About Pakistan's Nukes

About Pakistan’s Nukes

WorldMay 2009 • Views: 2,058

Here’s our warm, fuzzy news of the day: Pakistan’s Nukes Within Terrorists’ Reach?

(CBS)� While calling the rising tide of Taliban violence in Pakistan cause for grave concern, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs played down the nightmare scenario of terrorists taking control of that country’s nuclear weapons.

“I don’t think that’s going to happen,” said Adm. Mike Mullen. “I don’t see that in any way imminent whatsoever at this particular point in time.”

But Adm. Mullen acknowledged there’s a limit to what he knows since Pakistan guards its doomsday secrets as jealously as the U.S. guards its own, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin.

“Much of the complex is largely secret and kept so necessarily by the Pakistani government and so I’m not sure we know as much as we should,” said CBS News consultant Juan Zarate.

Jump to bottom

209 comments

simonml Tue, May 5, 2009 12:36:41pm

You don't have to be a nuclear expert to know that in a country as unstable as Pakistan there are more chances for things to go wrong. In a country with nuclear weapons that means more chances for disaster.

Ruh roh!

MandyManners Tue, May 5, 2009 12:37:50pm

From mutating viruses to Pakistani nukes: what a world, what a world.

MikeAlv77 Tue, May 5, 2009 12:37:55pm

Now I can sleep easy tonight...

///

Kragar Tue, May 5, 2009 12:37:58pm

About this time, area denial weaponry should seriously be considered

Wasta Tue, May 5, 2009 12:38:10pm

The good news, The One can simply ask the Taliban to unclench if they do get a hold of the nukes...

MandyManners Tue, May 5, 2009 12:38:39pm

re: #4 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

About this time, area denial weaponry should seriously be considered

Say what?

Cicero05 Tue, May 5, 2009 12:38:50pm

Hillary needs to get a RESET button over to the Taliban, pronto.

Occasional Reader Tue, May 5, 2009 12:39:02pm

“Much of the complex is largely secret and kept so necessarily by the Pakistani government

Ellen Ripley's immortal "nuke it from orbit" comment comes to mind.

No, no, not that I'm advocating that.

So, how big a "complex" are talking here?

Steve Rogers Tue, May 5, 2009 12:39:04pm

I don't think Obama or his followers knew before the election -- or now -- just how bad things can be -- and are. Hopefully Obama will wake up to the situation and do what is necessary.

simonml Tue, May 5, 2009 12:39:27pm

re: #7 Cicero05

Hillary needs to get a RESET button over to the Taliban, pronto.

Knowing the State Department's propensity for ironic misspellings, the "reset" button will probably say "Launch"

MikeAlv77 Tue, May 5, 2009 12:39:28pm

I think a strongly worded letter is in order!

Fenway_Nation Tue, May 5, 2009 12:39:41pm

I don't think it would be that much of a stretch for the ISI (Pakistan's Intelligence service that equipped the Taliban in the first place) to find out whatever they don't already know about the nuke sights.

Where is Dr. Khan, anyway?

Kosh's Shadow Tue, May 5, 2009 12:39:42pm

"There are and have been Pakistani scientists or elements of the complex that have had sympathies and met with people who would be considered to be our enemies," Zarate said.

No shit. The designer of their weapons, Khan, sold designs to North Korea and Iran.

Occasional Reader Tue, May 5, 2009 12:39:51pm

re: #4 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

About this time, area denial weaponry should seriously be considered

Denial? That's one aspect of military affairs in which Obama is well-versed!

Golem Akbar Tue, May 5, 2009 12:39:54pm

I'm moving to...~~Australia...er...New Zealand~~...er...Mars.

tfc3rid Tue, May 5, 2009 12:39:55pm

Sounds good to me... All is well... Did you know Obama and Joe went to have burgers for lunch?

brookly red Tue, May 5, 2009 12:40:08pm

re: #7 Cicero05

Hillary needs to get a RESET button over to the Taliban, pronto.

/"a red button? how thoughtful! but no thanks we already have one"...

Erik The Red Tue, May 5, 2009 12:40:10pm

I don’t think that’s going to happen,” said Adm. Mike Mullen. “I don’t see that in any way imminent whatsoever at this particular point in time.”

“Much of the complex is largely secret and kept so necessarily by the Pakistani government and so I’m not sure we know as much as we should,

This gives me much confidence in our ability to protect the USA.

Kosh's Shadow Tue, May 5, 2009 12:40:39pm

I just hope India is taking action, because I don't think the US will.

Desert Dog Tue, May 5, 2009 12:40:47pm

Pakistan is a larger problem than Afghanistan, much larger. That is where AQ is, that is where the Taliban is, and that, unfortunately, is where the nukes most likely to fall into the wrong hands are as well. I hope Obama and his team are working on this problem. There is a barely a mention about Pakistan these days except the that the Taliban is creeping ever so closely to Islamabad and taking over more and more territory.

subsailor68 Tue, May 5, 2009 12:40:55pm

Oops, guy's here to help me re-grip my golf clubs. BBIAW

Truck Monkey Tue, May 5, 2009 12:41:02pm

7th century troglodytes with mans most dangerous weapon? What could go wrong?

Kragar Tue, May 5, 2009 12:41:42pm

re: #6 MandyManners

Say what?

If the Nukes are in danger of falling into the wrong hands and can't be moved, make the area around it deadly just to enter. Cluster mines, firebombings, chemical and/or biological agents come to mind.

Erik The Red Tue, May 5, 2009 12:41:44pm

re: #21 subsailor68

Oops, guy's here to help me re-grip my golf clubs. BBIAW

Don't ask ,don't tell.

MikeAlv77 Tue, May 5, 2009 12:41:52pm

re: #22 Truck Monkey

7th century troglodytes with mans most dangerous weapon? What could go wrong?

ummm... A hard left, unknown, untried, unexperienced person is elected president..

oh wait...

Truck Monkey Tue, May 5, 2009 12:42:24pm

re: #13 Kosh's Shadow

No shit. The designer of their weapons, Khan, sold designs to North Korea and Iran.

The wrath of Khan for real huh?

Cicero05 Tue, May 5, 2009 12:42:40pm

I wonder if the Israelis have room on their "to do" list for one more thing that we can't rely on 0bama to do.

Altermite Tue, May 5, 2009 12:42:52pm

re: #22 Truck Monkey

7th century troglodytes with mans most dangerous weapon? What could go wrong?

It could be raining.

Racer X Tue, May 5, 2009 12:42:56pm

re: #16 tfc3rid

Sounds good to me... All is well... Did you know Obama and Joe went to have burgers for lunch?

*SWOON*
- MFMSM

Fenway_Nation Tue, May 5, 2009 12:43:08pm

re: #25 MikeAlv77

Yeah, but at least that RINO McCain isn't in the White House. And Sarah Palin....wtf was he thinking?

Last Mohican Tue, May 5, 2009 12:43:20pm

"Security is strong," Larssen said, "...unless there are people on the inside who are willing to work with terrorists."

And, from earlier in the article:

"There are and have been Pakistani scientists or elements of the complex that have had sympathies and met with people who would be considered to be our enemies," Zarate said.

The good news is that the percentage of Pakistanis who support Al Qaeda has declined dramatically in the past few years. Here are the most recent figures from Pew:

Al Qaeda: 25% favorable, 34% unfavorable, 41% don't know
Taliban: 25% favorable, 33% unfavorable, 40% don't know

Erik The Red Tue, May 5, 2009 12:43:28pm

re: #27 Cicero05

I wonder if the Israelis have room on their "to do" list for one more thing that we can't rely on 0bama to do.

Does the IDF have that much fire power?

AMER1CAN Tue, May 5, 2009 12:43:40pm

No worries, we probably have a super duper overseas contingency operation for this. Right?
/

bnichols10 Tue, May 5, 2009 12:43:50pm

Anyone read the book One Second After?

MandyManners Tue, May 5, 2009 12:43:56pm

re: #23 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

If the Nukes are in danger of falling into the wrong hands and can't be moved, make the area around it deadly just to enter. Cluster mines, firebombings, chemical and/or biological agents come to mind.

Makes sense to me. Who's gonna' do it, though?

Occasional Reader Tue, May 5, 2009 12:44:28pm

re: #31 Last Mohican

The good news is that the percentage of Pakistanis who support Al Qaeda has declined dramatically in the past few years. Here are the most recent figures from Pew:

Al Qaeda: 25% favorable, 34% unfavorable, 41% don't know
Taliban: 25% favorable, 33% unfavorable, 40% don't know

Somehow, I don't find those figures very comforting.

FurryOldGuyJeans Tue, May 5, 2009 12:44:31pm

A replay of the implosion of the Soviet Union, yeesh.

Kosh's Shadow Tue, May 5, 2009 12:44:33pm

re: #27 Cicero05

I wonder if the Israelis have room on their "to do" list for one more thing that we can't rely on 0bama to do.

They'll probably help the Indians. India is in a much better position, as they know the area, the culture, fit in better, etc., but Israel could help with weapons and tactics.

Russkilitlover Tue, May 5, 2009 12:44:53pm

“I don’t think that’s going to happen,” said Adm. Mike Mullen

Thanks, Mike! Way to be on top of the Pakistan collapse.

MandyManners Tue, May 5, 2009 12:44:55pm

I hope everyone who refused to vote for McCain because he wasn't conservative enough is fucking happy now.

Leonidas Hoplite Tue, May 5, 2009 12:44:55pm

I hope Admiral Mullen isn't anything like Admiral Kimmel.

brookly red Tue, May 5, 2009 12:45:01pm

re: #23 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

If the Nukes are in danger of falling into the wrong hands and can't be moved, make the area around it deadly just to enter. Cluster mines, firebombings, chemical and/or biological agents come to mind.

/this is Pakistan, they are already in the wrong hands... now Iran on the other hand...

MandyManners Tue, May 5, 2009 12:45:23pm

re: #37 FurryOldGuyJeans

A replay of the implosion of the Soviet Union, yeesh.

I think it'll be worse. Much worse.

ssn697 Tue, May 5, 2009 12:45:24pm

re: #22 Truck Monkey

7th century troglodytes with mans most dangerous weapon? What could go wrong?

I's make a beneath the planet of the apes joke, if this weren't so freakin scary. Looks like Pakistan is trying very hard to trump North Korea in the "who will drop a bomb first" sweepstakes.

And to think I was worried about China, back in the 80's...

Mad Al-Jaffee Tue, May 5, 2009 12:45:53pm

re: #34 bnichols10

Anyone read the book One Second After?

Looks interesting.

Sharmuta Tue, May 5, 2009 12:45:56pm

The people who should be the most concerned about this are the Indians. It wasn't Afghanistan where radical islamists went on a rampage, but rather in Mumbai. India likewise has nukes, but like Iran, I don't think mutual assured destruction is going to stop the Pakistani islamists.

Desert Dog Tue, May 5, 2009 12:46:18pm

re: #39 Russkilitlover

Thanks, Mike! Way to be on top of the Pakistan collapse.

Then, the very next sentence says we don't know jack about their nukes and their whereabouts. I do not feel safe, and the fact that our government does not seem worried bothers me.

Wendya Tue, May 5, 2009 12:46:49pm

re: #9 Steve Rogers

I don't think Obama or his followers knew before the election -- or now -- just how bad things can be -- and are. Hopefully Obama will wake up to the situation and do what is necessary.

It seems he's too busy attacking American citizens and investors to worry about Pakistani nukes. Didn't he say if we reduce our nuclear weapons, the rest of the world will eliminate theirs?

lawhawk Tue, May 5, 2009 12:46:52pm

Given how the current Administration has waged war on the CIA and the national security institutions that are supposed to be gathering this information, and how many of those who are in the Administration or cheerlead for the Administration have previously sought to handcuff the CIA and other national security institutions from gathering intel on the ground that would be beneficial to determining the safety of those nuclear weapons, the failing of the CIA to know the deal isn't surprising.

We've been dealing with this mess for decades (think back to the Church Commission and how it damaged US national security). Now, we're facing a set of circumstances that requires intel on the ground and in real time that satellites simply can't provide. We can't make back that deficit now, and while the CIA fought the Bush Administration over ideological grounds, they're now fighting the Obama Administration because the Obama people made it personal by leaking details of the measures to which the CIA went to gather intel needed to keep the nation safe.

Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is in trouble because the Zardari government is incapable of doing what is necessary to stop the Taliban precisely because it has courted the Islamists for far too long to prop up its own power. Zardari has run the cycle of violence thing as far as he could take it, and now it's within miles of Islamabad. Don't think for a moment that the Taliban will stop short of the prize when they know that they have a chance of taking Islamabad itself. The military has been sidelined for much of the fighting, and the ISI is thoroughly penetrated by the Islamists.

If anyone ever wanted an example of a regime that should never have been allowed to ever obtain nuclear weapons, Pakistan is it.

The IAEA and UN have the chance to prevent Iran from going the same route, but show no interest in doing so, despite the genocidal intent and statements from Iranian leadership - something absent in Pakistani politics. Still, the Pakistani situation is imminent compared with Iran, and yet the IAEA and UN don't know what to do, despite the dire outcomes that could happen should the nukes fall into the wrong hands.

FurryOldGuyJeans Tue, May 5, 2009 12:47:18pm

re: #23 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

If the Nukes are in danger of falling into the wrong hands and can't be moved, make the area around it deadly just to enter. Cluster mines, firebombings, chemical and/or biological agents come to mind.

As was shown by the Iran/Iraq war, the holy warriors have a near inexhaustible supply of cannon fodder. Deadly for a jihadi rank and file just means martyrdom and a quick passport to paradise.

FurryOldGuyJeans Tue, May 5, 2009 12:48:23pm

re: #43 MandyManners

I think it'll be worse. Much worse.

Sequels usually do worse than the original, and this is shaping up to be one really horrible sequel.

JustABill Tue, May 5, 2009 12:48:25pm

re: #31 Last Mohican

The good news is that the percentage of Pakistanis who support Al Qaeda has declined dramatically in the past few years. Here are the most recent figures from Pew:

Al Qaeda: 25% favorable, 34% unfavorable, 41% don't know
Taliban: 25% favorable, 33% unfavorable, 40% don't know

Would it be too much to hope for that the 40-41% who don't know, really don't know if the taliban is listening?

Last Mohican Tue, May 5, 2009 12:48:42pm

re: #36 Occasional Reader

Somehow, I don't find those figures very comforting.

Well, let's see. The Pakistanis won't tell us how many nukes they have, or where they're keeping them. We know that some of the Pakistanis in charge of the nukes are pro-Al Qaeda. And we know that only about a third of the Pakistani population disapproves of Al Qaeda.

Yeah, I guess I'm not very comforted either.

teleskiguy Tue, May 5, 2009 12:48:44pm

I wouldn't hold my breath about 0bama doing anything about this. He mirrors Chamberlain in so many ways. Peace in our time? I think not.

aggieann Tue, May 5, 2009 12:48:45pm

re: #47 Desert Dog

Then, the very next sentence says we don't know jack about their nukes and their whereabouts. I do not feel safe, and the fact that our government does not seem worried bothers me.

As Blogfather Reynolds so often reminds us, "The country's in the best of hands."

Sharmuta Tue, May 5, 2009 12:48:49pm

re: #49 lawhawk

Let's hope the Indian intelligence has a clue.

Yashmak Tue, May 5, 2009 12:49:32pm

I'm in serious doubt about how bad things really are in Pakistan.

I listen carefully to the numbers being bandied about in the news. I hear numbers of soldiers, and numbers of Taliban fighters, and populations in the areas of jurisdiction of each. I see scarily shaded maps of areas under Taliban control, and am rightly worried initially.

When I hear about the Taliban, I hear about fighters in the hundreds, occasionally in the thousands. But I'm also reminded that Pakistan is a nation of 172 million, with an army 650,000 strong (with another 528,000 in reserve). I also recall that the areas the Taliban controls are amongst the least developed, and most sparsely populated areas in the nation. It's hard to imagine they pose a serious threat to the Pakistani nation militarily.

On the other hand, if Pakistan's government chooses to placate and cowtow to their desires (implementation of Sharia law, etc. etc), they could conceiveably BECOME a threat to Pakistan in general. I just don't see it happening as quickly as the MSM would like us to think. They are in the business of selling hysteria, afterall.

Eowyn2 Tue, May 5, 2009 12:49:41pm

re: #11 MikeAlv77

I think a strongly worded letter is in order!

and it will be sent to India telling her to stay out of Pakistan's peaceful internal jihad

lawhawk Tue, May 5, 2009 12:49:47pm

re: #9 Steve Rogers

I don't think Obama or his followers knew before the election -- or now -- just how bad things can be -- and are. Hopefully Obama will wake up to the situation and do what is necessary.

Nonsense. They knew. They were regularly briefed by the Bush Administration so that they could be up to speed on Day 1.

Obama knew the situation was bad, and was asked about the situation in Pakistan during the campaign, which was when he made his comments about invading Pakistan to go after OBL and al Qaeda.

No, the Obama Administration simply doesn't know what to do and is trying to cover up its deficiencies.

sbvft contributor Tue, May 5, 2009 12:49:52pm

Betcha the Taliban has a Tet Offensive in the works. In Karachi, and Islamabad. It's over Johnny.

Sharmuta Tue, May 5, 2009 12:50:04pm

Like Israel being left to deal with iran, I fear the Indians will have to deal with pakistan. Unless 0bama wants to make good on his campaign rhetoric to invade pakistan and piss off his base- this is going to come down to the Indian military to deal with.

