Pakistan

Plenty reason- likely to be bombed flat as a board, thus requiring hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts for Halliburton to rebuild it.

Hard to imagine bombing Pakistan flat.

It's also served as a back channel to China for the US in the past. It is a front line state in the war against Afghanistan (making the world safe for opium growers and warlords - but it's what my leader wants). Its origins lie in unwillingness of Muslims and Hindus to live together in peace. It sold nuclear secrets to...oh, I haven't read a newspaper in a few days....

In short, it's becoming a model modern nation state. Criticism from a citizen of ANY other state is like the pot calling the kettle black.

Phil

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ludwig:
I think this is generally correct:

- One of few nations to recognize the Taliban as a legitimate government

---

Someone had to - just to keep some check/know what they are upto.

quote:

---

- Western regions still ruled by Taliban leaders and supporters (you know, the regions bordering the area where Osama and his cronies are hiding out)

---

Not ruled, but tribal leaders in some of those areas are sympathetic to Taliban because of the anti-us satance, if it wasnt for that thed f**k them right off - no one tells those tribal folk what they can or cant do .

quote:

---

- Primary outlet for Afghanistan's heroin trade

---

Primary consumptions of that Heroin is the UK

quote:

---

]- Funded Al-Qaeda and the Taliban
[/QUOTE
No the US gave the fund to pakistan to distribute to anti-soviet groups. Its US dosh and at the end of the day.

[QUOTE] - Provided manpower for Al-Qaeda

---

many other countries too, but most from pakistan were hungry, unemployed, uneducated youngsters, But the US special forces provided the training - they were all well fed, paid and educated - whats their defence?

quote:

---

- Provided training sites for Al-Qaeda

---

not knowingly. but remember the pilots in the september 11 were trained in US pilot schools.

quote:

---

- Redirected funds from the US government to build nuclear capabilities

---

So what, should the western world be the only ones with nuclear facilities - the US are the only nation to have used nuclear weapons on people

quote:

---

- Shared nuclear technology with North Korea, Libya, and Iran

---

well one scientist, officially. but who armed saddam? UK and US.

quote:

---

- Leader enjoyed increasing friction around the Kashmir issue

---

Friction was always there, and in fact if anyone can be accused of enjoying increasing friction its UK - they parted india and pakistan leaving the two to fight it out as they high tailed it out of there.

quote:

---

- Prior to 9/11, was seen as an evil nation on the US' shit list

---

Wrong, pakistan and US have been long allies, well at least since the days of soviets in afganistan. Musharaffs coup did upset leaders, but he has shown to play US ball.

quote:

---

- Days after 9/11, sanctions lifted by the US and loans provided by the US, when its shady leader promised to fight terrorism

---

Musharaff is anything but shady - he was pakistans chief of staff, so was well known with us military, but he did need to prove himself to the US and needed the sanctions lifting for the benefit of the country, if that meant 'helping to fight terror' (whatever that means) so be it. And as anyone who knows us sanctions they are self-serving.

quote:

---

- Isn't winning the fight against fundamentalist thinking domestically

---

Whats a measure of success for that? Musharraf has implemented lots of new policies that will take time to undo years of damage. India has long stated that pakistan must take steps against state-sponsored terrorism. Pakistan have taken steps and now talks are with India. So thats as goos a sign as anything that the fight is begun to be won!

quote:

---

Houston, we have a (typical US foreign policy) problem.

---

No huston ludwig knows jack (typical message boarder) problem! US foreign policy is bad enough but spouting out stuff like this doesnt help.

In this case, most of my points were sourced from a best friend and his wife, both Pakistani expats now in the US and frequent visitors to Pakistan, and a handful of regional analysts and reporters on the Jim Lehrer Newshour last week. In both instances, the overall tone was/is that the situation in Pakistan is a very fragile one, with significant opposition to Musharaff, and that Taliban have significant power and influence in the western area (rule was a poor word choice).

You're correct in regards to the pre-9/11 relation. There were simply sanctions, not shit list inclusion.

Oh, if you're saying that Pakistan or any unstable state has the same right to nuclear capabilities as that of a stable government, that's crazy-talk.

[This message was edited by Ludwig on FRIDAY 06 February 2004 at 03:50.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ludwig:

Oh, if you're saying that Pakistan or any unstable state has the same right to nuclear capabilities as that of a stable government, that's crazy-talk.

[This message was edited by Ludwig on FRIDAY 06 February 2004 at 03:50.]

---

I agree with this.

Judd

I say it again, US is the ONLY country to have actually used nuclear weapons!! Yes pakistan is unstable, but it aint used them on people - so dont get into this paranioa about 'unstable' countries having nukes - the paranoia of middle america is of far more concern to world security than anything else. Pakistan has shown itself to be by-enlarge a responsible nuclear power. As for the testing that india and pakistan did, well so did France - are they too unstable?

Ludwig I suggest you print off my reply to your comments and pass them onto your friends. I tend to find expats often removed from whats really going in any country, not all a fault of their own but more because the opinions given to them can be too extreme, people either want to tell them all is good or all is bad. Least said about journalists the better - US media esp.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Haroon:
I say it again, US is the ONLY country to have actually used nuclear weapons!!

