07/19/2009 01:59:43 PM EST

De-nuclearize Pakistan

posted by saad

Nothing positive has resulted from Pakistan having nuclear weapons. I think it's time the US activate its special operations unit inside the country and effectively de-nuclearize Pakistan.

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
Some have said that the US should lead the way in global nuclear disarmament by dismantling its own nuclear arsenal first... since the US is the only country to have actually used nuclear weapons. While this is true, it is also true that the US has not used them since, and is unlikely to do so again. I think that it would would be wonderful if the US were to disarm, but it's unrealistic.

It's also unrealistic to think that Pakistan can be coaxed into destroying its nuclear stockpile. That is why the only alternative is for the Americans to de-nuclearize Pakistan. Why the Americans? Because their special forces are the best trained in the world, and no other foreign country has better intelligence on Pakistan than the US. Many Pakistanis would ask, "Why are Pakistan's nukes being singled out? We're not the only country with nukes. What about the US, Russia, China, UK, France, India, and Israel?" These are fair points. But the aforementioned 7 countries are not on the brink of collapse the way that Pakistan appears to be.

Also, the other members of the nuclear club have been relatively responsible members of the nuclear club. Pakistan, on the other hand, has been very irresponsible. It has proliferated nuclear know-how to Iran, North Korea, and Libya. Libya ended its quest for nuclear weapons in 2003. Iran and North Korea still have active nuclear programs. Only a fool would believe that A.Q. Khan acted on his own. He was obviously working on behalf of the Pakistani military. The Pakistani military must be held accountable. It is a rogue force, and has always been one. I would even go as far as to call it a terrorist organization. It supports terrorism in India, Kashmir, and Afghanistan, and it even supports terrorism in Pakistan itself.

Over the last 20 years, the Pakistani military establishment has become arrogant in thinking that the civilized world will always turn a blind eye to Pakistani state-sponsored terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Humbling the Pakistani military is the need of the hour. The best way to do this is for the US to secure Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, and once it is secure, destroy it. If Pakistani soldiers put up any resistance, shoot them in the head. The Pakistani army is an enemy of the Pakistani people. The US would be doing Pakistan a favour by humiliating Pakistan's most powerful institution, the army. And the region will be safer... as will the world.
< the great relief of having you to talk to...about health coverage | Obsession >
 Display:
De-nuclearize Pakistan | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 hidden)
More Indian Propganada (4.00 / 2)

Saad, nice try, but no cigar.

For those who haven't figured it out, our friend Saad here is from India, and this is sadly typical of the anti-Paki propaganda one hears from some Indians. That said, let me acknowledge that many Indians reject this sort of hate, and do work actively for peace and reconciliation. I am not in any way ignoring India's ancient culture, nor am I failing to recognise her rightfully important place among the family of nations.

Back to his argument. This line of reasoning is insidiously reprehensible for many reasons, so let me just hit the highlights.

First, Pakistan is a sovereign nation, with all the rights due sovereign nations. To suggest that the USA attack Pakistan is a grossly immoral proposition. Furthermore, the "let's you and him fight" aspect of the idea, trying to get the USA to do India's dirty work, is even more loathsome.

Second, your statement that "nothing positive has resulted from Pakistan having nuclear weapons". This implies that positive things have resulted from other nations having nuclear weapons? Can you cite us an example of this please? The only one possible goes like this "The fact that the USA and USSR both had huge nuclear arsenals led to the concept of MAD (mutually assured destruction) which prevented us from blowing up the world". Except that this logic chases its own tail - "Having lots of nukes prevented us from blowing ourselves up with the lots of nukes".

Nothing positive has resulted from any nation possessing nuclear weapons.

Third, your characterization of Pakistan as "a nation on the brink of collapse". It's impossible to refute logically since it is purely a statement of opinion, but let us be clear about labeling this an opinion. My opinion is that you are mistaken, but that too is just an opinion :)

In your next paragraph you say other nuclear nations have behaved responsibly. Oh really? Even the Chinese when they sold Nuclear weapons to Pakistan? Contradict yourself much? Oops?