Leonidas Hoplite Tue, May 5, 2009 12:50:45pm

re: #46 Sharmuta

The people who should be the most concerned about this are the Indians. It wasn't Afghanistan where radical islamists went on a rampage, but rather in Mumbai. India likewise has nukes, but like Iran, I don't think mutual assured destruction is going to stop the Pakistani islamists.

True but if your average Islamofascist had a choice between nuking NYC or New Delhi, I'm not sure he wouldn't pick NYC?

To your point, I wonder what India would do if Pakistan fell. They probably wouldn't stand idly by whatever they do but might wait for the Taliban to focus on some sort of internal cleansing or purge before making a strike.

Last Mohican Tue, May 5, 2009 12:51:05pm

re: #52 JustABill

Would it be too much to hope for that the 40-41% who don't know, really don't know if the taliban is listening?

That would be nice. Although I suspect that, for many of them, "don't know" means "I don't know if Al Qaeda is militant enough for me. They've been unacceptably silent lately in their war against the infidels."

Kragar Tue, May 5, 2009 12:51:13pm

re: #50 FurryOldGuyJeans

As was shown by the Iran/Iraq war, the holy warriors have a near inexhaustible supply of cannon fodder. Deadly for a jihadi rank and file just means martyrdom and a quick passport to paradise.

Yeah, but they prefer to die in a glorious kaboom, not shitting themselves as their eyes dissolve and they throw up their lungs hoping they can get into a building.

Fenway_Nation Tue, May 5, 2009 12:51:17pm

re: #46 Sharmuta

The people who should be the most concerned about this are the Indians. It wasn't Afghanistan where radical islamists went on a rampage, but rather in Mumbai. India likewise has nukes, but like Iran, I don't think mutual assured destruction is going to stop the Pakistani islamists.

When I was in high school, I overheard our history teacher matter-of-factly predict to some other students that the next nuclear exchange in warfare was going to be between India and Pakistan. Keep in mind this was seven years before both countries actually developed their nuclear program.

FurryOldGuyJeans Tue, May 5, 2009 12:51:23pm

re: #57 Yashmak

Better to prepare for the worse so less is a very pleasant surprise. This is not a situation where empty hope-changey rhetoric and a squadron of invisible flying unicorns will be the solution.

Eowyn2 Tue, May 5, 2009 12:52:31pm

re: #61 Sharmuta

Like Israel being left to deal with iran, I fear the Indians will have to deal with pakistan. Unless 0bama wants to make good on his campaign rhetoric to invade pakistan and piss off his base- this is going to come down to the Indian military to deal with.

My first though.

Altermite Tue, May 5, 2009 12:52:33pm

re: #52 JustABill

Would it be too much to hope for that the 40-41% who don't know, really don't know if the taliban is listening?

I'm pretty sure thats the case. It might be wishful thinking on my part, but when someone says I abstain, it usually means that they don't want to risk upsetting someone.

Sharmuta Tue, May 5, 2009 12:52:39pm

re: #62 Leonidas Hoplite

If they can't reach NYC, they'd target something closer to home and more easily accessed. I would have to think the Indian intelligence services are watching all of this closely. To not would be suicidal on their part.

Russkilitlover Tue, May 5, 2009 12:52:51pm

Anyone know what Pakistan's nuclear reach is? What is their missile capability?

lawhawk Tue, May 5, 2009 12:52:53pm

re: #57 Yashmak

Pakistan may be a nation of 170+ million and has a significant standing army, but if the army is literally standing around while the Taliban are busy invading Pakistan proper from the frontier provinces, then the size of the military doesn't matter. There is no political will in the Pakistani government to actually stop the Taliban, which means that the Taliban will continue advancing until such time that the Taliban choose to stop.

Kragar Tue, May 5, 2009 12:53:25pm

Obama is reminding me of Invader Zim:

Obama(Zim): I put the fires out!
Leader: YOU MADE THEM WORSE!
Obama(Zim): Worse...or better?

FurryOldGuyJeans Tue, May 5, 2009 12:53:29pm

re: #54 teleskiguy

I wouldn't hold my breath about 0bama doing anything about this. He mirrors Chamberlain in so many ways. Peace in our time? I think not.

If the balloon goes up there is always the tried and true meme of blaming it on Bush.

Shug Tue, May 5, 2009 12:53:51pm

Don't worry folks:

Islamic Terrorists have listened to Jon Stewart, and the first nuke will be detonated 50 miles from midtown Manhattan..

opnion Tue, May 5, 2009 12:53:53pm

In my mind, with the possible exception of our current administration, Pakistan is the most grave issue facing us.
If nukes fall into the hands of the Taliban, they become available to Al Queda & others. How long before a dirty bomb finds it's way into a major U.S city?

AMER1CAN Tue, May 5, 2009 12:53:53pm

re: #66 FurryOldGuyJeans

Send in the flying unicorns squadron with a battalion of fuzzy bunnies on the ground for support!

Leonidas Hoplite Tue, May 5, 2009 12:53:54pm

re: #59 lawhawk

No, the Obama Administration simply doesn't know what to do and is trying to cover up its deficiencies.

Not too mention the distraction all this foreign stuff creates for his domestic plans.

jamgarr Tue, May 5, 2009 12:54:08pm

It's the only way to be sure.

Fenway_Nation Tue, May 5, 2009 12:54:13pm

re: #70 Russkilitlover

I know that they were able to reverse-engineer some Tomahawk missiles from the remnants of the ones Billy Jeff launched onto Afghanistan back in 98.

Kosh's Shadow Tue, May 5, 2009 12:54:16pm

re: #51 FurryOldGuyJeans

Sequels usually do worse than the original, and this is shaping up to be one really horrible sequel.

Also the movie currently playing in Washington, Dhimmi Carter, the Sequel.

debutaunt Tue, May 5, 2009 12:54:20pm

re: #16 tfc3rid

Sounds good to me... All is well... Did you know Obama and Joe went to have burgers for lunch?

OK, as long as nothing was staged.

alegrias Tue, May 5, 2009 12:54:30pm

Juan Zarate the CBS consultant USED to work for the Bush Administration.

Glad he got a job at C.B.S., maybe he's a B.S. detector.

NonNativeTexan Tue, May 5, 2009 12:54:52pm

re: #46 Sharmuta

And India is our friend. They will do more to keep Pakistan
in check than we will. After 9/11 the leader of Pakistan
said he had a choice to help the Americans fight the
Tali ban or help the Tali ban. The thing that swayed him is he feared
if he didn't help "or at least ignore" the US fight in Afghanistan,
India and the US would join forces against Pakistan.

jcm Tue, May 5, 2009 12:55:08pm

Time to cut a deal, and get 'em out.

Cicero05 Tue, May 5, 2009 12:55:17pm

re: #75 opnion

How long before a dirty bomb finds it's way into a major U.S city?

I think the threat goes well beyond a dirty bomb. We're talking about real thermonuclear weapons.

Yashmak Tue, May 5, 2009 12:55:33pm

re: #66 FurryOldGuyJeans

Better to prepare for the worse so less is a very pleasant surprise. This is not a situation where empty hope-changey rhetoric and a squadron of invisible flying unicorns will be the solution.

I agree. But I don't think we should be getting hysterical or uttering prognostications of doom and gloom just yet. Keep the pressure on the Pakistani government to deal with the Taliban. Unfortunately, it's a long struggle. Military history tells us it's almost impossible to root out an insurgent foe from terrain such as the Taliban occupies. But they have no industry and precious little agriculture. They sell only death and drugs. Eradication may be nigh impossible, both militarily and ideologically, but the Pakistani military should be able to keep them penned in for the forseeable future, reversing short term gains by the Taliban handily, as happened a week or so ago.

Shug Tue, May 5, 2009 12:55:53pm

Serious question:

Is Pakistan anywhere near Pah-kee-stahn?

Kosh's Shadow Tue, May 5, 2009 12:56:37pm

re: #60 sbvft contributor

Betcha the Taliban has a Tet Offensive in the works. In Karachi, and Islamabad. It's over Johnny.

The VC lost the Tet Offensive, but convinced their sympathizers in the media that they won.

Fenway_Nation Tue, May 5, 2009 12:56:41pm

re: #84 jcm

Time to cut a deal, and get 'em out.

How many iPods pre-loaded with Hussein Dolts speeches do you think those nukes are worth?

alegrias Tue, May 5, 2009 12:57:06pm

re: #83 NonNativeTexan

And India is our friend. They will do more to keep Pakistan
in check than we will. After 9/11 the leader of Pakistan
said he had a choice to help the Americans fight the
Tali ban or help the Tali ban. The thing that swayed him is he feared
if he didn't help "or at least ignore" the US fight in Afghanistan,
India and the US would join forces against Pakistan.

* * * *
THAT former leader of Pakistan was General Musharraf, who our leftists and Paki crazies detested.

Pakistan always plays with the truth, and plays both sides. It's an islamic republic well versed in Taqqiya like so many others.

MandyManners Tue, May 5, 2009 12:57:12pm

I'm gonna' put all this aside and go pick up The Kid from school and take him to the park. Have a good day, Lizards.

