Benazir Bhutto is dead

[Mr Bean]

The Israelis? What are they going to do in Pakistan - cut off their strawberry exports?

Nuke the sites, or just bomb them, or just send in Spec-ops teams. It might be beyond the range of their traditional fighters but enough tanker assets might let them get there and back.

[HemlockGrey]

Agreed. It really doesn't matter what an Islamic government in Pakistan would look like, between India, the US and Israel I'm sure we'll find a way to violently depose them.

Well, yeah, but from India's perspective it's not that unreasonable. If they do attack, they're safe forever with minimal losses, but if they don't they risk losing everything down the line. Of course they're going to go with what's best for them, that's way international politics always has and always will work in the absence of effective international institutions.

[Androsphinx]

The Israelis? What are they going to do in Pakistan - cut off their strawberry exports?

Nuke the sites, or just bomb them, or just send in Spec-ops teams. It might be beyond the range of their traditional fighters but enough tanker assets might let them get there and back.

You're insane. The Israelis couldn't do anything of the kind, and even if they could, they wouldn't. There are so many things wrong with your suggestion I don't know where to begin, but we could start with the fact that Israel is just barely inside the maximum potential range for Pakistani missiles, there are far more tempting targets for any Islamic nut-jobs who found missiles, and that such a strike would be frankly suicidal.

[Broomstick]

A full-scale South Asian exchange has the potential to collapse the world economy but overall give us a lot more room to meet sustainability.

If we and India take Pakistan to the mat after they strike first, that would probably entail a total of 500 - 600 nuclear devices being expended, probably enough to cause a nice pleasant and mild nuclear autumn to slow down Global Warming a hair.

Why would the US get involved in such a nuclear exchange? India and Pakistan are quite capable of taking each other back to the stone age, and being allies doesn't require us to join in the nuclear exchange. Granted, the US is the only country to have used nukes in warfare, but that doesn't mean we have to join in.

[Mr Bean]

You're insane. The Israelis couldn't do anything of the kind, and even if they could, they wouldn't. There are so many things wrong with your suggestion I don't know where to begin, but we could start with the fact that Israel is just barely inside the maximum potential range for Pakistani missiles, there are far more tempting targets for any Islamic nut-jobs who found missiles, and that such a strike would be frankly suicidal.

Your naive if you think Israel would sit back on it's heels, if a hostile Taliban state emerged in Pakistan who's leaders believed the destruction of Israel was a worthwhile foreign policy goal. But considering the size of the enemy there's no way Israel could hope to succeed alone unless they glassed the country, and that's politically unacceptable, not to mention they don't have the nukes to do it AND maintain a deterrence against Syria, Jordan and co.

The Israelis could theoretically wreck the silo's of a hostile Pakistan, but getting all the gravity bombs as well? Forget it, which is why I say that Israel's options are not simply limited to cutting off their strawberry exports.

[MKSheppard]

My scenario involved getting China in on the action. Groundbursts throughout the watersheds of Pakistan's, India's, and China's major river systems would wipe out a significant proportion of the world population.

In what crazy fantasy scenario does China get into an Indian/Pakistani exchange?

Because of the way Pakistan and India are laid out on the world map; if the Pakistanis have missile problems; eg their missiles go long and overshoot; most of the overshoots will end up in more India.

Even if the Pakistanis overshoot big time and a missile bound for New Dehli goes really long; at worst it will hit somewhere within the Xixang Autonomous Region, and do it's bit to solve the Tibetan problem and increase the Sinoization of Tibet.

Secondly:

Why does China even need to get into this?

Why does India even want China to get into this?

The Chinese slapped around India conventionally the last time they had a go around; so why does India want to provoke the Chinese into joining this nuclear exchange?

And finally, what reason does China have to get into a nuclear shooting match between two regional rivals? They can just sit back and watch Pakistan give India some nuclear kidney punches -- which benefits China as India is taken down a few notches; while Pakistan just really ceases to exist; which won't bother China that much; except that they'll no longer have a customer for Export orders.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Why would the US get involved in such a nuclear exchange? India and Pakistan are quite capable of taking each other back to the stone age, and being allies doesn't require us to join in the nuclear exchange. Granted, the US is the only country to have used nukes in warfare, but that doesn't mean we have to join in.

