Benazir Bhutto is dead

[Phantasee]

I'm sorry if I'm being a dick, but when my father told me this morning, I thought it was amusing that they made sure they got her with a shooting and a bombing.

Getting it right the second time, eh?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The Atomic Clock has just moved much closer to midnight. As soon as they repeat this success on Musharraf, things will get very, very hot on the subcontinent. A country with a nuclear arsenal exploding into total anarchy and chaos in a place with plenty of Muslims as crazy as their Hindu counterpart who killed himself a couple days ago over a religious point, as per that other thread. And they'll have four or five dozen nuclear-tipped missiles. There will be a very interesting, three-hour long war soon enough.

[Darth Wong]

Would you want to be in New York or London if that strike goes wrong?

How exactly would NYC and London be threatened immediately if the strikes went wrong?

They wouldn't necessarily be threatened immediately, but when the shit hits the fan, it is best not to be involved.

Unfortunately, the American media has spent the last 6 years telling every American that every Muslim "hates our freedoms" and will use any opportunity to take them away. More realistically, they have plenty of other things to be angry about which are much closer to home, and from our perspective, it would be best not to be involved.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Would you want to be in New York or London if that strike goes wrong?

Don't be an idiot. Pakistan lacks the delivery vehicles to reach either of those targets, while conventional terrorist attacks don't require nuclear material.

Pakistan may lack military delivery vehicles with direct capacity to deliver to target, but such weapons could be sold to other countries that have them. Or "vehicles" could be obtained. If the crew doesn't mind dying (and history shows that there are such people) you wouldn't need a military bomber - just a conventional ship, truck, or airplane to transport the device elsewhere, get close to the target, and detonate. Really, think "truck bomb" with the word "nuclear" in front of it.

On top of that, while terrorist attacks don't require nuclear material the "dirty bomb" scenario has been bandied about much these past few years and there's nothing like some weapons grade nuclear isotopes to really mess up the landscape. For that matter, you don't need radioactive material to assassinate people, either, but it wasn't that long ago someone used some very expensive dust to kill someone in the UK, was it?

The idea of nukes falling into the wrong hands is very, very scary. What should be done about it? Well, I don't think anyone should go charging in immediately, and I would certainly prefer a global consensus of the need for intervention if such came to pass, but it would seem to be an instance where military force to secure the weapons would be justified for the safety of the world's population. My feeling is that such weapons should be secured by a power that already possess nuclear arms, and I also feel, given the situation, that it would better for those arms to go to someone other than the US to prevent rising tensions and a perception that the US would benefit from/take advantage of such a thing (from a political standpoint, Russia might be a good choice since they are not seen as a US lapdog and have a very long experience dealing with nuclear problems) though I'd expect the assholes in DC to have a differing opinion.

I can, in fact, see a possibility of the Russians acting unilaterally to secure such weapons; or India, which had a stare-down with Pakistan not too many years ago after it became clear both nations had The Bomb.

But let's hope it does not come to that.

The range of the Pakistani IRBMs allows them to hit US military bases in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean. The correct fear is that they could nuke around 100,000 US military service personnel using their existing arsenal, destroying our Diego Garcia base, our Five Fleet base in Bahrain (possibly catching several navy ships in port unable to get underway in time), the regional command headquarters, our facilities in the UAE and Kuwait, and of course large troop concentrations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The remaining nukes would be targeted against a broad spectrum of targets in India, probably mainly counter-value because these are terrorists (they'd attack American cities if they could, but as it's impossible to do so, American troops would be their next best bet), after all. India would take it in the gut, but their retaliatory strike would destroy Pakistan, and our retaliatory strike which followed would turn the survivors into crispy stix. In such a situation I wouldn't completely rule out the idea of the number of dead world-wide reaching 100 million.

Pakistan's days are obviously numbered; the country was artificially created on religious grounds, and now it's coming apart on religious grounds. It is inevitable that a nuclear war will result from that; it's just a question of how close we are to that point. Perhaps the desperate rush with which the Indians are deploying ABM should be far more apparent in its reasoning, now.

There isn't going to be any organized, crafty government replacing Musharraf, however Islamist; it's going to be a bunch of suicide bombers who found all the targets had already been destroyed by their compatriots. Their reaction will be to move on to bigger suicide bombs.

Frankly if Musharraf falls I half expect to see an Indian first strike with nuclear weapons against the Pakistani arsenal.

[TheMuffinKing]

I'm pretty sure we'd see Pakistan's skies full of coalition aircraft and strikes taking out the nukes before mushroom clouds start appearing. Hopefully.

This whole situation sounds like a bad Tom Clancy book, but we're living it.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Wait, five or six dozen nukes? I was under the impression Pakistan had fewer than 30 warheads in total.

Of course, this reminds me of a joke told on an episode of the Simpson's set in the future:

What's the difference between pancakes and Pakistan? Pancakes didn't get the crap nuked out of them by India.

