TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Pakistan,Masharraf, CIA,nukes, HILLARY CLINTON?!?!

Pakistan,Masharraf, CIA,nukes, HILLARY CLINTON?!?!

Well, the CIA might have a free hand in covert operations in Pakistan, without Pakistani permission. BUT, Masharaff has just now said, if the government wants to impeach him, or launch a coup, that he would immediatly resign from office. I think the man actually has some sense! He knows when his time is up, and that's now! Good man

Also, the Pakistani gov't railed against Hillary Clinton for proposing to send US or British teams in to "safeguard" Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. HILLARY CLINTON!?

And guess who is the monkey in the room is!? THOSE FUCKIN LITTLE MILITANTS!! Always blowing themselves up for the virgins. They are just gonna make an already complicated mess worse by provoking someone.

I really hope nobody at the top is thinking about going to war with Pakistan AND Iran...

quote:

Pakistan warns against unilateral action on rebels By Sanjeev Miglani 2 hours, 11 minutes ago SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has said any unilateral action by U.S.-led coalition forces against militants in the border region with Afghanistan will be regarded as an invasion, a newspaper reported on Friday. Musharraf told Singapore's The Straits Times that Islamabad will resist any entry by coalition forces in the tribal areas to hunt down Islamic militants, regarding that as a breach of Pakistan's sovereignty. "I challenge anybody coming into our mountains. They would regret the day," he told the newspaper in an interview conducted in the garrison city of Rawalpindi. Musharraf also told the newspaper he would resign if a government that emerged from elections, now scheduled for next month, sought his impeachment. Pakistan has been under pressure from Washington to stamp out al Qaeda and pro-Taliban militants U.S. officials believe are hiding in remote regions along the border with Afghanistan and fomenting violence there. The New York Times said earlier this month the U.S. government was considering expanding the authority of the CIA and the military to conduct aggressive covert operations in Pakistan. Pakistan officials dismissed the report at the time and said Islamabad would not permit any such action. Musharraf also criticized U.S. Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton's proposal to deploy a U.S., and possibly a British, team to safeguard Pakistan's nuclear assets. Her statement, Musharraf said, was an "intrusion into our privacy, into our sensitivity ... She doesn't seem to understand how well-guarded these assets are." International concern about the safety of Pakistan's nuclear weapons has been increasing, and earlier this week, Mohamed Elbaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, was quoted as saying he feared the nuclear arsenal could pass into the hands of extremists. Musharraf is also under fire at home. The Pakistan People's Party led by Benazir Bhutto until her assassination last month has been attacking him over her killing while Nawaz Sharif, another former premier, has demanded his immediate resignation and the formation of an all-party government to conduct free and fair elections. "If impeachment were their intention and they don't want to go along in a harmonious manner, I would like to quit the scene," Musharraf said when asked what would happen if Bhutto's party emerged a winner in the elections and mounted a bid to oust him with the support of Sharif's party. "If that happens, let me assure you that I would be leaving office before they would do anything."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080111...an_musharraf_dc

I cant believe Hillarty actually said that.Is she trying to hint us about her plans in the future if she becomes the president?

Erm Hilary Clinton isn't the President yet right? So on what grounds exactly is she promising a British team being sent to safeguard Pakistan's nuclear sites?!

Also, why exactly does she think Pakistan's nuclear arsenal needs "safeguarding" anyway? Doesn't she think that maybe, just maybe, the Pakistani government thought it might be a good idea to safeguard them anyway?! Militants have been sniffing round Pakistan for around 20 years, and Pakistan have had nukes all that time. Also it might be possible to hide a suicide bomb under your dress, but a half ton nuclear payload? Come on someone's gonna see that!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Erm Hilary Clinton isn't the President yet right? So on what grounds exactly is she promising a British team being sent to safeguard Pakistan's nuclear sites?!

Proposing, not promising.

My guess is that if it looked like an Islamist regime were going to sieze power in Pakistan the US (and others) would be launching air strikes on all known nuclear intallations faster then you can say Allah Akbar.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Proposing, not promising. My guess is that if it looked like an Islamist regime were going to sieze power in Pakistan the US (and others) would be launching air strikes on all known nuclear intallations faster then you can say Allah Akbar.

I think missile silos are designed with air strikes in mind...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I think missile silos are designed with air strikes in mind...

I'm sure they are; however, it's likely that they would try nonetheless.... throw down a few hundred bunker busters to try and limit the nuclear capability (silos, manufacturing facilities, control facilities, other infrastructure). Try and disrupt things long enough to get boots on the ground. You know damned well that the US would not sit back and let a fundamentalist friendly regime get a hold of nuclear weapons.

It's just jawboning.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I think missile silos are designed with air strikes in mind...

I don't think nuclear missiles in these countries are in such a state of readiness. I read somewhere that atleast in India, most of the war heads are disassembled but can be assembled quickly and deployed within days if needed.

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M I don't think nuclear missiles in these countries are in such a state of readiness. I read somewhere that atleast in India, most of the war heads are disassembled but can be assembled quickly and deployed within days if needed.

Fair point. I did a little search and it appears that although Pakistan does have missile silos, the missiles sited there are not nuclear. However, should the need arise, I'm not sure how much effort it would take to either install nuclear warheads in them or simply swap them for missiles that do carry nuclear warheads

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I'm sure they are; however, it's likely that they would try nonetheless.... throw down a few hundred bunker busters to try and limit the nuclear capability (silos, manufacturing facilities, control facilities, other infrastructure). Try and disrupt things long enough to get boots on the ground. You know damned well that the US would not sit back and let a fundamentalist friendly regime get a hold of nuclear weapons.

Bunker busters cannot destroy missile silos. My former lecturer, who is an expert in strategic studies (particularly Cold War military strategy) said that you would need approximately 3 direct hits by a nuclear bomb on a silo to destroy it. America flirted around the idea of creating nuclear bunker busters (the so-called "mini-nukes") but the plan was abandoned in 2006 - but even these would probably not be able to destroy a missile silo

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Bunker busters cannot destroy missile silos. My former lecturer, who is an expert in strategic studies (particularly Cold War military strategy) said that you would need approximately 3 direct hits by a nuclear bomb on a silo to destroy it. America flirted around the idea of creating nuclear bunker busters (the so-called "mini-nukes") but the plan was abandoned in 2006 - but even these would probably not be able to destroy a missile silo

You're assuming that Pakistani silo standards are equal to NATO and Warsaw Pact installations (note, I don't know if they are or not). Regardless, there is a lot more then silos to be targeted. Additionally, I'm not advocating this type of action, mearly pointing out that it would be the probable American response to Pakistan being taken over by persons the US deems enemies. It ay be entirely ineffectual; however, it seems probable to me that they would do it just the same.

Ahh, mutually assured destruction becomes a reality once again.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.