 Note for those who are puzzled by the reference, A. Q. Khan is called the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, and claims to have developed the Pakistani bomb on his own. Most believe his faulty design was based on plans he stole while working for the IAEA. In any case, his designs didn't work (oops!) and Pakistan bought nuclear weapons from the Chinese.

Ok, this reply has gotten waaaay too long and obscure. I'm stopping now :)

by RedPossum on 07/19/2009 05:34:50 PM EST

Thanks for commenting! :) (none / 1)

Red, FYI... I'm a Pakistani who's a bit annoyed with the constant US interference in our internal affairs. I recognize that one of the reasons for this is our (useless) nuclear arsenal. Hence, perhaps if we no longer had the arsenal, the US would stop breathing down our necks.

 Pakistan is not a sovereign nation. Sovereign nations do not bow down to threats like, "With us or against us," or "Be prepared to be bombed back to the Stone Age." Sovereign nations do not allow foreign countries to carry out unmanned aerial drone attacks on their sovereign territory. Sovereign nations are not ruled by elites who were brought to be power by an agreement between a foreign power and a dictator supported by that military power. Sovereign nations are not dependent on foreign aid...to the point where the economy would crumble if they aid were withdrawn. Pakistan gave up its sovereignty a long time ago. Are you not aware that we have been ruled by US-supported military dictators for over half our nation's existence? Where is our sovereignty? I want it! I want it so bad!

 Nobody is talking about fighting anyone. It would be a simple thing for the Delta Force or the Green Berets to seize the arsenal and dismantle it. Nobody has to die. If there were a way to accomplish it without the US, I would be totally in favour of that. Pakistanis would be better off because we wouldn't have to worry about the world looking at us as some kind of rogue state or an international pariah. Foreign investors won't come near us with a ten foot pole at the moment. The world would be better off because it won't have to worry about terrorists or their sympathizers in the ISI grabbing hold of nukes.

 If Pakistan had benefited by having nukes, I would argue in favour keeping them. But maintaining nukes is a strain on Pakistan's national budget. We don't even have electricity, for cryin' out loud! We're living in the Stone Age. Why have we spent so much money developing nukes? We are a third world country! We're living in the dark due to the constant blackouts! We need light, not nukes. If we weigh the costs versus the benefits, the costs outweigh the benefits.

 Developing nuclear weapons is an irresponsible act. But Pakistan has been more irresponsible than the rest. China sold weapons to what they thought was an up-and-coming post-colonial state. They did not predict Pakistan's downward spiral. But Pakistan proliferated to North Korea (a nation whose dictator starves his own people), Libya (a nation whose dictator supported nearly every African war criminal towards the end of the 20th century), and Iran (a nation whose ruling clique have removed all pretense of their country being at all democratic). China was irresponsible, yes... but not as much as Pakistan.

 A.Q. Khan was blamed for proliferating, but it seems improbable that he did it alone. His crime is not that he bought nukes from the Chinese. His crime is that he proliferated nuclear know-how to rogue states. And it wasn't even just him. The entire Pakistani military establishment had to be involved. So the top military brass in Pakistan is to blame for acting irresponsibly. The next nuclear attack is not likely to come from China, or India, or the UK, or France, or Russia, or Israel. It may come from North Korea, but Kim Jong-il is all about power and not ideology.

 Pakistan is a different story. Terrorists controlled about 10 % of Pakistan until recently. This may not may not signal a "brink of collapse." But it sure doesn't bode well for the security of the nuclear arsenal, especially given that there are people in the military intelligence that sympathize with the terrorists they created. Should the world not be worried about thousands (maybe millions) of innocent civilians dying just because Pakistan wants to keep its nukes?

by saad on 07/19/2009 07:36:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Just being cautious (none / 1)

We don't know that for a fact.

 I'm just sounding the alarm.

by saad on 07/19/2009 07:47:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Very likely/sadly you will be proved correct (none / 1)
That Pakistan has the bad habit of selling nuclear technology to the highest bidder makes your prediction almost a sure thing.

