[rangerone314]

The Taliban aren't even close to being able to capture a significant part of Panjab, let alone be able to get a hold of the nukes. They aren't nearly as powerful as everyone is making them out to be. They are only able to hold land that is ethnically already theirs and a population that is willing, uneducated and quite poor and aligned with their domestic policies. The Taliban are a rag-tag group of fighters than can only conquer mountainous regions because they are used to that terrain and can effectively fight the Army there. They wouldn't stand a chance in their non-mountainous regions of Panjab, Sindh, etc.

Sounds a little bit like the Vietcong...

[rangerone314]

"Should we "nuke" pakistan? Is that question really asked? Is somebody monstrous enough to ask, "should we murder 180 million people?"
Come on guys, Schmu is right. Of course if those potentially taliban controlled nukes hit India one could expect 500 million to be killed, now that number would certainly be a reason for India to nuke them. You terrible zionist pigs (as apposed to those nice taliban guys )

Ah yes, the 2nd local Zionist has checked in. Where is Kam? Can we make it H'threesome?

I can't speak for Fishman or Kam, but anyone who thinks I'm a Zionist really doesn't know me, LOL. I think that creating Israel was a mistake, and I know all about stuff like the King David Hotel bombing by the Irgun in 1946, and the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty. I'm not a big fan of Israel.

Being a NON-monotheist, I'm not a big fan of Christianity or Islam either, especially the radical variants, and event if I was, there is always Allyn's Rule #6: "Better someone else dies than me and my own".

In the event of a Taliban takeover, I was more or less advocating pin-point strikes on Pakistan's nuke sites, which would kill less people than the 50-100 million that an exchange between Pakistan and India would. I would advocate a saturation strike if that was the only way to stop them from getting a nuke over here.

Given the lack of success at supressing Somalia pirates as an example, I wonder what the odds are that a nuke could be smuggled out of Pakistan into the US?

[IMSancho]

Pakistan attacks Taliban on home turf
PAKISTANI troops killed at least 10 Taliban fighters in a military operation aimed at slowing the march of extremists across North-West Frontier Province. Paramilitary troops and helicopter gunships attacked Taliban camps in Lower Dir, a mountainous district wedged between the Afghan border and the troubled Swat valley.
The army said "scores" of Taliban and one soldier had been killed yesterday in the assault, while the interior ministry chief, Rehman Malik, put the militant death toll at 30.

LINK

[dorlomin]

The Taliban aren't even close to being able to capture a significant part of Panjab, let alone be able to get a hold of the nukes. They aren't nearly as powerful as everyone is making them out to be. They are only able to hold land that is ethnically already theirs and a population that is willing, uneducated and quite poor and aligned with their domestic policies. The Taliban are a rag-tag group of fighters than can only conquer mountainous regions because they are used to that terrain and can effectively fight the Army there. They wouldn't stand a chance in their non-mountainous regions of Panjab, Sindh, etc.

Very well said. Though on the flip side the Pakistani Army does appear to be in something of a state these days but nothing like the kind of state that would see Islamabad or Faislabad fall to this mob.

Whats more worrying about the risk of millitant 'Islamists' gaining control of nuclear weapons is a little late in the day, as much of the Pakistani army is pretty Islamist and specificaly Wahabi Islamist. (Much more so than the general Pakistani popluation that are on the whole tollerant and Sufi.) The Islamists in Pakistan already have the bomb, but as America could tell you from Vietnam, the Soviets from Afghanistan and the Israelis from south Lebanon, nuclear weapons are strategic weapons that are usefull against non nuclear armed strategic targets........ often its a paper tiger. White South Africa had six nuclear bombs and in the end found integration more tollerable than using them.

[dorlomin]

Sounds a little bit like the Vietcong...

Not too me it doesn't. Sounds alot more like the Maoist insurgents in Malaya in the 50s, where they could not break out of the regions where they had strong ethnic support.

But perhaps you have a better graps of history to me.

[dorlomin]

The Taliban see their true enemy to be the Hindu India.

Ummmm depends on what you mean by 'Taliban'. In Afghanistan the various factions that are called 'Taliban' see their real enemy to be other Afghans.... this is always the way with religious extreamists their real hate is reserved for those who do not sure their 'purity' (actualy this tends to be very true for both religious and political groups). In Pakistan, well my guess is that if they are as infleunced by Zawahiri as alot of people are now saying then they will follow a pretty orthodox variation of Qutbism so their will be lots to do with Zionists and Crusaders and mountains of hate for 'Takfiri' living in 'Jiyahaliya' ("apostate" muslims no longer in 'comunion' with God). I'd guess its a long list before they get past the Shia, Sufis, 99% of the Sunni, the Christians and the Jews before they start working out wether devout Hindus are following authentic or at least acceptable revelation.

Eastern Pakistan: different kettle of dogmas.

[dorlomin]

Old Sayyid, certainly casts a long shadow.

[Fiddlerdave]

Why don't you all sit in your closets and worry about it. Should we "nuke" pakistan? Is that question really asked? Is somebody monstrous enough to ask, "should we murder 180 million people?" I'm glad to see that one of the board war-mongering Zionists has already posted his support for . . . yet more war.

if we used nukes, it would be pinpoint strikes against areas where pak nukes where located. why on earth any of you would imagine that we would just use saturation strikes is absolutely beyond me. perhaps it's a complete and utter lack of any military knowledge? <--that's nothing to be offended by, by the way. yes, plenty of people would die, but NOT the numbers you have indicated.

now, on the other hand, if there were a general nuclear exchange between india and pakistan, that would approach the numbers you have in mind.