[MKSheppard]

From Stuart:


Apparently she was shot twice by an assassin who then blew himself up.

Well, I think they learned from their earlier mistake...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Wait, five or six dozen nukes? I was under the impression Pakistan had fewer than 30 warheads in total.

Of course, this reminds me of a joke told on an episode of the Simpson's set in the future:

What's the difference between pancakes and Pakistan? Pancakes didn't get the crap nuked out of them by India.

The exact number is simply unknown, but 48 - 60 is the figure I've seen from more serious sources. The US Navy Center for Contemporary Conflict, for instance, estimates a low of 35 and a high of 95 with a median of 60. The NRDC estimates 24 - 48 with HEU stockpiles for an additional 30 - 52. The Pakistanis have reactors capable of producing 40 - 50 nuclear warheads per year. The Carnegie Foundation estimated 50. US Military Intelligence has estimated 100. The retired commander of the Pakistani Strategic Arms Division claimed that Pakistani had 80 - 120 genuine and fully operational nuclear devices. Figures assuming HEU devices only may be inaccurate as it's believed that Pakistan also has the ability to construct 4 - 5 plutonium devices per year.

The Shaheen-II and the Ghauri-II are the two main IRBMs currently in service; the range of the Ghauri-II is around 2,300km and the range of the Shaheen-II is 2,000 - 2,500km depending on the source. Doha is therefore definitely in range of both missiles, as is Diego Garcia. The Ghauri-II can likely hit targets in Iraq and Kuwait. If the range of the Shaheen-II is 2,500km then it may be able to threaten Diego Garcia from positions in the south of Pakistan. Launching positions in Balochistan, rather than northern Pakistan, would definitely bring all of our military personnel in the Mid-East under threat, and could target Israel.

[Jadeite]

I'm apparently one of the few people who doesn't think Pakistan is doomed to fall to Islamic revolutionaries. The revolutionaries have demonstrated capability to cause trouble, but that's about it. If things become desperate, the Pakistani army will most likely begin to systematically exterminate their villages. Unlike Iraqi insurgents, these people have clear bases of operation and support, and Pakistani forces have already demonstrated a willingness to do whatever they deem necessary in the fight (like cluster bombing a crowded marketplace a couple months ago).

[Phantasee]

My father believes Musharref, supported by the US, arranged for her to be assassinated. The US doesn't want elections, at least not yet, in Pakistan. The Europeans do, and they were the ones supporting Bhutto.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'm apparently one of the few people who doesn't think Pakistan is doomed to fall to Islamic revolutionaries. The revolutionaries have demonstrated capability to cause trouble, but that's about it. If things become desperate, the Pakistani army will most likely begin to systematically exterminate their villages. Unlike Iraqi insurgents, these people have clear bases of operation and support, and Pakistani forces have already demonstrated a willingness to do whatever they deem necessary in the fight (like cluster bombing a crowded marketplace a couple months ago).

Only if the military continues to support the regime. Which is only as long as one of their own is in charge. That's why the moment Musharraf dies, it's all over.

[HemlockGrey]

My father believes Musharref, supported by the US, arranged for her to be assassinated. The US doesn't want elections, at least not yet, in Pakistan. The Europeans do, and they were the ones supporting Bhutto.

It's not improbable that Musharraf would have Bhutto knocked off, but the idea that the U.S. gave the go-ahead or actively conspired to have her killed is fairly out there, given that the government has been leaning on both sides to strike a bargain.

It's much more likely that the Islamic radicals killed her. They don't like her and they tried to kill her before.

[Mange]

It's really out there. What good would it do the United States to destabilize a country which, more or less willingly and efficiently, have been a partner in the so-called "War on Terror"? A country where radical Islamists potentially could seize the power to boot and be a further threat to the neighboring countries (particularly India?).

[Jadeite]

Only if the military continues to support the regime. Which is only as long as one of their own is in charge. That's why the moment Musharraf dies, it's all over.

Thankfully Musharraf isn't careless with his security.

[Androsphinx]

My father believes Musharref, supported by the US, arranged for her to be assassinated. The US doesn't want elections, at least not yet, in Pakistan. The Europeans do, and they were the ones supporting Bhutto.

Seeing how the Islamic radicals have a much more obvious reason to kill her, the MO is straight out of their textbook (how many people Musharref could trust with something this secret? And how many of them would be prepared to commit suicide in the hope that it might succeed?), Musharref has already called elections, and this just made Pakistan a much more dangerous place - that's a pretty damn stupid theory.

It never ceases to amaze me how some people will try to blame everything on the direct and subtle machinations of a secret White-House conspiracy, when there's a far more obvious and apparent explanation. He doesn't even have six years of You-Tube videos to mis-read

[Invictus ChiKen]

On CNN's Situation Room Wolfe Blitzer just read an email from Bhutto to be read if she died.

