certain amount of respect in the Middle East for how they handle their nations.

Such a horrific attack would surely lead to Iran gaining more and more support for their own nuclear weapon, and take more advantage of the region.

Unlike Islamist stateless terrorism, I sense that Iran's support is motivated less to do with ideology than a thirst for power.

We are becoming less and less like the time in the WW1 when British troops were allowed on Iranian soil, a neutral country at the time of that war, and surely that has to change.

 

[Crossbow]

I think the present government in Pakistan is illegal and needs to go.

We need to remove ANY aid from them NOW.

And we need to disable their nuclear capability at the same instant.

And the only way to do that is one or two LARGE nuclear weapons on their stockpile and their production facilities. 15 MT would likely do it.

The alternative is we continue to be blackmailed by their bombs and support a regime that has done more to FOSTER terrorism than any other in that region.

I don't like the idea.

But I wonder if the alternatives are actually WORSE?

Discuss.

Are you trying to be a troll?

 

[Garrette]

No.

No way.

Not a chance.

Worst. Option. Ever.

 

[Darat]

Hmm... I suppose your proposal is about using a new kind of nuclear weapon that limits all its effects to within the border of Pakistan?

 

[ZenFountain]

Pakistan has a professional and secular army that would slaughter an open uprising. In a "nightmare" scenario where the Pakistani government is overthrown, securing nuclear material would be a top priority for the the international community and no western government would hesitate to act. Against that, if the militant groups somehow did manage to grab a loose nuke there are a series of safety devices, triggers and related hardware needed to arm a nuclear bomb, plus the tracking devices. You don't simply grab a nuke off the shelf, press a few buttons on a timer and wait for nuclear winter. The idea or preemptively murdering millions of Pakistanis and turning their country into a nuclear wasteland is insanity. Clearly the situation in Pakistan is alarming but the government isn't going to collapse overnight and hand over their nuclear arsenal to terrorist.

 

[BenBurch]

Are you trying to be a troll?

No.

For the first time there is a serious potential for nuclear weapons to be used by a terrorist-supporting government for terroristic ends. If the regime in Pakistan falls there is a SIGNIFICANT chance that what takes over will be a radicalized government that has active hatred for the USA, given that we have supported the torture, killings, and political imprisonment of the current regime.

So, I am asking the question; Can we risk that happening? And would a nuclear decapitation strike be the only way we can make sure that does not ever happen?

I simply cannot believe that our military could possibly do a force insertion and conventional disablement or removal of Pakistan's nuclear weapons and make it work. We might have been able to do this if we hadn't destroyed our unit cohesion and capabilities by the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

 

[BenBurch]

Hmm... I suppose your proposal is about using a new kind of nuclear weapon that limits all its effects to within the border of Pakistan?

Nope. A large hydrogen bomb and there would absolutely be massive fallout owning to the targets.

I'm just laying out the scenario. I don't think it is a good idea, but I'd like to see a better one proposed!

 

[BenBurch]

Pakistan has a professional and secular army that would slaughter an open uprising. In a "nightmare" scenario where the Pakistani government is overthrown, securing nuclear material would be a top priority for the the international community and no western government would hesitate to act. Against that, if the militant groups somehow did manage to grab a loose nuke there are a series of safety devices, triggers and related hardware needed to arm a nuclear bomb, plus the tracking devices. You don't simply grab a nuke off the shelf, press a few buttons on a timer and wait for nuclear winter. The idea or preemptively murdering millions of Pakistanis and turning their country into a nuclear wasteland is insanity. Clearly the situation in Pakistan is alarming but the government isn't going to collapse overnight and hand over their nuclear arsenal to terrorist.

Do not assume Pakistan's weapons are anywhere near as failsafe as our own. I doubt SERIOUSLY they have more than the controls needed to keep the weapon from accidently detonating.

 

[Crossbow]

No.

For the first time there is a serious potential for nuclear weapons to be used by a terrorist-supporting government for terroristic ends. If the regime in Pakistan falls there is a SIGNIFICANT chance that what takes over will be a radicalized government that has active hatred for the USA, given that we have supported the torture, killings, and political imprisonment of the current regime.

So, I am asking the question; Can we risk that happening? And would a nuclear decapitation strike be the only way we can make sure that does not ever happen?

I simply cannot believe that our military could possibly do a force insertion and conventional disablement or removal of Pakistan's nuclear weapons and make it work. We might have been able to do this if we hadn't destroyed our unit cohesion and capabilities by the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Thanks for the clarification!

However, I am still a bit unsure of something. Are you trying to say that the current government of Pakistan is a "terrorist-supporting government"? Or something else?

Also, I expect that the USA could indeed force a change the government in Pakistan by dropping large nukes on them, but somehow I expect that the new government would not be a terribly good ally of the USA.

You may want to consider this outcome before advocating the killing of millions.

 

[BenBurch]

I am saying that the brutal repression of that regime is making NEW terrorists daily.

Rather like the Shah of Iran did, and we know how that turned out.

 

[latent aaaack]

According to the most recent of reports from many scientists and high level defense officials, global warming will cause as much destruction to human life as the feared "nuclear holocaust" scenario of the cold war, most of all in developing countries. Mass destruction and hundreds of millions of people dying is a reality that people are going to have to accept and get used to and that means not putting America's strength, lives, and resources and status as a trusted world power on the line every time a doomed part of the world tries to go nuclear. In this century all these hot, poor, natural disaster-prone places are going to be decimated and go through population crashes anyway caused by not only GW but other environmental problems and wars. If it really gets threatened directly then, yes, it shouldn't hold back but focus on not wasting US resources and not try to 'spread freedom' and nation-build.
(http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5josNxJPCLGIsWo_wREwGvEJU2skwD8SM1UH00)

The US should stop focusing on basically dumping resources and politically de-stabilizing itself over foriegn conflicts that can't really be stemmed; in other words the US should go into survival mode and make sure it's own territory is secure and prosperous and that it's dollar isn't crashing or anything.

 

[Garrette]

No nukes, but coming out strongly and unequivocally against these actions of Musharaff have the potential of at least stopping the slide in the US' image. It's only potential though, as there also is the potential that it could be seen as a weakness to be exploited. The situation calls for statesmanship that is more deft and more far-sighted than sadly the current administration seems capable of.

 

[BenBurch]

Also, I am not saying the strike would be to force a regime change. The strike would be ONLY to make sure that there was no nuclear capability in Pakistan in the forseeable future.

But I'm still hoping somebody has some other plan for making sure those nukes stay unused forever?

 

[LushAttic]

Perhaps the west should support a coup to put a person in charge more sympathetic towards the west...


...oh wait..