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 07/19/2009 10:37:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You do know... (none / 1)
...that it would be an illegal act of war, right? And that maybe the Pakistani soldiers won't just let special forces "shoot them in the head"? And that, if that operation fails, or even if it succeeds, Pakistan could be driven completely into the radical islamist camp? And that, maybe, not all of their nukes would be found and destroyed, and end up in the hands of terrorists? And that the U.S. would lose all the credibility that the new administration is just trying to build? I hope "humbling" the Pakistani military is worth all that.

by OldGerman on 07/19/2009 04:08:31 PM EST

But... (none / 1)
The US is already committing illegal acts of war each time it bombs Pakistani territory.

by saad on 07/19/2009 07:43:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Will it be okay if... (none / 1)
...we activate our "special operations unit" inside India and "denuclearize" them, too?

By the way, you're assuming that the United States is both more competent and more stupid than it actually is.

by EveningStarNM on 07/19/2009 07:38:05 PM EST

Hey! (none / 1)

What's up with the sarcasm?

I'm trying to make the world a safer place!

by saad on 07/19/2009 07:41:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Well, let me ask directly: (none / 1)
Should India be "denuclearized", too?

by EveningStarNM on 07/19/2009 08:08:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Then I'll answer directly (none / 1)

If I felt that Pakistan could be persuaded to de-nuclearize voluntarily through diplomacy, I'd be for it. But the Pakistani Generals are way too paranoid with respect to India.

 India, on the other hand, can be persuaded to disarm voluntarily through diplomacy. The former Indian Prime Minister the late Rajiv Gandhi called for global nuclear disarmament back in the 1980's.

I'm totally against nuclear weapons... period.

by saad on 07/20/2009 05:36:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Conservative (none / 0)
"I prefer disarmament through international negotiations"

People need to be bookmarking these comments, because if you don't think Ken has changed...look in the subtext.

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 07/20/2009 08:09:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
There has been some good news come out of (none / 1)
the region as noted in thsi TYT Forum post

Finally, Some Good News On the World of Nuclear Powers

by gatekeeper50 on 07/19/2009 10:47:18 PM EST

Solution? (none / 1)

"That Pakistan has the bad habit of selling nuclear technology to the highest bidder makes your prediction almost a sure thing."

If that's true, why don't we just _buy_ their nukes?  Buy their technology also, if that can be quantified.  How many nukes can they have? 10?  We give them two billion dollars per nuke, under the agreement that they use the money to improve their infrastructure and feed their people.  It's capitalist, it's "legal"-ish (maybe not, but at least as legal as bombing them), it helps us and Pakistanis and the region, and we have a stockpile of thousands of nukes--it's not like it adds any danger in the proliferation game.  Why not buy India's nukes also, as a show of faith?

  If we are going to spend billions and billions of dollars on things that don't help us much and are unsustainable, and (with regard to the military) increase the chances of getting people killed, this alternative seems like a bargain.
 

by Milltycoon on 07/20/2009 08:13:25 AM EST

United States of Enablers (4.20 / 4)
Wouldn't that just encourage them to develop more?

by OneHitKill on 07/20/2009 08:26:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Wouldn't that just encourage them to develop more? (none / 0)
Possibly but even still, it's a win win as long as they follow those guidelines:

"We give them two billion dollars per nuke, under the agreement that they use the money to improve their infrastructure and feed their people."

An educated, employed, healthy, prosperous population has little time or interest in waging Jihad against the West.

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 07/20/2009 11:50:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
How many years... (none / 0)
...would that take?  And couldn't we just buy those also?  And wouldn't that give MORE food and infrastructure (under our agreement) to Pakistan?  And isn't it eventually the case that (at least hopefully) tensions will calm in Pakistan, and they won't be enormous threats to the world as they are now?  Even if our solution only buys us 5 more years to deal with a time bomb country that could spark a nuclear war next week, isn't that worth it?

by Milltycoon on 07/20/2009 10:30:11 PM EST

De-nuclearize Pakistan | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: