Options
World War III
LikeAnOcean
Posts: 7,718
So worst case scenario, Pakistan falls apart right now.. they have 70 nuclear weapons that will be in the hands of who knows who.. what are the chances any of those weapons gets launched and who will respond???
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
and the group of leaders at the treaty of versallies decided to lay the majority of blame with germany and heap them with most of the war debt among other things which left the door open for Hitler to start World War 2....
Why would they try and 'hit' anyone? Pakistan's problems are internal.
India would be on a long list of possible targets for such a group
I agree its unlikely the state will collapse but how can you think its the same likiness of nukes being used when in the hands of "stable" vs "unstable" I find that odd.
Bcoz the only place to of used nukes(not once but twice) was the US, so it's the best example one has in this.
Also as un stable pakistan kinda is, they don't really even go around attacking other countries, perhaps just over kashmir and India is just as guilty in that.
Then you have a modern so called stable America that constantly attacks other countries and threatens the use of it's nuke. that scares me more.
when has the US threatened to use nukes? you shouldnt be so scared of the big bad USA. we arent so bad
and what you are failing to understand is this isnt about Pakistan as a nation or government. its about el queda or Islamic extremists, who as you know, have attacked almost every country in the west.
Again, this isn't about Pakistan using nukes, its about Pakistan falling apart and somebody with extreme purposes getting control of nukes. You're trying to tell me you feel just as safe if a terrorist group seized a nuclear facility an ran it as you would the U.S. having nukes?
And when has the U.S. ever threatened another country with nukes? We used them in World War II to keep the Nazi's from taking over the planet. They haven't been used since. Thank god nobody crazy has even had the chance to hit the button.
Bush-"all options are on the table" when speaking about iran. And like I said, the pakistani nukes are well protected, they just can't fall into "bad" hands so easy that anyone should worry.
and if they in some crazy way fell into terrorist hands, then yes I would be scared...as scared as I feel with america having nukes now.
and history has shown that america had no need to fire off those nukes. They did it right at the end just to show off it's might in the final stand so future enemies would all fear america.
so with every war america wages or with every stand america takes it's really firstly, threatening to use it's nukes.
I have no idea what makes you so confident that Pakistani nukes are safe. um have you seen how fucked up shit is over there?
and you also should not be worried about US using nukes. we were attacked on 9/11, which some may argue was worse then pearl harbor, and we could have easily made Afghanistan a parking lot.
That's highly debatable and I think you'd find a polling of historians would argue against your point of view. I'm no historian so I won't attempt to debate the point with you, but your claim that "history has shown" is a far-reaching claim.
Also, when Georgie boy mentioned "all options on the table", he wasn't referring to nuclear weapons, as you well know. He was referring to military action.
The US used nukes to show the world it was crazy enough to use them. That is the point. all options could mean anything, again whos to really say a hint of a nuke was not used? "all options on the table" ??? perhaps a pillow fight?
and jlew, america bombed the hell out of afghaintsan, cluster bombs and whatever else. so what if they didnt nuke kabul? are you tellinge me that america does not enjoy the fear they can put into countries just becoz they have so many nukes?
like ebbize said, all options means military action, not we are going to nuke your ass.
why waste all those bombs when we could have used just one? you are the one who said we are a threat to use them. but we didnt even bother even after one of the worst attacks on our soil in the history of america.
and here's a news flash for you. we arent the only country with nukes.
yes... but the only country that used them. reason aside.
why not nuke afghanistan? perhaps it would be too hard to build that pipeline the US were so badly wanting.
My point, the world has a right to fear the US, bcoz they have used nukes, and bcoz of it's ability, that has made america a country that can go around the world doing what it wants. just look at iraq.
I agree with your statement here...most of what I have read states that the bombs were necessary to get Japan to agree to unconditional surrender. Yes, I do have a history degree.
LONDON (Reuters) - Security experts fear Pakistan's nuclear materials could fall into the hands of Islamic militants as the country's instability deepens in the wake of Benazir Bhutto's assassination.
ADVERTISEMENT
In early 2005, a joint security assessment by the CIA and the U.S. National Intelligence Council predicted Pakistan would become "a failed state, ripe with civil war, bloodshed, inter-provincial rivalries and a struggle for control of its nuclear weapons and complete Talibanisation" by 2015.
Following Bhutto's death in Rawalpindi on Thursday, some experts believe the timeframe on that assessment may now have been brought forward, with political upheaval pitching Pakistan, a nuclear-armed power since 1998, towards breakdown.
"It's a very, very valid risk," said M.J. Gohel, the head of the Asia-Pacific Foundation, a London-based security and intelligence think-tank, describing the possibility that parts of Pakistan's nuclear technology could fall into militant hands.
"It's only a matter of time before al Qaeda or somebody sympathetic to them gets hold of nuclear weapons, and if al Qaeda or its sympathisers are to get hold of them, then Pakistan is at this point the weakest link in the chain.
"It is the most unstable country in the world that has nuclear weapons. Iran may want nuclear weapons, but it doesn't have them today. Pakistan does
people do not fear the US becuase it has nukes. it didnt stop el queda from attacking us. sure its a deterrent from actual countries invading us but our oceans are more a deterrent then nukes.
you need a history lesson on why we dropped nukes some 60 years ago. and why it will never happen again unless we are attacked with the same weapon.
so why do people fear the US? and al queida is a group, why would they be scared about being nuked? they don't have just one location.
yes yes, 60 years ago. I don't need to argue with you. You will continue to believe what you believe and that is up to you. I'm fine with it.
that is my prophecy for the day.......have a good one.
The only reason N korea is still a country is because they have nukes. IT would be acceptable in the internationl community to nuke an invading army, so nukes are the single biggest deterrant to invasion.
yea same with Israel. but we are talking about the US. nukes are a minor deterrent compared to our oceans and sheer size of our military.
yeah and the one condition of Japan's surrender was allowed after they droppped the bomb-the Emporer was allowed to remian as a puppet ruler after the allies left.
And the US military found that airforce alone would have been sufficient to defeat Japan militarily-meaning they could have dropped bombs from 30,000 feet for as long as they wanted. A ground force wouldn't have been necessary-and all those figures of 500,000 dead or whatever were misleading, because there didnt' even have to be a ground war.The nuke was really the first act of the cold war, not the last of the world war. THE US was showing the russians what they could do-and were willing to do.