In it she blames Mushareff saying he saw to it she did not have the security she needed.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

On CNN's Situation Room Wolfe Blitzer just read an email from Bhutto to be read if she died.

In it she blames Mushareff saying he saw to it she did not have the security she needed.

Oh brilliant, the last thing we need is for Musharraf to be destabilized. He's more or less the only thing standing in the path of a nuclear war.

[Androsphinx]

On CNN's Situation Room Wolfe Blitzer just read an email from Bhutto to be read if she died.

In it she blames Mushareff saying he saw to it she did not have the security she needed.

She was shot when she stood up and waved through the roof of the armoured car she had been given (according to the BBC). That may well also be why the blast killed her this time, whereas last time it mangled the car by the occupants survived. I don't think that Mushareff can really be blamed for that.

[Phantasee]

My father believes Musharref, supported by the US, arranged for her to be assassinated. The US doesn't want elections, at least not yet, in Pakistan. The Europeans do, and they were the ones supporting Bhutto.

Seeing how the Islamic radicals have a much more obvious reason to kill her, the MO is straight out of their textbook (how many people Musharref could trust with something this secret? And how many of them would be prepared to commit suicide in the hope that it might succeed?), Musharref has already called elections, and this just made Pakistan a much more dangerous place - that's a pretty damn stupid theory.

It never ceases to amaze me how some people will try to blame everything on the direct and subtle machinations of a secret White-House conspiracy, when there's a far more obvious and apparent explanation. He doesn't even have six years of You-Tube videos to mis-read

Haha, well, my father would probably reply with something like this: of course it looks like the Islamic radicals did it, it's a perfect cover! And with that email, I can see where he's coming from: it's not like he pulled the trigger, all he had to do was not protect her.

My father believes everything leads back to the White House, the Kremlin, or Westminster Palace.

[Androsphinx]

On CNN's Situation Room Wolfe Blitzer just read an email from Bhutto to be read if she died.

In it she blames Mushareff saying he saw to it she did not have the security she needed.

Oh brilliant, the last thing we need is for Musharraf to be destabilized. He's more or less the only thing standing in the path of a nuclear war.

It's also remarkably prescient to know that no matter the circumstances of one's death, ultimate responsiblity lies not with the people who killed you, but with your chief rival at the next election.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Wait, she stood up THROUGH the hole in her armored car to wave? And she blames Musharraf?

Stupid, stupid woman.

[Sea Skimmer]

I don’t see why every ever thought Bhutto was going to be good for anything BUT attracting bombings. She was in exile because she and her husband stole as much as two billion dollars from the country (something the western media almost never mentions); she supported the Taliban’s grab for power in Afghanistan while originally office, and she would have been extremely hard pressed to have enough popular support to be able to deal with Waziristan in a forceful manner.

Wait, she stood up THROUGH the hole in her armored car to wave? And she blames Musharraf?

Stupid, stupid woman.

During the first attempt to kill her she was doing the exact same thing too, and sat back down only a matter of seconds before the first bomb went off.

[Androsphinx]

I don’t see why every ever thought Bhutto was going to be good for anything BUT attracting bombings. She was in exile because she and her husband stole as much as two billion dollars from the country (something the western media almost never mentions); she supported the Taliban’s grab for power in Afghanistan while originally office, and she would have been extremely hard pressed to have enough popular support to be able to deal with Waziristan in a forceful manner.

She was a shameless opportunist. Her posthumous message seems only to re-enforce this.

[Lord of the Abyss]

If Musharraf is overthrown by a hardline Islamic regime India will almost certainly attack Pakistani nuclear sites. There's no way they let nuclear weapons fall into the hands of a Talibanesque government.

Given that Pakistan is a long term enemy of India, I'm sure that they expect and are prepared for such an attack. Most importantly, if they can't stop India from destroying those missiles, they'll have them already targeted on Indian cities so they can be fired before they are destroyed. An attack like that by India would just turn the possibility of a nuclear war into a certainty.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

If Musharraf is overthrown by a hardline Islamic regime India will almost certainly attack Pakistani nuclear sites. There's no way they let nuclear weapons fall into the hands of a Talibanesque government.

Given that Pakistan is a long term enemy of India, I'm sure that they expect and are prepared for such an attack. Most importantly, if they can't stop India from destroying those missiles, they'll have them already targeted on Indian cities so they can be fired before they are destroyed. An attack like that by India would just turn the possibility of a nuclear war into a certainty.

They'll try it anyway, because striking first means you can at least catch some of the enemy arsenal on the ground, particularly if you're firing short-range nuclear tipped MRBMs on very low trajectories from just across the border. The warning time for that against targets in Pakistan would be in the bare minutes, and the Pakistanis would not have the time to respond in full, no matter how ready they are for it. Most of their birds would be irradiated on the ground, and India could survive a gut-punch from two dozen nukes or so.