Benazir Bhutto is dead

[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.

[Androsphinx]

They don't need to win, everywhere and all the time. If the situation that's being predicted happens, it'll be because somewhere, someone got lucky - once (and the rest of us got very unlucky indeed).

[Sarevok]

Given that the islamists parties have been acting like geniuses compared to incompetent secular parties it is a valid concern. Their rise to power from obscure minor parties to this influential state in 7 years is amazing. What remains to be seen is whether they can keep up this kind of performence.

[Darth Wong]

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.

Even the leaders of major churches are far more calculating than their own flock. The act of assuming leadership of any sizable organization requires a fairly well-developed sense of personal ambition, no matter what kind of organization it is.

Or didn't you notice that Osama Bin Laden carefully avoided risking his own life in the 9/11 attacks, or that he's been hiding like a pussy ever since? This whole "Islamic nutjobs are horny to kill themselves hur hur" argument is nonsense. Yes, the cannon fodder have been brainwashed to think that way, but leaders watch their own asses. Even Islamic nutjob leaders.

[HemlockGrey]

Even the leaders of major churches are far more calculating than their own flock. The act of assuming leadership of any sizable organization requires a fairly well-developed sense of personal ambition, no matter what kind of organization it is.

What if the personal ambition amounts to little more than destruction of one's enemies? People in the highest echelons of the U.S. military were perfectly willing to start a nuclear war with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. Its also entirely possible that if an Islamic leader takes temporary control of the nation, he just might not realize the full implications of his actions. MacArthur wanted to nuke China for Chrissake.

My personal opinion is that you're probably right, and whoever comes to power in Pakistan won't launch unless he's forced into it. But I also think that the question of whether or not Pakistan would launch first is irrelevant. If anybody even remotely resembling the Taliban comes to power, for even a second, we're off to the races. New Delhi is going to build itself a national parking lot.

[HemlockGrey]

I forgot to mention that the reason I laid out those arguments in the first paragraph was more of an illustration as to the reasoning that's going to get us into a nuclear war than it was an attempt to dispute the point.

[DesertFly]

I've been hearing about this all night, and, although it's sad, I can't say I'm surprised in the least. The only surprise is going to be if Musharraf had nothing to do with it.

I mean, really, set yourself up within arms' reach of the man who not only controls the nation, but has support from the military, and was able to invoke martial law a couple of months ago. What did she think would happen?

[The Kernel]

What if the personal ambition amounts to little more than destruction of one's enemies? People in the highest echelons of the U.S. military were perfectly willing to start a nuclear war with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. Its also entirely possible that if an Islamic leader takes temporary control of the nation, he just might not realize the full implications of his actions. MacArthur wanted to nuke China for Chrissake.

Those actions may have been stupid and callous, but they weren't suicidal. IIRC, the only times when full scale nuclear exchange was being pushed was during times when the US had an overwhelming advantage (like during the Cuban Missile Crisis when the US would have gotten merely token damage by comparison to the Soviets).

My personal opinion is that you're probably right, and whoever comes to power in Pakistan won't launch unless he's forced into it. But I also think that the question of whether or not Pakistan would launch first is irrelevant. If anybody even remotely resembling the Taliban comes to power, for even a second, we're off to the races. New Delhi is going to build itself a national parking lot.

I actually agree with you here that this is quite likely. I only brought up the point to dispute the idea that an Islamic nation with nukes would instantly lead to a first strike by said nation. Nukes may be a pretty damn effective deterrents for such nations, but they are worse than useless offensively.

[Sarevok]

My personal opinion is that you're probably right, and whoever comes to power in Pakistan won't launch unless he's forced into it. But I also think that the question of whether or not Pakistan would launch first is irrelevant. If anybody even remotely resembling the Taliban comes to power, for even a second, we're off to the races. New Delhi is going to build itself a national parking lot.

This is correct.

Destruction of their enemies is not the islamic fundermentalists main goal. Islam is not apocalyptic cult. They want to build what they see as a perfect society.

Regarding India their leaders had been saying they will never make a first strike for years. Considering how costly a war with Pakistan would be they might even actually keep that promise.

[Lord of the Abyss]

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.

And in the process create a billion or more enemies, conservatively. And the leaders who gave the orders would have a good chance of being personally hunted down and imprisoned or executed, like the Nazi war criminals. Assuming that they don't get executed by their own people. I REALLY don't think 'we sacrificed ten Indian cities and destroyed our economy for your own good' will work too well with the people of India.

I think that the leaders of India are even less likely to be suicidal than the leaders of Pakistan, whomever they turn out to be.

There's no reason why blind faith would disqualify you from rising to the head of an Islamist radical movement.

If we are talking about the sort of blind faith that leads you to suicide, of course there is. A person like that isn't going to live long enough.

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.

Which will hardly give him control of a nuclear arsenal, any more than somehow occupying the White House would give you control of the American arsenal. Do you think there's a big red button on Musharraf's desk ?

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.

Launching an attack on a nuclear armed country that has nukes pointed at you is not REMOTELY "playing it safe". "Acting outright insane" is more like it.

I simply don't think that India is run by the kind of blithering loonies who would immolate themselves. This is the kind of macho posturing that gets spouted by people who don't expect to be hit by the weapons of the people they want to see attacked.

[HemlockGrey]

Your perspective is that it would be foolish for the Indians to attack first, fine. But don't presume that they see it that way. What if the Indian leadership honestly believes that an Islamic Pakistan will try to nuke them off the face of the map? Of course they'll strike first. You're presuming perfect rationality on the part of everyone involved, which is foolish.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Your perspective is that it would be foolish for the Indians to attack first, fine. But don't presume that they see it that way.

Why not ? So far, that's how everyone else in similar situations has looked at it.

What if the Indian leadership honestly believes that an Islamic Pakistan will try to nuke them off the face of the map?

They'll hope that they don't. Just as we and the Soviets hoped about each other. They WON'T attack and guarantee that Pakistan will do so, AND that the world will retaliate on them economically ( at the least ).

Of course they'll strike first. You're presuming perfect rationality on the part of everyone involved, which is foolish.

Not "perfect" rationality. "Within shouting distance of rationality."

[Wanderer]

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.

Well Saddam had been known to walk among civilians armed with AK-47s and RPGs and being given three round salutes. Bear in mind though that Saddam always carried a weapon on him, so at least he could fight back.

[Broomstick]

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?

See, what puzzles me is why you assume that whoever takes over in Pakistan will have us as their first objective. Given the long-standing feud between Pakistan and India it is entirely conceivable that India will be the first target. It all depends on which madman climbs to the top of the heap first.

[Sarevok]

Why would a leader launch nukes when he has nothing to gain and everything to lose ?

[TheMuffinKing]

Why would a leader launch nukes when he has nothing to gain and everything to lose ?

Good question. Rational leaders could be expected to follow this train of thought, adding a sense of security to a difficult situation. I would be seriously worried that someone delusional and irrational would come into possession of nukes. Who knows what they might do.

[wolveraptor]

Good question. Rational leaders could be expected to follow this train of thought, adding a sense of security to a difficult situation. I would be seriously worried that someone delusional and irrational would come into possession of nukes. Who knows what they might do.

Even if we were to make the generous assumption that anyone would who was competent enough to come to power would be that insane, we'd still have to account for the rest of the chain of command. The president does not have sole control over the arming, aiming, and launching of nuclear missiles. If he plans to go out in a blaze of glory, he'd better be damn sure that the techies who actually launch the missile are with him. I doubt that there wouldn't be even 1 link in the chain who would be hesitant to commit suicide.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

See, what puzzles me is why you assume that whoever takes over in Pakistan will have us as their first objective. Given the long-standing feud between Pakistan and India it is entirely conceivable that India will be the first target. It all depends on which madman climbs to the top of the heap first.

Well, it's somewhat of a given that Islamist sympathies have risen so quickly in the country that it's the place with the greatest genuine chance of a full-blown Islamist takoever, which doesn't exist anywhere else. Pakistan is, in short, the worst of the worst in the Muslim world, something that some smart people noticed back in 2002, but nobody was really listening at the time. They are certainly not our allies, as the US government hilariously calls them. Well, Musharraf is.

The group I personally thinking offed Bhutto is Tanzeem-e-Nifaz, a Wahhabist organization in the Northwest Provinces which was founded independently but now has strong ties with al-Qaeda. There are two more groups, however, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (Lashkars [Tribal Militias] of Jhang), which is the most radical and responsible for the most terrorist attacks, and Sipah-e-Sahaba, the Army of the Prophet's Companions, which has the broadest support to my knowledge. It's also gone through three leaders since it started; two of them are dead. If you are hoping for old, wise, and cautious people running this groups, perhaps you should kindly tell ISI to lay off the assassinations.