FurryOldGuyJeans Tue, May 5, 2009 12:57:35pm

re: #76 AMER1CAN

Send in the flying unicorns squadron with a battalion of fuzzy bunnies on the ground for support!

Air units always supports the ground forces, not the reverse.

Oh wait, this is the Holy Messiah-King we are talking about here, my bad.

Idle Drifter Tue, May 5, 2009 12:57:37pm

re: #23 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Don't forget we still maintain the ability to cover entire countries with land mines by air. The weapons are a concern of course, what about all the scientists, engineers, technicians, and the hard data that took to build the bombs for Pakistan. Are they going to turn over information and technology to the Taliban and Al Qaeda?

Eowyn2 Tue, May 5, 2009 12:57:59pm

re: #62 Leonidas Hoplite

True but if your average Islamofascist had a choice between nuking NYC or New Delhi, I'm not sure he wouldn't pick NYC?

To your point, I wonder what India would do if Pakistan fell. They probably wouldn't stand idly by whatever they do but might wait for the Taliban to focus on some sort of internal cleansing or purge before making a strike.

It will all depend on how the general populace of pakistan takes taliban control. Ten years ago, they despised the taliban, have they really cozened up as much as the poli-junkie-news bimbos say they have? I certainly hope not but no one really knows.

opnion Tue, May 5, 2009 12:58:46pm

re: #85 Cicero05

I think the threat goes well beyond a dirty bomb. We're talking about real thermonuclear weapons.

I believe that we could take down any nuclear launch.
To me the most immediate danger is a dirty bomb coming across our Southern Border with the help of the drug cartels.

Gumby Tue, May 5, 2009 12:58:47pm

re: #16 tfc3rid

Sounds good to me... All is well... Did you know Obama and Joe went to have burgers for lunch?

Are they going to super-size?

Fenway_Nation Tue, May 5, 2009 12:59:01pm

re: #90 alegrias

B-b-but he was an evil military dictator! Pakistan needs real hope and change from democratically elected leaders like Hugo Chavez, Robert Mugabe and Hamas!

Guanxi88 Tue, May 5, 2009 12:59:14pm

re: #21 subsailor68

Oops, guy's here to help me re-grip my golf clubs. BBIAW

Yep; it's got the same potential for harm as a gorilla with a hand grenade, but on a much larger scale.

Eowyn2 Tue, May 5, 2009 12:59:37pm

re: #66 FurryOldGuyJeans

Better to prepare for the worse so less is a very pleasant surprise. This is not a situation where empty hope-changey rhetoric and a squadron of invisible flying unicorns will be the solution.

there you go, seeing the glass half empty again. Its an excellent crisis that cant be let go to waste.

100

opnion Tue, May 5, 2009 12:59:40pm

re: #88 Kosh's Shadow

The VC lost the Tet Offensive, but convinced their sympathizers in the media that they won.

Largely due to Walter Cronkite.

101

Mad Al-Jaffee Tue, May 5, 2009 12:59:44pm

Did anyone here celebrate "Cinco de Quatro" yesterday?

[Link: michellemalkin.com...]

102

Russkilitlover Tue, May 5, 2009 1:00:08pm

re: #93 Idle Drifter

Don't forget we still maintain the ability to cover entire countries with land mines by air. The weapons are a concern of course, what about all the scientists, engineers, technicians, and the hard data that took to build the bombs for Pakistan. Are they going to turn over information and technology to the Taliban and Al Qaeda?

You're not suggesting air-raiding villages, are you?

103

Truck Monkey Tue, May 5, 2009 1:00:17pm

re: #88 Kosh's Shadow

The VC lost the Tet Offensive, but convinced their sympathizers in the media that they won.

The US Armed Forces routed the forces from the north. There was something like a 10 to 1 KIA ratio. The Forces from the north put on a good enough show for uncle Walter to declare that we had lost. Nuff said. The Dummycrats sure do know how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

104

unrealizedviewpoint Tue, May 5, 2009 1:00:39pm

re: #46 Sharmuta

I don't think mutual assured destruction is going to stop the Pakistani islamists.

The 64K question is: Is Obama capable of striking preemptively if necessary?

105

jcm Tue, May 5, 2009 1:00:39pm

re: #100 opnion

Largely due to ~~Walter Cronkite~~.

Wanker Crankcase.

106

Eowyn2 Tue, May 5, 2009 1:01:23pm

re: #101 Mad Al-Jaffee

Did anyone here celebrate "Cinco de Quatro" yesterday?

[Link: michellemalkin.com...]

Its that new math.

107

jcm Tue, May 5, 2009 1:01:28pm

re: #104 unrealizedviewpoint

The 64K question is: Is Obama capable of striking preemptively if necessary?

I don't think he has the balls for a counter strike.

108

Last Mohican Tue, May 5, 2009 1:01:30pm

re: #57 Yashmak

Here's interesting reading on the subject: Sixty Miles from the Capital, by Michael Rubin.

Some quotes:

On February 15, after fighting for almost two years at a cost of 1,500 lives, the Pakistanis and the Taliban struck a deal [that] imposed Islamic law on the Swat Valley, effectively handing control to the Taliban.... Rather than view the Malakand Accord as a compromise to end bloodshed, the Taliban interpreted it as a display of weakness to be exploited.... With their safe haven established, the Taliban doubled the number of fighters in the Swat Valley to at least 6,000, enabling a column to move on Buner [60 miles from the Islamabad, Pakistan's capital], less than 10 days after Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari signed legislation implementing the Malakand Accord. As the column advanced, a Taliban spokesman announced that Osama bin Laden would be welcome in Swat.
On April 30, General David Petraeus said that the Taliban's challenge makes the next two weeks critical to Pakistan's survival.

109

FurryOldGuyJeans Tue, May 5, 2009 1:01:40pm

re: #104 unrealizedviewpoint

The 64K question is: Is Obama capable of striking preemptively if necessary?

Does he know WHERE to strike?

110

Eowyn2 Tue, May 5, 2009 1:01:46pm

re: #104 unrealizedviewpoint

The 64K question is: Is Obama capable of striking preemptively if necessary?

111

Bob Dillon Tue, May 5, 2009 1:02:15pm

Ah- how comforting knowing Obama "I won" is in charge.
/

I am reminded of this quote ... never mind that he apologized later - that was politics.

[Link: www.politico.com...]

'That boy's finger does not need to be on the button'

U.S. Rep. Geoff Davis, a Hebron Republican, compared Obama and his message for change similar to a "snake oil salesman" [at a Northern Kentucky Lincoln Day dinner].

He said in his remarks at the GOP dinner that he also recently participated in a "highly classified, national security simulation" with Obama.

"I'm going to tell you something: That boy's finger does not need to be on the button," Davis said. "He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country."
An aide to Davis, Jeremy Hughes, declined to comment on the remark, and didn't dispute the accuracy of the quote.

UPDATE: Davis apologizes.

112

FurryOldGuyJeans Tue, May 5, 2009 1:02:27pm

re: #107 jcm

I don't think he has the balls for a counter strike.

Michelle keeps 'em in a baggie in her man-purse.

113

Leonidas Hoplite Tue, May 5, 2009 1:02:32pm

re: #94 Eowyn2

It will all depend on how the general populace of pakistan takes taliban control. Ten years ago, they despised the taliban, have they really cozened up as much as the poli-junkie-news bimbos say they have? I certainly hope not but no one really knows.

Don't know the answer to that but a minority can rule over a majority. I'd be surprised if the average Pakistani is armed and would be willing to put up any kind of resistance. One hopeful scenario might be to get the nukes out in some sort of rescue-type operation if there is enough sympathy within the military command that overseas the weapons, assuming that there are enough commanders who realize the ruin that a Taliban regime with nuclear weapons would cause.

114

quickjustice Tue, May 5, 2009 1:02:35pm

Likely Taliban targets for a Pakistani nuke:

1. New Delhi
2. Kabul
3. Washington, D.C.
4. Tel Aviv

Any others?

115

brookly red Tue, May 5, 2009 1:02:37pm

re: #104 unrealizedviewpoint

The 64K question is: Is Obama capable of striking preemptively if necessary?

/ what's he gonna do? nationalize the Taliban & kick out their CEO?

116

Guanxi88 Tue, May 5, 2009 1:02:37pm

re: #109 FurryOldGuyJeans

Does he know WHERE to strike?

Paah KEY Stahhhn, right?

117

opnion Tue, May 5, 2009 1:02:54pm

re: #105 jcm

Wanker Crankcase.

He had real cred back in the day & he misused it.

118

Leonidas Hoplite Tue, May 5, 2009 1:03:14pm

re: #96 Gumby

Are they going to super-size?

Yes because they have to feed their egos.

119

ointmentfly Tue, May 5, 2009 1:03:24pm

Hmmm.... doesn't seem to be anybody stepping out in front of this from team Obama. Cue the kneepad wearing intern in the oval office. It'll keep the reporting off anything serious and maybe they won't attack until a republican is back in office.....

120

Sharmuta Tue, May 5, 2009 1:03:36pm

re: #83 NonNativeTexan

And India is our friend. They will do more to keep Pakistan
in check than we will. After 9/11 the leader of Pakistan
said he had a choice to help the Americans fight the
Tali ban or help the Tali ban. The thing that swayed him is he feared
if he didn't help "or at least ignore" the US fight in Afghanistan,
India and the US would join forces against Pakistan.

Frankly- any country that thought America was their friend better be prepared to have its own back and not count on us for the next 3 1/2-8 years.

121

Bob Dillon Tue, May 5, 2009 1:04:43pm

re: #101 Mad Al-Jaffee

Did anyone here celebrate "Cinco de Quatro" yesterday?

[Link: michellemalkin.com...]

I celebrated that this could be a valuable clue as to where Obama's head may be found.

122

Cicero05 Tue, May 5, 2009 1:04:46pm

re: #95 opnion

I believe that we could take down any nuclear launch.

Pakistan's missiles are short to medium range only, according to Wikipedia, so there isn't a missile threat to the U.S. But a fission weapon doesn't necessarily have to arrive on a missile. A van or shipping container would work too.

123

alegrias Tue, May 5, 2009 1:04:54pm

Woman who was CEO of E-Bay, Meg Whitman, is on Cavuto (FOX Cable).
She's running for Governor of California.

Whitman says NO NEW TAXES.
She's awesome! A balanced budget person, she runs very large organizations, unlike Arnold Schwartzenegger.

Ooops, she's a billionaire. Can't have a successful person running our biggest state, can we?

124

Russkilitlover Tue, May 5, 2009 1:05:01pm

re: #120 Sharmuta

Frankly- any country that thought America was their friend better be prepared to have its own back and not count on us for the next 3 1/2-8 years.

I think our allies have that message, loud and clear.

125

SanFranciscoZionist Tue, May 5, 2009 1:05:02pm

re: #58 Eowyn2

and it will be sent to India telling her to stay out of Pakistan's peaceful internal jihad

India will do what she needs to do. India's good like that.

126

Fenway_Nation Tue, May 5, 2009 1:05:02pm

re: #120 Sharmuta

Kind of telling that the Mumbai attacks didn't take place a month earlier.

127

Sharmuta Tue, May 5, 2009 1:05:21pm

re: #104 unrealizedviewpoint

The 64K question is: Is Obama capable of striking preemptively if necessary?

Does he know what that means? And will he be punch-drunk when discussing this on national television?

128

Russkilitlover Tue, May 5, 2009 1:05:36pm

re: #123 alegrias

OT

Woman who was CEO of E-Bay, Meg Whitman, is on Cavuto (FOX Cable).
She's running for Governor of California.

Whitman says NO NEW TAXES.
She's awesome! A balanced budget person, she runs very large organizations, unlike Arnold Schwartzenegger.

Ooops, she's a billionaire. Can't have a successful person running our biggest state, can we?

Did she really declare her candidacy? I know she's been tip-toeing around.

129

Eowyn2 Tue, May 5, 2009 1:05:38pm

re: #96 Gumby

Are they going to super-size?

what the hell are they even thinking?

Who really believes that Barry and Joe hang together at the local burger drive-in?

I can actually see one or the other sending a gopher to grab them a burger but the two of them getting into the limo and joyriding to pops burger stand. PATHETIC WASTE OF TIME AND RESOURCES.

130

Last Mohican Tue, May 5, 2009 1:06:51pm

re: #101 Mad Al-Jaffee

Did anyone here celebrate "Cinco de Quatro" yesterday?

[Link: michellemalkin.com...]

And let me guess... Hispanic groups are ranting and raving about the insensitivity that Obama demonstrated by mangling their language.

What? They're not?

131

Guanxi88 Tue, May 5, 2009 1:07:03pm

re: #129 Eowyn2

what the hell are they even thinking?

Who really believes that Barry and Joe hang together at the local burger drive-in?

I can actually see one or the other sending a gopher to grab them a burger but the two of them getting into the limo and joyriding to pops burger stand. PATHETIC WASTE OF TIME AND RESOURCES.

The masses must never be denied the opportunity to gaze upon the beneficent glow of Dear Leader's face. The goal is to keep him constantly before an audience, as he is nothing on his own.

132

MikeAlv77 Tue, May 5, 2009 1:07:14pm

re: #129 Eowyn2

what the hell are they even thinking?

Who really believes that Barry and Joe hang together at the local burger drive-in?

I can actually see one or the other sending a gopher to grab them a burger but the two of them getting into the limo and joyriding to pops burger stand. PATHETIC WASTE OF TIME AND RESOURCES.

Also, isn't it a problem having both of them together at one place. Shouldn't the Pres and VP be seperate for most things especially a BURGER RUN!

133

jcm Tue, May 5, 2009 1:07:15pm

re: #117 opnion

He had real cred back in the day & he misused it.

IMHO the media died in 'Nam.

Between 'Nam, and Watergate, the media have been too full of themselves by far.

134

Kenneth Tue, May 5, 2009 1:07:19pm

re: #85 Cicero05

Thermo-nuclear means a hydrogen fusion bomb. The Pakistanis do not have any of those. Inshalah.

135

UFO TOFU Tue, May 5, 2009 1:07:40pm

re: #123 alegrias

I read a pretty interesting interview with her awhile back. Wish I would have saved it.

136

alegrias Tue, May 5, 2009 1:07:43pm

re: #128 Russkilitlover

Did she really declare her candidacy? I know she's been tip-toeing around.

* * * *

Check it out, Cavuto's talking to her about streamlining regulations in CA to help small business.

Whitman sounds like she's serious about it. SECURE THE BOARDER, take out sanctuary cities, enforce immigration compliance by employers.

137

debutaunt Tue, May 5, 2009 1:08:01pm

re: #123 alegrias

OT

Woman who was CEO of E-Bay, Meg Whitman, is on Cavuto (FOX Cable).
She's running for Governor of California.

Whitman says NO NEW TAXES.
She's awesome! A balanced budget person, she runs very large organizations, unlike Arnold Schwartzenegger.

Ooops, she's a billionaire. Can't have a successful person running our biggest state, can we?

Government has to stop spending. California will lead the way for the US to see what happens if they refuse.

138

Kenneth Tue, May 5, 2009 1:08:10pm

re: #104 unrealizedviewpoint

The 64K question is: Is Obama capable of striking preemptively if necessary?

So far, the Obama Doctrine has been about preemptive surrender.

139

Nevergiveup Tue, May 5, 2009 1:08:15pm

re: #114 quickjustice

Likely Taliban targets for a Pakistani nuke:

1. New Delhi
2. Kabul
3. Washington, D.C.
4. Tel Aviv

Any others?

Dimona

140

quickjustice Tue, May 5, 2009 1:08:31pm

re: #132 MikeAlv77

Serve them right if they both come down with food poisoning, although the hamburger joint they selected probably is gourmet!

141

jcm Tue, May 5, 2009 1:08:33pm

re: #124 Russkilitlover

I think our allies have that message, loud and clear.

And our enemies have a firm grasp of the ring in Obambi's nose.

142

SanFranciscoZionist Tue, May 5, 2009 1:08:43pm

re: #101 Mad Al-Jaffee

Did anyone here celebrate "Cinco de Quatro" yesterday?

[Link: michellemalkin.com...]

Oh dear. I knew there was some reason I liked having a western boy in the White House.

Happy Cinco de Mayo, everyone!

143

alegrias Tue, May 5, 2009 1:09:14pm

re: #137 debutaunt

Government has to stop spending. California will lead the way for the US to see what happens if they refuse.

* * * *
Jeez, we already have your California delegation, Pelosi, ruining our country as she tells Obama how to bankrupt the whole country as she did California.

144

Honorary Yooper Tue, May 5, 2009 1:09:30pm

re: #122 Cicero05

Pakistan's missiles are short to medium range only, according to Wikipedia, so there isn't a missile threat to the U.S. But a fission weapon doesn't necessarily have to arrive on a missile. A van or shipping container would work too.

And in a shipping container, it could go anywhere. Only a percentage of them get inspected at customs, and then by rail, they could wind up as far in as Chicago, Minneapolis, Omaha, Kansas City, etc. It's scary that it could wind up anywhere.

We need to keep these out of the hands of the Taliban.

145

Buck Tue, May 5, 2009 1:09:40pm

What gets me is that Pak military is supposed to have been a counter for India.... Unless India is also all screwed up... it seems the Pak military can't even defend against the Taliban, let alone a fully equipped and trained military...

146

Kenneth Tue, May 5, 2009 1:09:47pm

re: #114 quickjustice

US Central Command base in Qatar.

147

Russkilitlover Tue, May 5, 2009 1:09:47pm

re: #142 SanFranciscoZionist

Oh dear. I knew there was some reason I liked having a western boy in the White House.

Happy Cinco de Mayo, everyone!

Lots of Guac and carne asada tacos at my place tonight....come on by!

148

brookly red Tue, May 5, 2009 1:09:57pm

re: #130 Last Mohican

And let me guess... Hispanic groups are ranting and raving about the insensitivity that Obama demonstrated by mangling their language.

What? They're not?

/Apoyo amnisty... not mangled at all.

149

Guanxi88 Tue, May 5, 2009 1:10:21pm

re: #147 Russkilitlover

Lots of Guac and carne asada tacos at my place tonight....come on by!

Set a place for me.

150

alegrias Tue, May 5, 2009 1:10:44pm

re: #142 SanFranciscoZionist

Oh dear. I knew there was some reason I liked having a western boy in the White House.

Happy Cinco de Mayo, everyone!

* * * *
Thank you, off to a Mexican Restaurant for this very purpose!

Mexican Beans & Rice for the new great American depression! Cheers everyone.

151

Eowyn2 Tue, May 5, 2009 1:11:18pm

re: #114 quickjustice

Likely Taliban targets for a Pakistani nuke:

1. New Delhi
2. Kabul
3. Washington, D.C. - too far away
4. Tel Aviv

Depends on their range and/or transport capabilities
Ryadi (sp)
Burma
Bombay
Myanmar
Thailand
Australia
Hawaii
California
Any others?

152

quickjustice Tue, May 5, 2009 1:11:31pm

re: #139 Nevergiveup

Negev Nuclear Research still there?

153

Eowyn2 Tue, May 5, 2009 1:12:19pm

re: #131 Guanxi88

The masses must never be denied the opportunity to gaze upon the beneficent glow of Dear Leader's face. The goal is to keep him constantly before an audience, as he is nothing on his own.

Sadly
I think you are correct.

154

SanFranciscoZionist Tue, May 5, 2009 1:12:26pm

re: #114 quickjustice

Likely Taliban targets for a Pakistani nuke:

1. New Delhi
2. Kabul
3. Washington, D.C.
4. Tel Aviv

Any others?

Mumbai, Kolkata--I suspect they'd hit financial centers, before ND.

155

opnion Tue, May 5, 2009 1:12:31pm

re: #133 jcm

IMHO the media died in 'Nam.

Between 'Nam, and Watergate, the media have been too full of themselves by far.

The thing that people forget about Viet Nam is that it started out as a popular war. It went on tool ong & the media became very anti war & actually anti U.S troops. At one point no accusation was too vile or far fetched for them to make, "it is a war for oil."

156

aggieann Tue, May 5, 2009 1:12:34pm

re: #87 Shug

Serious question:

Is Pakistan anywhere near Pah-kee-stahn?

Not as the invisible unicorns fly.

157

Fenway_Nation Tue, May 5, 2009 1:13:15pm

Happy Cinco de cinco everyone!

On that happy note, I guess I should get out there and find me another job.

158

FurryOldGuyJeans Tue, May 5, 2009 1:14:04pm

re: #137 debutaunt

Government has to stop spending. California will lead the way for the US to see what happens if they refuse.

California voters approved Prop 13 in 1978, so all hope is not lost.

159

Last Mohican Tue, May 5, 2009 1:14:31pm

re: #104 unrealizedviewpoint

The 64K question is: Is Obama capable of striking preemptively if necessary?

I've been considering your question. I think the answer is that he has already done about as much as he's going to do about Pakistan, in that he has been willing to overlook our differences with them and pronounce their name with an authentic Urdu accent.

160

Kenneth Tue, May 5, 2009 1:14:50pm

Do Pakistan's leaders lack an instinct for survival?

This week, President Barack Obama declared that he was "gravely concerned" about the stability of Pakistan's government. And with good reason. As Obama expressed his concerns, ... the Pakistani Army was engaged in heavy combat with Taliban forces near the town of Ambala, just 60 miles from Islamabad. After previously ignoring the Taliban's seizure of Buner district, the seemingly passive-aggressive Pakistani government responded with airstrikes and helicopter gunship attacks against several Taliban-held villages.

U.S. officials seem baffled by a Pakistani government that does not appear to take the Taliban threat very seriously. When the Pakistani Army finally does move, its response frequently includes artillery and airstrikes against Taliban forces mixed into civilian areas, a highly questionable counterinsurgency tactic.

On April 23, David Kilcullen, one of Gen. David Petraeus's top counterinsurgency advisors in Iraq ...testified on the situation to the House Armed Services Committee, which is considering a bill to increase aid to Pakistan. Kilcullen unloaded a broadside on the Pakistani government for its incompetence and duplicity. After reviewing a long list of government failures and Taliban successes, Kilcullen summed up with this scathing assertion:

Suffice to say that there is overwhelming evidence of:

* a Pakistani civilian government that does not control its own national security establishment,

* security services that have been complicit in allowing the takeover of parts of the country by militants,

* direct or indirect sponsorship of international terrorism by elements of the Pakistani national security establishment,

* ongoing support by the same national security establishment for insurgents who are killing Americans in Afghanistan, and

* a militant movement that is growing in reach and intensity week by week.

This has occurred during the same time period when we have given the Pakistani military $10 billion dollars for what this bill describes as "invaluable" assistance and partnership against extremism and terrorism. U.S. officials, including members of Congress contemplating foreign-aid requests, should not assume that the Pakistani government, or at least significant parts of it, are allied with the United States and its interests. Some measure of duplicity has always been a feature of international alliances, but the Pakistani government's seemingly casual indifference to the Taliban's progress toward Islamabad appears completely illogical.

161

Idle Drifter Tue, May 5, 2009 1:15:08pm

re: #102 Russkilitlover

You're not suggesting air-raiding villages, are you?

Last resorts have a high cost in human lives. It may come down to weighing the human cost of preventing the Taliban from attaining nuclear weapons and/or the means of producing them versuses the Taliban having nuclear weapons and the world having to watch for and hopefully prevent (kill) a nuclear suicide bomber. I quake for the future.

162

debutaunt Tue, May 5, 2009 1:15:09pm

re: #143 alegrias

* * * *
Jeez, we already have your California delegation, Pelosi, ruining our country as she tells Obama how to bankrupt the whole country as she did California.

She's a piece of work. The upside of all this is everyone can preview what happens when government evades its responsibility and we end up eating the seeds instead of planting. It is all stunningly frightening.

163

ladycatnip Tue, May 5, 2009 1:16:14pm

OT: Some threads down there was a wonderfully intelligent debate going on about the dangers of secular mind control vs creationist mind control. Here's an articulate article that spells out the danger of being coerced to walk in lockstep worship of the One, entitled, Denied: The Bigotry of the Obamatrons.

164

Eowyn2 Tue, May 5, 2009 1:16:21pm

re: #144 Honorary Yooper

And in a shipping container, it could go anywhere. Only a percentage of them get inspected at customs, and then by rail, they could wind up as far in as Chicago, Minneapolis, Omaha, Kansas City, etc. It's scary that it could wind up anywhere.

We need to keep these out of the hands of the Taliban.

How big is their arsenal?
I think that, Islamists being Islamists, they are going to try to prove they are the 'correct' Islamists by getting rid of the 'other' Islamists first. I think they would go for the magic kingdom and attempt some major havoc there first. Coup to oust the thousands of royal family members.

165

jcm Tue, May 5, 2009 1:16:28pm

re: #155 opnion

The thing that people forget about Viet Nam is that it started out as a popular war. It went on tool ong & the media became very anti war & actually anti U.S troops. At one point no accusation was too vile or far fetched for them to make, "it is a war for oil."

It went on too long because we decided not to win.

We the decision was made in DC to fight to a draw.

Never, ever fight for a draw. Fight to win, or not at all.

Especially after Tet, we could have sweep the field.

In the words of that racist bastard and tactical genius, N. B. Forrest:
"Get 'em skeered and keep the skeer on 'em"

166

SanFranciscoZionist Tue, May 5, 2009 1:16:50pm

re: #147 Russkilitlover

Lots of Guac and carne asada tacos at my place tonight....come on by!

Mmmm......

167

VioletTiger Tue, May 5, 2009 1:17:12pm

I worry that the Taliban has operatives inside the Pakistani government and there would be no need for an outright attack. They are already in. I hope I am wrong.

168

debutaunt Tue, May 5, 2009 1:17:13pm

re: #158 FurryOldGuyJeans

California voters approved Prop 13 in 1978, so all hope is not lost.

The politicians immediately tried to undo it.

169

ointmentfly Tue, May 5, 2009 1:18:09pm

re: #137 debutaunt
re: #159 Last Mohican

Obama is HOPEful that the Taliban with CHANGE and morph into a gaggle of black turban wearing barbershop quartets.

170

quickjustice Tue, May 5, 2009 1:18:21pm

If Pakistan falls, it completely outflanks U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and threatens the entire Middle East. I think Obama evacuates U.S. forces from the region. How can we defend our guys from a Pakistani nuke if Obama won't retaliate? Our missile defense in Europe isn't ready, and Obama is preparing to shelve it.