Because I fully expect that for the Islamists, our troops in the mid-east would be the primary target, and India only the secondary target. And if they turn our Iraq occupation forces, our Kuwait forces, the Fifth fleet base in Bahrain, Diego Garcia, our military facilities in the UAE and Qatar into radioactive ruins.. Kill 100,000 Americans... Do you think we're not going to put 200 - 300 nukes into Pakistan to make sure the survivors of the Indian counter-strikes are finished off and that the country is decisively finished? When they've killed more than 33 times as many Americans as they did on 9/11, and done it with nukes, how could any other response be expected?

[Androsphinx]

You're insane. The Israelis couldn't do anything of the kind, and even if they could, they wouldn't. There are so many things wrong with your suggestion I don't know where to begin, but we could start with the fact that Israel is just barely inside the maximum potential range for Pakistani missiles, there are far more tempting targets for any Islamic nut-jobs who found missiles, and that such a strike would be frankly suicidal.

Your naive if you think Israel would sit back on it's heels, if a hostile Taliban state emerged in Pakistan who's leaders believed the destruction of Israel was a worthwhile foreign policy goal. But considering the size of the enemy there's no way Israel could hope to succeed alone unless they glassed the country, and that's politically unacceptable, not to mention they don't have the nukes to do it AND maintain a deterrence against Syria, Jordan and co.

The Israelis could theoretically wreck the silo's of a hostile Pakistan, but getting all the gravity bombs as well? Forget it, which is why I say that Israel's options are not simply limited to cutting off their strawberry exports.

You're right. Please excuse my naivity for not considering that the Israelis would launch a first strike which we both agree would not be successful enough to prevent highly destructive retaliation. But since you seem to agree that the three options you originally suggested are off the table, what do you think the Israelis can do?

[Lord of the Abyss]

If they do attack, they're safe forever with minimal losses, but if they don't they risk losing everything down the line.

Ten or more cities, economic collapse, massive terrorism and possible civil war aren't "minimal".

[Darth Wong]

Stop dodging the question, Lord of the Abyss makes a very valid argument in that people are constantly claiming that Islamic leaders are insane and are willing to engage in suicide for a token victory. That might be true of the brainwashed masses, but there's no evidence to support the idea that any of the leaders of these groups believe such bullshit.

Ah, but they share the same religion as the fanatics, so they would do all the same things, right? Similarly, since there are many Christians in the US military who would willingly sacrifice their lives for the country, this must mean that George W. Bush himself, also a Christian, would do the same. Right?

[Mr Bean]

You're right. Please excuse my naivity for not considering that the Israelis would launch a first strike which we both agree would not be successful enough to prevent highly destructive retaliation. But since you seem to agree that the three options you originally suggested are off the table, what do you think the Israelis can do?

Is it not obivious? As I said they can't go it alone, but as the orignal post pointed out, no Pakistani police will be a single country policy, if Pakistan falls into the hands of a radical government willing to use nukes, between US, India and Israel, a response will be worked out.

Israel can also offer intel and planning help.
They've practiced this before

[The Kernel]

You're right. Please excuse my naivity for not considering that the Israelis would launch a first strike which we both agree would not be successful enough to prevent highly destructive retaliation. But since you seem to agree that the three options you originally suggested are off the table, what do you think the Israelis can do?

Is it not obivious? As I said they can't go it alone, but as the orignal post pointed out, no Pakistani police will be a single country policy, if Pakistan falls into the hands of a radical government willing to use nukes, between US, India and Israel, a response will be worked out.

Israel can also offer intel and planning help.
They've practiced this before

Also, I'd say that there is no way in hell Israel wouldn't want to be involved in taking down a Muslim regime that has nukes. They've demonstrated extreme phobia of the possibility before, even when they were (arguably) not directly threatened.

[Androsphinx]

If the Israelis do have anything to do with such actions, we won't find out for a very long time.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Stop dodging the question, Lord of the Abyss makes a very valid argument in that people are constantly claiming that Islamic leaders are insane and are willing to engage in suicide for a token victory. That might be true of the brainwashed masses, but there's no evidence to support the idea that any of the leaders of these groups believe such bullshit.