[Darth Wong]

Since when does "Islamist" mean "wants to turn his own country into a parking lot?"

These people want to restore the glory of the caliphates, not turn the Muslim countries into parking lots.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Since when does "Islamist" mean "wants to turn his own country into a parking lot?"

These people want to restore the glory of the caliphates, not turn the Muslim countries into parking lots.

They don't.

In Islamic philosophy, Cause - Effect does not exist, rather, it's God - Cause, God-Effect. Their religion trains them from birth, in Quran memorization schools, to believe that every single event on the planet, including their stepping on a bug accidentally, has been the result of God. Obedience to God's laws is explicitly stated in the Quran to result in the favour and protection of God.

In short, the internal righteousness of the country is more important than their actual military defences. If the country is righteous enough, God will clearly turn away enemy nuclear devices before they hit. If it isn't that righteous, then it was sinful and God should have destroyed it in the first place.

I KNOW this is a very hard thing for rational people to swallow, Mike, because it's terrifying when you come to the full conclusion. Your complaints about religion, pretty much, barely touch the surface about the psychological effects it can have when you're raised in a religious culture. These people recognize not even that physical laws exist. And even Osama shares those same traits, despite being a trained engineer. He ludicrously, as we well know, came to the conclusion that the total collapse of the Two Towers was impossible and that God must have made them fall the rest of the way over.

"Rational people come to the top" is based on this cynical idea, furthermore--and it's one that atheists like to think--that everyone at the top of the religion is a bastard whose beliefs are only in a limited way influencing his decisions, over his desires for power and money. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee of this, particularly in an entirely religious culture where playing by the insane rules of the religion can make you just as "rational" to all of your appears as actually being rational would. The Quran goes at detail into Army tactics and it's entirely possible that the leader of a band would withold from committing suicide due to the requirements of directing those under him, while still having a basically suicidal mindset.

But generally speaking, I don't even think they're particularly suicidal like that. I just believe that they have been raised in a sufficiently blinkered and religious fashion as to genuinely be unable to process the prospect of losing a nuclear war, or to believe it's even possible to do so when God is on your side. Again, even moderate Muslims think God will send angels to chop down the ICBMs coming at Mecca. If God as made you invincible, that does change the equation, doesn't it?

[wolveraptor]

^ Do you have any evidence to support this idea that even the manipulative leaders of these extremists are that insane? Especially given the fact that they have as of yet refused to expose themselves in any way and trust in "Allah's ability to protect them." They obviously don't believe they're invincible.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

^ Do you have any evidence to support this idea that even the manipulative leaders of these extremists are that insane? Especially given the fact that they have as of yet refused to expose themselves in any way and trust in "Allah's ability to protect them." They obviously don't believe they're invincible.

But they have done so (exposing themselves), and we've actually killed a large number of them. Dozens of extremist leaders have been killed in action by the special forces of organized governments in the past six years. It's only our failure to get the big fish which makes this seem not the case.

And I provided an example of a non-rational worldview in the original post.

[Jadeite]

Given that the islamists parties have been acting like geniuses compared to incompetent secular parties it is a valid concern. Their rise to power from obscure minor parties to this influential state in 7 years is amazing. What remains to be seen is whether they can keep up this kind of performence.

I highly doubt it. If they become too much trouble, the Pakistani military will probably just exterminate them. So far most of the military units fighting them in the region have been Frontier Corps, who aren't exactly the cream of the crop.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Given that the islamists parties have been acting like geniuses compared to incompetent secular parties it is a valid concern. Their rise to power from obscure minor parties to this influential state in 7 years is amazing. What remains to be seen is whether they can keep up this kind of performence.

I highly doubt it. If they become too much trouble, the Pakistani military will probably just exterminate them. So far most of the military units fighting them in the region have been Frontier Corps, who aren't exactly the cream of the crop.

The Frontier regiments in the old Raj used to be the premier regiments of the Army, and considering the enormous British influence on Pakistan, I would imagine to some extent they still are. The problems of operating in the likes of Waziristan are innumerable.