171

Eowyn2 Tue, May 5, 2009 1:18:59pm

I have to work now

172

shiplord kirel Tue, May 5, 2009 1:20:07pm

This talk of Pakistan's large and well-equipped army reminds me of a video clip I saw during the days before the overthrow of the Shah of Iran. Keep in mind that the Shah also had a large and well-equipped military, better than Pakistan's in many respects in fact.
A CBS crew spotted a group of Iranian soldiers confronting a mob of Khomeini rioters on the streets of Tehran. The latter were throwing rocks and bottles. One soldier ran forward and struck a mullah in the face with a rifle butt. At that point, another soldier shot him in the back and he and the rest of the squad joined the rioters, much to the CBS guy's delight and approval.

173

Nevergiveup Tue, May 5, 2009 1:20:38pm

re: #152 quickjustice

Negev Nuclear Research still there?

They only make widgets there

174

Bob Dillon Tue, May 5, 2009 1:20:52pm

re: #144 Honorary Yooper

And in a shipping container, it could go anywhere. Only a percentage of them get inspected at customs, and then by rail, they could wind up as far in as Chicago, Minneapolis, Omaha, Kansas City, etc. It's scary that it could wind up anywhere.

We need to keep these out of the hands of the Taliban.

They don't need to enter port. Lay off the coast several hundred miles or more and fire it for an air burst and EMP:

emp: America's Achilles' Heel
by Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
President, Center for Security Policy

If Osama bin Laden - or the dictators of North Korea or Iran - could destroy America as a twenty-first century society and superpower, would they be tempted to try? Given their track records and stated hostility to the United States, we have to operate on the assumption that they would. That assumption would be especially frightening if this destruction could be accomplished with a single attack involving just one relatively small-yield nuclear weapon - and if the nature of the attack would mean that its perpetrator might not be immediately or easily identified.

Unfortunately, such a scenario is not far-fetched. According to a report issued last summer by a blue-ribbon, Congressionally-mandated commission, a single specialized nuclear weapon delivered to an altitude of a few hundred miles over the United States by a ballistic missile would be "capable of causing catastrophe for the nation." The source of such a cataclysm might be considered the ultimate "weapon of mass destruction" (WMD) - yet it is hardly ever mentioned in the litany of dangerous wmds we face today. It is known as electromagnetic pulse (EMP).

[Link: www.windsofchange.net...]

175

Spare O'Lake Tue, May 5, 2009 1:21:02pm

“I don’t think that’s going to happen,” said Adm. Mike Mullen. “I don’t see that in any way imminent whatsoever at this particular point in time.”

Yeah right, ~~asshole~~ Admiral, Sir.

176

jvic Tue, May 5, 2009 1:21:02pm

re: #61 Sharmuta

Like Israel being left to deal with iran, I fear the Indians will have to deal with pakistan. Unless 0bama wants to make good on his campaign rhetoric to invade pakistan and piss off his base- this is going to come down to the Indian military to deal with.

IMO China cannot be left out of the calculations. India is their strategic rival so the Chinese traditionally have backed Pakistan. On the other hand, they have at least one rebellious Muslim minority--and I don't know how porous the China-Pakistan border is.

177

opnion Tue, May 5, 2009 1:21:26pm

re: #122 Cicero05

Pakistan's missiles are short to medium range only, according to Wikipedia, so there isn't a missile threat to the U.S. But a fission weapon doesn't necessarily have to arrive on a missile. A van or shipping container would work too.

Exactly.

178

OldLineTexan Tue, May 5, 2009 1:22:40pm

re: #172 shiplord kirel

This talk of Pakistan's large and well-equipped army reminds me of a video clip I saw during the days before the overthrow of the Shah of Iran. Keep in mind that the Shah also had a large and well-equipped military, better than Pakistan's in many respects in fact.
A CBS crew spotted a group of Iranian soldiers confronting a mob of Khomeini rioters on the streets of Tehran. The latter were throwing rocks and bottles. One soldier ran forward and struck a mullah in the face with a rifle butt. At that point, another soldier shot him in the back and he and the rest of the squad joined the rioters, much to the CBS guy's delight and approval.

Not to mention the well-provisioned and unmanned guardshacks that provided free top-grade weaponry to the "revolutionaries" when the shit really hit the fan. I worked with a guy that almost didn't make it out; a rioter was furiously jamming a 9mm magazine into a 7.62mm rifle.

179

quickjustice Tue, May 5, 2009 1:25:42pm

re: #176 jvic

Good point. I'm not sure China wants fanatic Muslim extremists in charge of the Pakistani government and its nuclear arsenal. Those extremists will give the Chinese a major headache as well.

180

Idle Drifter Tue, May 5, 2009 1:26:05pm

re: #178 OldLineTexan

Not to mention the well-provisioned and unmanned guardshacks that provided free top-grade weaponry to the "revolutionaries" when the shit really hit the fan. I worked with a guy that almost didn't make it out; a rioter was furiously jamming a 9mm magazine into a 7.62mm rifle.

Luck is often with the man who doesn't include it in his plans. Plus it helps if your would be killer is a complete idiot.

181

ointmentfly Tue, May 5, 2009 1:27:13pm

re: #175 Spare O'Lake

I personally think Mullen is full of shit about not knowing where Pakistan has its nukes. Why would he volunteer that information? Wouldn't we want them to atleast think we know where every last one is? He is putting that information out as some kind of counterintelligence maneuver.

182

Gumby Tue, May 5, 2009 1:27:39pm

re: #118 Leonidas Hoplite

Yes because they have to feed their egos.

In that case I think a mega-size would be in order..... that way we would know FOR SURE the economy had bottomed out and is preparing for an unprecidented leap back to 1999-2000 levels of balanced budget and economic prosperity never before experienced.... /////

183

FurryOldGuyJeans Tue, May 5, 2009 1:27:44pm

re: #168 debutaunt

The politicians immediately tried to undo it.

Yes, but for a number of years the political ruling class was circumspect about willy-nilly raising taxes.

184

jvic Tue, May 5, 2009 1:37:32pm

I never understood the timing of our pressure on Musharraf to step aside. That said, the middle of a crisis is the worst time for the blame game.
******************
Benazir Bhutto had a reputation for corruption, but she had guts. I'm not sure her current successors have guts.

re: #160 Kenneth

Some measure of duplicity has always been a feature of international alliances, but the Pakistani government's seemingly casual indifference to the Taliban's progress toward Islamabad appears completely illogical.

It's not illogical if the Pakistani elite views the country as an entity to be plundered. It's not illogical if Pakistani assets have been transferred to foreign accounts registered to government officials.

185

Kenneth Tue, May 5, 2009 1:43:58pm

re: #184 jvic

Another perfect Islamic Republic!

186

Render Tue, May 5, 2009 1:45:32pm

Lemme know when Pakistani can prove that it actually has a functional operational nuke weapon.

Otherwise...

FIZZLE,
R

187

UFO TOFU Tue, May 5, 2009 1:45:44pm

re: #168 debutaunt

The politicians immediately tried to undo it.

Did you see this?

188

funky chicken Tue, May 5, 2009 1:46:11pm

I'd guess that the Chinese and perhaps the Indians know lots about Pakistani nukes, and I'd guess we know plenty too. Hopefully the 3 of us can work together when required.

And Adm Mullen ain't gonna go on TV and say what or how much we know.

189

Preptile Tue, May 5, 2009 1:48:45pm

As noted at this site last week Pakistan's keeper of the nuclear keys
used to head up their ISI .Of course that same group enabled and funded
their taleban proxies for years ,while Pakistan and Saudi Arabia
recognized them as Afghanistan's legitimate rulers .
Now Karzai announces a VP candidate from JI ,another infamous proxy .
A double game of jihad dominoes is being played here ,
and we are falling for it like suckers . We are even funding it .
Building schools is truly noble and great long term strategy .
It overlooks the immediate problems of coeds under acid attack tho ,
by those ill inclined to allow women out of the house .
The problem supporting Islamic republics is that their inclinations
towards sharia law breed contempt for the civil variety and all the
accompanying civil rights for infidels ,women, and Jews that come with .
Our error , and Obama's opportunity , is to cast this overseas contingency operation as a battle for equal rights for those named above .
It could be a great victory for CIVILization .
Those wishing to preserve that sort of thing might consider
acting now before the mullahs drag us all into a nuclear WWIII .

190

Alberta Oil Peon Tue, May 5, 2009 1:49:16pm

re: #71 lawhawk

Pakistan may be a nation of 170+ million and has a significant standing army, but if the army is literally standing around while the Taliban are busy invading Pakistan proper from the frontier provinces, then the size of the military doesn't matter. There is no political will in the Pakistani government to actually stop the Taliban, which means that the Taliban will continue advancing until such time that the Taliban choose to stop.

I suspect we may yet see a military coup in Pakistan. If it is not an Islamist coup, it might be the best possible outcome. I hope Indian intelligence has its tentacles into the Pak military with a view to inciting/supporting a coup by secular or moderate members of the military.