I've brought up the same response whenever anyone says that Iran will start lobbing nukes around the Middle East as soon as they get them which is plainly ridiculous. People do not get to the highest levels of power by being either insane or suicidal and your argument requires BOTH from the new leadership of Pakistan.

I did address the question. They would not be suicidal in doing so, because from their worldview it is not a suicidal act.


Christians do the same damn thing all the time, with such atrocious examples as people who willingly abandon medical treatment in the belief that prayer will make them better instead.

That is also a suicidal action to us, but they do not see it, nor intend it, as suicide.

How is Islamist behaviour somehow more enlightened than Christian behaviour, praytell?

[The Kernel]

I did address the question. They would not be suicidal in doing so, because from their worldview it is not a suicidal act.


Christians do the same damn thing all the time, with such atrocious examples as people who willingly abandon medical treatment in the belief that prayer will make them better instead.

That is also a suicidal action to us, but they do not see it, nor intend it, as suicide.

How is Islamist behaviour somehow more enlightened than Christian behaviour, praytell?

My ass you addressed the question, you are just dodging it yet again by repeating your same nonsense.

Your red herring about Christians aside, you are aware that I am not trying to deny that there are sucidial loonies in the Muslim faith? What I am saying (and what you seem to be ignoring) is that there is no reason to believe anyone who really believes in any of that crap would ever make it to the highest positions of power in any government of a nuclear nation.

[The Kernel]

Duchess, if you really want to prove your point, answer Darth Wong's question about whether you think that George Bush would be willing to lead the US into a suicidal action if it was a religious imperative. After all, this life is nothing compared to the infinite afterlife so Bush should be willing to throw his life and the lives of fellow Christians away on a good cause right?

[ray245]

Why and how would China get involved? And why would you nuke China?

Because that would help solve a major problem of overpopulation, don't you know? Let us have an easier time with the whole sustainable growth if you wipe out all the unsustainable bits, yeah?

I never advocated it, I just said it would help. And the primary issue of all sustainability discussions is world population, especially the developing industrial economies and populations. Quite frankly, I'm pretty cynical about humanity's chance of choosing to voluntarily limit and contract its population. Regardless of what we want, I consider a South Asian general nuclear exchange a relatively probable event in the 21st century, and stuff like that probably is what's going to help us crawl along into the next century.

Why can't we nuke the US instead? After all...it seems that the US have more people who refused to believe in global warming in the first place right?

Just kidding...although I do hope people can refrain from being a little bit biased here.


I got a feeling another Iraq fuck up will happen again...just a feeling.

[Balrog]

I do believe it was put forward earlier that, in such a case, the leaders themselves would go find a nice safe hole to hide in, let their underlings press the Big Red Button and reap the whirlwind that follows. There probably are a number of international groups who wouldn't mind treating Pakistan like a disposable nuclear launch pad if they took control either directly or via proxy.

Then there's the ever-popular chance of a sane leader taking control, but a few of his underlings decide the Glorious Leader isn't doing enough to further the Cause, and so sieze some munitions and let the fireworks fly.

Of course, these assume that there is an overall leader to take control; it could degenerate to a bunch of regional groups taking control of thier local nuclear stockpiles.

[The Yosemite Bear]

From Stuart:


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

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

they were the re-incarnation of those Serbian Nillists/Anarchists from the 1910's

Oh and Elf forgot Ike getting attacked by the PR sepratists.

[Androsphinx]

From Stuart:


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

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

they were the re-incarnation of those Serbian Nillists/Anarchists from the 1910's

IIRC, the Black Hand took a little more time between the shooting and the bomb. Although they too had an open-top carriage.

[Elfdart]

they were the re-incarnation of those Serbian Nillists/Anarchists from the 1910's

Oh and Elf forgot Ike getting attacked by the PR sepratists.

I think Manson's acolytes tried to kill Ford twice, and I'm sure there are several other attempts to assassinate Presidents. When you add in senators (Robert Kennedy), governors (George Wallace) and candidates for office (Robert Kennedy would be a two-fer here), you could probably end up in triple digits. Yet this proven track record of Lone Crazed Gunmen hasn't stopped politicians from attending public events and wading into crowds to shake hands, in spite of the protestations of the Secret Service.

There was an article in Esquire by Gore Vidal back in 1995 or 96 in which the Service told him that Clinton had received far more death threats than any President on record -and that included Lincoln. There had already been three attempts on his life by that point, and the Secret Service came up with the idea of using a modified version of a tank or IFV for Clinton -who absolutely refused. My point is that being a politician entails a certain amount of risk, since no matter how well-guarded they are, it only takes one asshole with a bomb or a gun lurking in a crowd to bump them off.

[Androsphinx]

IIRC, the thing they tried before this one was to wire up a one-year-old with explosives, and hope that she'd try to kiss it (classic political move).

Remember, even at the dawn of the 3rd age of mankind "No level of security can stop a lone gunman who is prepared to exchange his life for that of the target)

[HemlockGrey]

Ten or more cities, economic collapse, massive terrorism and possible civil war aren't "minimal".

No shit. But if they think their alternative is annhilation at the hands of their sworn enemies, they'll take the punch, if it means they can eliminate their enemy forever.

Your red herring about Christians aside, you are aware that I am not trying to deny that there are sucidial loonies in the Muslim faith? What I am saying (and what you seem to be ignoring) is that there is no reason to believe anyone who really believes in any of that crap would ever make it to the highest positions of power in any government of a nuclear nation.

That may be true in a place like, say, Iran, where there is a functioning government apparatus, but it may not be true of Pakistan. If there's a violent coup, the next leader could easily be a tribal power broker or mullah. There's no reason why blind faith would disqualify you from rising to the head of an Islamist radical movement. The fear isn't that a crazy lunatic will someone plot a cunning ascent upward through the ranks of the Pakistani government and then throw it all away, the fear is that a crazy lunatic will kick in the doors of the presidential palace and shoot anyone who gets in his way. Someone who views the Islamic Bomb as just a step up from AK-47s and old Soviet RPGs. Given the incredibly complex nature of Pakistani politics, its impossible to say with any certainty exacty who would come to power, but the scenario you dismiss isn't an impossible one, and every country in the region is going to play it safe.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Ten or more cities, economic collapse, massive terrorism and possible civil war aren't "minimal".

No shit. But if they think their alternative is annhilation at the hands of their sworn enemies, they'll take the punch, if it means they can eliminate their enemy forever.

Your red herring about Christians aside, you are aware that I am not trying to deny that there are sucidial loonies in the Muslim faith? What I am saying (and what you seem to be ignoring) is that there is no reason to believe anyone who really believes in any of that crap would ever make it to the highest positions of power in any government of a nuclear nation.

That may be true in a place like, say, Iran, where there is a functioning government apparatus, but it may not be true of Pakistan. If there's a violent coup, the next leader could easily be a tribal power broker or mullah. There's no reason why blind faith would disqualify you from rising to the head of an Islamist radical movement. The fear isn't that a crazy lunatic will someone plot a cunning ascent upward through the ranks of the Pakistani government and then throw it all away, the fear is that a crazy lunatic will kick in the doors of the presidential palace and shoot anyone who gets in his way. Someone who views the Islamic Bomb as just a step up from AK-47s and old Soviet RPGs. Given the incredibly complex nature of Pakistani politics, its impossible to say with any certainty exacty who would come to power, but the scenario you dismiss isn't an impossible one, and every country in the region is going to play it safe.

Thank you. That's really all I meant, and you put it in much clearer terms than I possibly could have.

[Sarevok]

I am not sure if Islamists have best chances to win a civil war. The Islamist MMA political alliance is in office at 2 provinces which happen to be among least developed parts of Pakistan. If a civil war breaks out between parts of Pakistan the islamists are at a disadvantage in terms of provinces and troops controlled. If the civil war is a country wide affair with no defined frontlines again I am not sure the islamists have the numbers needed. The muslim league and PPP alone which ruled Pakistan before still have massive numbers of supporters. Also Pakistani society is relatively secular and similar to India's in many ways. Islamists will have great difficulty forcing city people to accept a taliban lifestyle.