---

This is true, and carries with it a lot of rhetorical value, but it has little currency beyond that. The question is whether in today's geopolitical climate, are nuclear weapons safer from possible use when in the hands of stable governments or unstable governments? It's fine if you think that Packastan has a stable government. I'll not pass judgement. But the basic argument is still a valid one. For whatever reason, one feels safer when only stable governments have nuclear weapons.

Judd

Haroon, my friend would likely laugh at your comments. He's very close to the situation, via a month spent in Pakistan at the end of 2003, a wife who was a permanent resident there through May 2002, a mom who spends probably 40% of her time there at the side of an ailing relative, and lifelong friends in the business and academic communities there.

Pakistan is definitely unstable, and we need to keep a closer eye on its inner-workings, especially in regards to the MMA (which in fact does rule 2 provinces, according to an email I saved), the clerics, and Musharraf's opposition.

Of course, friends and their wives have no credibility, moms tell only lies, and lifelong friends can't be trusted.

All civilised nations are already committed to non-proliferation and should be working towards reducing and eliminating nuclear weapons. Ideally Pakistan would not have a bomb but then ideally neither would the US, the UK, France, etc. To say "we" can have the bobmb but "they" can't is ridiculous and smacks of the sort of imperialism and arrogance that has marred US foreign policy for as long as anyone can remember.

With regard to Pakistan's bomb in particular it was obvious that once India had a bomb then Pakistan would get one and, in all fairness given the politics involved, it's not an unreasonable thing to do. Of course the vast majority of Indians and Pakistanis look forward to a long term stable solution to various political problems in the region a part of which will hopefully involve disarmament.

BTW It wouldn't suprise me at all if at some future time Pakistan's nuclear aresenal was funded and supported by the US if it, say, suited their needs with respect to China.

Matthew

The stability of a government seems to be a red herring, here. People may be willing to overthrow their leaders in violent coups or otherwise but it does not automatically mean they will use nuclear weapons irrationally. We may never know with certainty why the stable and democratic USA bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki but the argument that it was, above all, the first "move" in the cold war against the USSR is a chilling and compelling one.

The one thing we do know about the risk of another nuclear war is that the probability of a nuclear weapon being used is an increasing function of the number of weapons that exist and of the number of people who have the power to use them.

From that point of view, it seems perfectly logical that those who have them would want to restrict their proliferation and that those who don't have them would want them.

It doesn't seeem, to me, to be particularly useful to speak in terms of "rights" WRT nuclear weapons...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
BTW It wouldn't suprise me at all if at some future time Pakistan's nuclear aresenal was funded and supported by the US if it, say, suited their needs with respect to China.

---

I cannot think of any remotely plausible scenario that would lead to this - at least based on my limited knowledge of Pakistan and China. Would you mind elaborating on this a little, Matthew?

I must admit that, despite being depressed and finding it difficult to conceive of my own future being a happy one, I have an optimistic picture of a future world that, thanks to globalisation*, is stabler, more equal, more closely integrated and [dare I say it?] happier.

<Ducks to avoid accusations of naivety>.

* I won't say it. I shouldn't need to...

"I cannot think of any remotely plausible scenario that would lead to this"

On, I dunno, suppose a future Pakistani government wanted nuclear aid in exchange for allowing the US to build a pipeline through Pakistan from the central Aisian oilfields thus squeezing China out of access to this strategic resource.

But my point was more that the US would have no problems with an "unstable" country like Pakistan having nuclear weapons if it suited their purposes.

Matthew

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:


But my point was more that the US would have no problems with an "unstable" country like Pakistan having nuclear weapons if it suited their purposes.

Matthew

---

This is idle speculation induced by general averace. Perhaps a more plausable scenario included nuclear-related aid to Pakistan in return for verifiable controls on those facilties. Doesn't seem so insane to me. I find it interesting that although you seem to be perfectly aware that the US, UK, France etc. have nuclear weapons, all of your exmaples of "greed trumping non-proliferation" involve the US only. You must be under the impression that the UK and France have no problem with the notion of a nuclear Iran, Pakistan, etc. Try to be a bit more circumspect.

Judd

All civilised nations are already committed to non-proliferation and should be working towards reducing and eliminating nuclear weapons.

It's not the outright use of nukes by nations I see as unstable that worries me, it's the trading of that technology by leadership to those "down with the cause" (of Al-Qaeda) that worries me.

Regardless, Matthew picked up my initial point which is the US has an age-old habit of overlooking significant long-term issues in favor of some short-term initiative. IMO that always bites the US in the ass, and in the case of Pakistan it has already.

PS- Some might have mistaken my joke with Alex G about bombing Pakistan (bad taste) for a serious opinion, but that's not the case. I'm a peace-loving fella, and just like everyone else, playing armchair diplomat and trying to maintain an ear-to-ear grin as much as possible. If my comment about bombing Pakistan was misunderstood and offended anyone, you have my apology.

Perhaps it would help if you gave a more balanced view on your opinions. Listing some bad points about one country and then just saying another country will have problems with it is a simplistic, un-intelligent proposition.

You could have taken a few steps further and given us counter-views like i did and then go on to explain why you think US foriegn policy is flawed. Its not asking too much is it? Just look at Mathews and Jeremys posts here - good stuff.

To answer your question:

Yes, that is asking too much.

Regarding Pakistan's nuclear capability, I am 90% sure that I read somewhere or other that there are protocols in place for the USA to seize Pakistan's nukes in the event that that current regime is toppled by a fundamental islamic revolution. This may well be absolute rubbish and I'd like to know whether anyone here knows anything more about this. Perhaps I dreamt it...??!
Simon

I had to chuckle reading that post, not because I'm doubting what you suggest, but I was picturing Rumsfeld and company marching into an overthrown Pakistan with a permission slip to seize the nukes and the conversations with Islamic extremists that would follow.

I have not read this. But I would have guessed that the USA (and probably a whole host of other nations) has contingency plans for any number of events that might take place all over the world - some of which no doubt include seizing military instalations in the event of the fall of certain governments.

I would also GUESS that these contigency plans run the gambit from fairly benign positions (send delegation to the region) to extreme positions (full scale invasion-marshal law, etc.) and that the particular political climate extant during the "event" determines (in part) which action will take place.

The question is, SHOULD the US have contingency plans in the event, for instance, that PM is assasinated?


Judd

On one hand, Ludwig, you criticise nations like Pakistan for their 'instability' and, er, 'shadiness'.

On the other, it seems every other thing you post criticises your own, 'stable' Government -particularly for trying to intervene to try to control or influence the situation.

Which would you prefer?

Tim

Lighten up Jones. You read way too much into my post. I simply imagined Rummy and clan asking a bunch of radicals for permission to seize their nukes, in a cartoonish satire sort of way. Great SNL TV Funhouse material, don't you think?

PS- I assume you either exclusively criticize your own government but not others, or vice versa?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Haroon:
I say it again, US is the ONLY country to have actually used nuclear weapons!!

---

The question is whether in today's geopolitical climate, are nuclear weapons safer from possible use when in the hands of stable governments or unstable governments? It's fine if you think that Packastan has a stable government. I'll not pass judgement. But the basic argument is still a valid one. For whatever reason, one feels safer when only stable governments have nuclear weapons.

Judd

---

I missed this by first time around. To consider whether its should be stable OR unstable countries to have nukes, is missing the real base point here and that is whetther its okay for the US to create unstable countries in the first place. For a moment here let the stable countries have the nukes, but then what happens when these stable countries dont agree with US policy/economics - the US will undermine them and create situations of unstableness or further unstable countries that are struggling so they never will become stable.

quote:

---

This is true, and carries with it a lot of rhetorical value, but it has little currency beyond that

---

Tell that to the japanese - I couldnt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justin:

The question is whether in today's geopolitical climate, are nuclear weapons safer from possible use when in the hands of stable governments or unstable governments? It's fine if you think that Packastan has a stable government. I'll not pass judgement. But the basic argument is still a valid one. For whatever reason, one feels safer when only stable governments have nuclear weapons.

Judd

---

I missed this by first time around. To consider whether its should be stable OR unstable countries to have nukes, is missing the real base point here and that is whetther its okay for the US to create unstable countries in the first place. For a moment here let the stable countries have the nukes, but then what happens when these stable countries dont agree with US policy/economics - the US will undermine them and create situations of unstableness or further unstable countries that are struggling so they never will become stable. So for whatever reason I would feel safer if the US were not the only superpower and change its foriegn policy.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Haroon:
I say it again, US is the ONLY country to have actually used nuclear weapons!!

---

This is true, and carries with it a lot of rhetorical value, but it has little currency beyond that

---

Tell that to the japanese - I couldnt.

I stick by my original position.

In an argument with a Japanese person about whether stable or unstable governments should possess nuclear weapons, I would have no trouble suggesting that only stable governments should have them. My guess is that even the Japanese would prefer that the US, rather than, say, Iran, have nuclear weapons.

What do you think, Haroon? You're not Japanese, but you'll do. Feel safer with only the US having nuclear weapons, or with, say, Iran or Syria having nuclear weapons? Remember, The US is the only country to have ever used one (and, BTW, is one of the few to rule out a "first use" in the future). Be honest now. Safer with the US or with Syria/Iran (or even NK, though I don't think the issue with them in stable government, per se)?

If your honest answer is that you just assume Syria as the US, I'll concede this argument. You be the final judge.

Here's something to chew on in the meantime. Something for debate: Is "total" non-proliferation inherently more safe than, say, one country maintaining a nuclear capability. I'd feel quite safe if every country on the planet denounced nuclear weapons, pledged to destroy what weapons they had, and promised not to develop anymore. But I'd feel safer still if, instead, all nuclear power were vested in one country (say, the UK or France) as a universal deterent. Otherwise, what deters nuclear development?

Just a theory. I'm still working on it.

Judd