I sure wish the day would come when my country (the USA) is not the country that is going to nuke the world to save it from nukes.

Besides, while certainly there are relative issues of destructive footprints, but I am not sure the word "pinpoint" should be used in conjunction with "nuke". However limited the physical area of destruction, and assume no wind spreading fallout around, the psychological effect on the world would be anything but "pinpoint".

[Plantagenet]

The US will send military forces into Pakiston to secure the Paki nukes if the Taliban looks like it will seize the nukes

US will send troops into Pakistan to secure nukes

Well......that solves that problem. I wonder if teams from India will accompany our troops on the mission to decapitate the Pakistani nuclear threat, since most/all of the Paki nukes are targeted on India.

[Schmuto]

I can already smell the stink of "we didn't see that coming."

Presumptions are dangerous.

Like the presumption that Pakistan hasn't already set up a fail safe system that auto-launches, say, a dozen or so nukes on the Indian border in the event of any invasion by anybody.

Ah well.

I won't get too much radiation where I'm at.

[Plantagenet]

Presumptions are dangerous.

Like the presumption that Pakistan hasn't already set up a fail safe system that auto-launches, say, a dozen or so nukes on the Indian border in the event of any invasion by anybody.

Yup. I was wondering about that too.

Especially now that somebody in the US government leaked that the government is making plans to take over the Pakistan nukes. Its so stupid for the US government to leak that information that it makes me wonder if Joe Biden is somehow involved.....after all, it was just yesterday he just leaked the location of the VP's personal top-secret nuclear bomb shelter.

[Tyler_JC]

And if there was a chance that the Taliban or Al Qaeda might capture a nuclear weapon, we had better invade Pakistan!

The idea of a terrorist-controlled nuclear weapon is simply unacceptable.

A few nukes being launched at India would be absolutely horrific. Tens of millions could die.

I think we should intervene if we thought this was about to happen.

Worse, from America's point of view, if one of those nukes was not launched and instead was shipped to LAX and detonated...

Pakistan's nuclear arsenal MUST be secured at all costs.

[Nefarious]

Pakistan's nuclear arsenal MUST be secured at all costs.

Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

[Jack]

Pakistan's nuclear arsenal MUST be secured at all costs.

At all costs? Cost to whom? If by that you mean at all costs to the U.S., I cannot help but wonder at the wisdom of such a course. All costs might well mean a draft along with full mobilization, all done during a financial crisis.

At all costs to Pakistan? As in the green-glass option? Try getting that one through.

As Nefarious said, be careful what you wish for.

[NoWorries]

This is the dumbest thing I've read all week. There's no way in hell Obama would invade Pakistan. That would only made a bad situation about 100x worse. All hell would break loose then.

[Windmills]

I disagree. It would be just the kind of operation the US performs well. A hard and fast military assault without occupation. With the only objective being to destroy or remove their nuclear weapons, I think we could do that quite easily if necessary. It's the type of fight we know how to do: lots of firepower for a short amount of time. Blow up stuff. Si, se puede.

[Plantagenet]

I disagree. It would be just the kind of operation the US performs well. A hard and fast military assault without occupation. With the only objective being to destroy or remove their nuclear weapons, I think we could do that quite easily if necessary. It's the type of fight we know how to do: lots of firepower for a short amount of time. Blow up stuff. Si, se puede.

Blowing up Paki nukes would spread a lot of radioactive dust around. That wouldn't be seen as very "green"

I think the plan is to send in a small number of troops to seize and hold the nukes against all attackers----surely a small number of elite Americans can hold out indefinitely, even if they are surrounded by millions of Pakis who would be outraged by the US invasion.....

[Tyler_JC]

I disagree. It would be just the kind of operation the US performs well. A hard and fast military assault without occupation. With the only objective being to destroy or remove their nuclear weapons, I think we could do that quite easily if necessary. It's the type of fight we know how to do: lots of firepower for a short amount of time. Blow up stuff. Si, se puede.

My thoughts exactly.

The geopolitical fallout would be horrendous, no doubt about it. We'd lose all hope of controlling Afghanistan and probably a few of our embassies. We might even suffer a serious terrorist attack in the United States.

But at least that fallout wouldn't actually be fallout ...

Taking out the nuclear weapons doesn't mean an actual invasion and occupation like what we did in Iraq.

It would be more like Panama in 1989. The US storms in and takes out its perceived threat (General Manuel Noriega), then leaves the country in a matter of weeks.

[Tyler_JC]

Blowing up Paki nukes would spread a lot of radioactive dust around. That wouldn't be seen as very "green"

I think the plan is to send in a small number of troops to seize and hold the nukes against all attackers----surely a small number of elite Americans can hold out indefinitely, even if they are surrounded by millions of Pakis who would be outraged by the US invasion.....

We wouldn't sit around with the nukes in Pakistan. We would either confiscate them and transport them to a friendly state or we would remove the radioactive cores and destroy the weapons.

Neither takes particularly long and by the time the local militia tried to dislodge the US, we would already be gone.

[carrottop]

how does anyone know there isn't already a nuke or 2 here waiting the right signal !! and then well you have all saw the pictures of what a nuke blast would look like.