191

Kenneth Tue, May 5, 2009 1:50:11pm

re: #186 Render

Done.

192

Bob Dillon Tue, May 5, 2009 1:50:37pm

re: #188 funky chicken

I'd guess that the Chinese and perhaps the Indians know lots about Pakistani nukes, and I'd guess we know plenty too. Hopefully the 3 of us can work together when required.

And Adm Mullen ain't gonna go on TV and say what or how much we know.

Let us remember that ~2 weeks before the Pak nuclear test the Indians not only knew about it but had published that it would happen in a journal. India has more spies on the ground in Pak than we appreciate.

193

Kenneth Tue, May 5, 2009 1:51:37pm

re: #190 Alberta Oil Peon

Problem is, if there is a coup, we won't necessarily know if it is lead by nationalists or stealth Islamists.

194

dadog Tue, May 5, 2009 1:54:41pm

No problem the BIG 'O' will just have us all hold hands and talk the nukes away

195

Alberta Oil Peon Tue, May 5, 2009 2:10:00pm

re: #193 Kenneth

Problem is, if there is a coup, we won't necessarily know if it is lead by nationalists or stealth Islamists.

Well, if it's the latter, all it does is speed up the current trend there. Instead of Pakistan becoming a de facto Al Qaeda state in months, it would be weeks. But a coup led by some of the more secular or Westernized military types could possibly turn things around. But if such a junta did seize power, they would have to be absolutely ruthless to hang onto it.

196

astronmr20 Tue, May 5, 2009 2:46:37pm

re: #19 Kosh's Shadow

I just hope India is taking action, because I don't think the US will.

I hope it does not come to that and here's why;

The rivalry and bitter history between these two countries makes it nearly impossible for India to do anything permanent there without a huge backlash and the resulting galvanization of Pakistan's factions and forces against India, leading to some serious warfare.. no matter the reason for India's involvement.

Even if India were to make a surgical strike or even temporarily hold a site, it would never work.

On the other hand, in general, Pakistan will more or less "take it's spankings" from the US and deal with it. I.E; the actions against the Taliban in the north, the reimbursements and financial aid from the US to help with terrorism, etc.

With India, it wouldn't matter how dire the circumstances were; Pakistanis are to "reactive" to any sort of Indian involvement whatsoever. Remember, the average Pakistani seems to blame india for 11/26 as a "false flag" operation. Disgusting.

No; if things get fucked up there, it will be the US bailing out the world. Again.

197

Spamageddon Tue, May 5, 2009 2:49:34pm

re: #40 MandyManners

I'm a newbie thanks to Charles opening up the registration yesterday (thank you). I have seen this from MM and I have wanted to up-ding every time and now I can. Up-ding!

198

charles_martel Tue, May 5, 2009 2:57:07pm

"Security is strong," Larssen said, "...unless there are people on the inside who are willing to work with terrorists."

Is he an idiot, or what? The FIRST thing the Taleban will do is kidnap the families of the nuclear scientists. When faced with the rape and beheading of their wives and daughters, you think they'll NOT tell them what they want to know?

We're boned.

199

astronmr20 Tue, May 5, 2009 3:09:25pm

The Reebers are closing in.

200

Mike McDaniel Tue, May 5, 2009 3:40:03pm

re: #114 quickjustice

Likely Taliban targets for a Pakistani nuke:

1. New Delhi
2. Kabul
3. Washington, D.C.
4. Tel Aviv

Any others?

All of the above. Add Bagdhad, possibly Bahrain (5th Fleet HQ), London, and New York. Pakistan isn't North Korea, they have at least a dozen nuclear weapons.

This could get coyote-ugly, folks. If it looks like the Taliban is about to get their hands on nukes, it'll be a race between the U.S., India, and Israel to destroy them.

Which will trigger a general war in the Mideast.

201

Colin Nelson Tue, May 5, 2009 6:24:37pm

Where is Gen Musharif when we need him?

He was the only one capable of dealing with the ISI Taliban element in the Army.

Yet another seed of our self destruction.

202

matthew_db Tue, May 5, 2009 6:36:47pm

re: #85 Cicero05

I think the threat goes well beyond a dirty bomb. We're talking about real thermonuclear weapons.

Pakistan doesn't have thermonuclear weapons, at least that we know about. We're talking 40kt at the tops.

Not that a 40kt isn't plenty bad.

203

matthew_db Tue, May 5, 2009 6:53:35pm

re: #186 Render

Lemme know when Pakistani can prove that it actually has a functional operational nuke weapon.

Otherwise...

FIZZLE,
R

Pakistan has detonated 2 weapons with a yield over 10kt.

204

Render Tue, May 5, 2009 8:20:09pm

re: #203 matthew_db

Are you quite sure of that?

[Link: www.fas.org...]

From 1998...

[Link: weeklywire.com...]

"The May 28 Pakistani tests were so muddled that its government, through various statements, was unable to even decide on how many bombs it exploded.

"The Pakistanis made three different announcements on how many devices they tested," Wallace notes. "They don't have an official story that anybody can vet." He says that however many they blew up, the yield was only a total of 9-12 kT, nowhere near the stated 30-35 kT. The May 30 test was probably 4-6 kT.

"You have to ask the question, 'what do you gain from this?' " Wallace says. "Going back to the May 11 test, you have to ask, was this a thermonuclear device? At 12-18 kT, you may still be able to have a thermonuclear device, but why would you do that? You have to look at everything that was done here through a political lens."

===

Wallace wasn't the only one questioning the veracity of the Pakistani government at the time, later Pakistani governments haven't improved their veracity rate by even one iota.

Apparently none of AQ Khan's customers have successfully tested a nuke, yet. The Chinese, who were also involved in Pakistan's nuke project, are rumored to have rushed a warhead into Pakistan after the first Pakistani tests failed. But the Chinese have reportedly had issues with the reliability of their own warheads as well. Note the controversy section of the below link.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

AQ Khans other customers are, or have been North Korea - fizzled (or was faked if one believes the French), Iran -not yet, Libya - gave it all up to W, and indirectly Syria - crushed by Israel. Not a great success rate there, however...

At this point it is in any governments best interests, (notably India, Israel, the US, and China) to just assume that the Pakistanis actually have functional nukes. For a multitude of reasons.

Most open sources state somewhere between two dozen up to sixty warheads, some sources have stated over one hundred.

As individuals we have the ability to look at all of the collected albeit scanty open source material on the subject, combined with the Pakistani government record for truth telling and make our own judgment calls.

I am convinced at this point that Pakistan doesn't have functional nuclear weapons. They probably do have a bunch of small dirty bombs suitable for air, truck, or ship delivery, but thus far they haven't convinced me that they have an actual functional nuclear weapon. Dangerous all right, but not the same.

Their seeming lack of concern with the rapid Taliban advance has only cemented this opinion of mine.

FIX
MY
PING,
R

205

Macker Tue, May 5, 2009 9:36:36pm

Sorry Admiral Mullen. Don't ever say never. If the Alpha-Qs ever get their hands on Pocky-stawwwns nukes, it'll be curtains for the entire Islamic world.

206

eddie- the Aggravator Tue, May 5, 2009 10:10:39pm

The Taliban take over of Pakistan is imminent despite President Obama's diplomacy.

That fact harbingers the next and most virulent phase of the world-wide Jihad.

What options are on the table for the Dhimmis?

207

matthew_db Wed, May 6, 2009 12:05:18am

re: #204 Render

The word "thermonuclear" means fusion bomb, AKA hydrogen bomb.

The quote is refuting that they produced a H-bomb with only 10kt yield, not that it wasn't a fission bomb.

10kt is plenty bad. That's many city blocks vaporized with significant damage for a mile.

Note that India has also had issues with getting a H-bomb to work with only a 60kt yield as their record so far.

208

eaglewingz08 Wed, May 6, 2009 9:14:36am

Democraps including Mr. Obama wanted Pres. Musharref out, and they had so weakened Mr. Bush by the end of his term there was little he could do to oppose the democrap flood. Well, Mr. Barack Dijon Obama got his wish and former Pres. Musharref may have the last laugh on the US. (Insert obligatory reference to Joe Biden's "six month international crisis" line here).

209

baslimthecripple Wed, May 6, 2009 10:46:17am

re: #207 matthew_db

Tom Clancy's The Sum of All Fears is very convincing in this regard. The uranium bombs are difficult to make from the enrichment perspective but far easier to make from a technical engineering perspective. Plutonium bombs are rather the other way around, the plutonium easily separated from reprocessed fuel rods, but the implosion difficult to effect. But if you can, then you can inject tritium into the core and make a fusion bomb. Finally, you can strap slabs of the "depleted" U238 to the outside and the high energy neutrons from the fusion reaction will fission the U238. I don't know the exact % but most of the yield from modern nuclear weapons comes from this last step.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

About Pakistan’s Nukes

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud