Musharraf stands down

[Banquo's Ghost]

The embattled president of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, has announced his resignation in the face of impeachment proceedings.

No doubt he will be off to enjoy retirement in some luxury on an island somewhere. However, the country he leaves is unlikely to be so lucky. The new government coalition is fragile and fractious, not to mention full of corruption. No doubt the army is considering its future role - and the Islamic fundamentalists that infest the security services.

Musharraf has been bleeding power for some time. Now he is going, what is the future for Pakistan?

[Adrian II]

The new government coalition is fragile and fractious, not to mention full of corruption. No doubt the army is considering its future role - and the Islamic fundamentalists that infest the security services.

What else is new in Pakistan? The 'Land of the Pure' is another monstrous birth of Islamism. Or Islamo-Fascism, if we consider the prominent role of militarism and machoism in its history. After fifty years part of the population is still eating grass because Islamism prohibits economic initiative, free thinking and free movement, particularly of women. Properly speaking it isn't a country at all. I wouldn't mind if Pakistan were split up in various theme parks for future tourist generations: backward moutain tribes, Fascist military zones, zones with poor peasants, dirt-poor peasants, nearly dead peasants, and of course corrupt, filthy rich misfits.

Yes, I'm overstating my case. This happens to me once every while.

[CountArach]

What comes next? It will be dealt with when it comes. For now we should be happy this guy is gone.

[rory_20_uk]

I'm hesitant to lambast the man until I see what horror takes his place.

Pakistan is another mess that I fail to see why the West has must more than perfunctary dealings with. They are an unreliable ally, share few common values with us, and are a black hole for funds should they be provided.

[KukriKhan]

I'm hesitant to lambast the man until I see what horror takes his place.

Pakistan is another mess that I fail to see why the West has must more than perfunctary dealings with. They are an unreliable ally, share few common values with us, and are a black hole for funds should they be provided.

Were it not for their nukes, and tribalists harboring/producing terrorists and Taliban, I'd prefer exactly that: "...(not) much more than perfunctary dealings with...".

AdrianII's Disney-run "Anthro-Park" = rofl. :)

[rory_20_uk]

The nukes are thankfully short range, and so firmly the problem of India which IMO can deal with it.

Aid to help Pakistan against the tribal areas not only wastes money, but also gets the leaders branded a puppet of the West - exacerbating the problem.

Invading is not an option, supporting seems increasingly not to be a viable option, so I feel that investing the time and money at home or in league with India is the right direction.

[Banquo's Ghost]

The nukes are thankfully short range, and so firmly the problem of India which IMO can deal with it.

Unless of course, they decide that their friends the Iranians would like a couple for their bigger missiles.

Or someone decides that Uncle Imran in Bradford could do with a new firework for his Nutball's Convention.




Kukri, I think you have it right - ignoring Pakistan is not an option.

[Kralizec]

Seeing as how the coalition parties aren't any better (one is manifestly corrupt, the other islamist) I don't feel at all happy that Musharaff is gone. The chances that a stable regime will follow, let alone a functioning democray seem pretty bleak.

[rory_20_uk]

There is a difference between ignoring a country and not actively supporting it.

What action would prevent Pakistan giving nukes to Iran? What action prevents then giving one to terrorists?

Beefing up overseas inteligence agencies is a far better use of money than either trying to force Pakistan to not do that, be it by bribes or threats.

[Banquo's Ghost]

What action would prevent Pakistan giving nukes to Iran? What action prevents then giving one to terrorists?

Helping encourage a democratic, secular government accountable to the people.

While we are doing that, bribes and threats.

[Adrian II]

What action prevents then giving one to terrorists?

This argument:

[Banquo's Ghost]

This argument:

That argument is sadly, the most feeble.

Any such response would be too late, the supply chain almost untraceable (do we nuke Russia and North Korea too, just to cover all the options?) and worst of all - an outcome actually desired by the kind of nutballs that count martyrdom as a career choice.

[Adrian II]

That argument is sadly, the most feeble.

I wouldn't exactly call it feeble, it is the most convincing argument in the history of mankind. It has so far ensured that there are no 'untraceable' supply chains through which terrorists would acquire nuclear weapons. It has ensured world peace since 1948 by virtually killing all grand designs on the part of the major powers. It has ensured that Pakistan and India enjoy a relatively good relationship for the first time since their births as nations. It's a proper little miracle worker, that nuclear thingamy.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I wouldn't exactly call it feeble, it is the most convincing argument in the history of mankind. It has so far ensured that there are no 'untraceable' supply chains through which terrorists would acquire nuclear weapons. It has ensured world peace since 1948 by virtually killing all grand designs on the part of the major powers. It has ensured that Pakistan and India enjoy a relatively good relationship for the first time since their births as nations. It's a proper little miracle worker, that nuclear thingamy.

For normal people that love their children, I agree.

For the kind of loonies that fly planes into towers full of innocents, I very much doubt it.

And my point (to rory rather than you) is that if we ignore Pakistan, it is those who who favour such loonies who may supply the weapons they crave. Pakistan is the one country where this might feasibly happen, is all I am saying.

[LittleGrizzly]

I don't think this is a paticularly good thing, he wasn't the greatest president ever but i think he's better than the alternatives...

[Adrian II]

For normal people that love their children, I agree.

For the kind of loonies that fly planes into towers full of innocents, I very much doubt it.

The first category keep the second in check because they fear the consequences if the second category have their way.

That's what I'm saying all the time on this forum. Any secret service today is closely watching both its nuclear establishment and its more choleric citizens or visitors to make sure the transfer of sensitive material and/or knowledge from one to the other never happens.

Of course this check isn't foolproof. But then what is?

[Jolt]

Quickly NATO, invade Waziristan while there is no President in power, kill all the Talibans and retreat before the elections take place!

[Tristuskhan]

Quickly NATO, invade Waziristan while there is no President in power, kill all the Talibans and retreat before the elections take place!

... and watch the new Talebanoïd party win because of the hate further spread in the population by this Infidel aggression. Wrong move....

[Papewaio]

Apart from Cricket and Football, it is readily apparent that they have some knowledge of nuclear bombs.
A. Q. Khan

So we could step back and let the country slip further down and then try and get capital by selling nuclear knowledge.

BTW I think the Uranium isotope fingerprint of even a mildly dirty bomb would be traceable to the specific reactor pile it came from.

[rory_20_uk]

Even if the Uranium can be traced, easy solution: take what you want and get close to destination. Later rid raid on source - terrorist attack on reactor or whatever, nuclear material stolen!

Later when the bomb goes off, what is the target going to do? Bomb and invade a country who'se only fault was to get attacked by terrorists?

[Adrian II]

Even if the Uranium can be traced, easy solution: take what you want and get close to destination. Later rid raid on source - terrorist attack on reactor or whatever, nuclear material stolen!

Later when the bomb goes off, what is the target going to do? Bomb and invade a country who'se only fault was to get attacked by terrorists?

It's that easy, huh? And you never wonder why it hasn't happened in all those years?

[rory_20_uk]

No, not easy - unless either the Pakistani army or intelligence services decided to do it. My point was that IF a very powerful organisation wishes to undertake the course of action it does allow for plausible deniability - quite useful if the alternative might be the USA turning large parts of the country into a vitrified dessert.

[Whacker]

That argument is sadly, the most feeble.

Any such response would be too late, the supply chain almost untraceable (do we nuke Russia and North Korea too, just to cover all the options?) and worst of all - an outcome actually desired by the kind of nutballs that count martyrdom as a career choice.

I wouldn't call it the most feeble.

If I read your intent properly (I hope), then I do agree that the actual usage of nukes in a combat or wartime scenario, or even at all, is generally unthinkable by anyone with a shred of common sense and realistic thought. I firmly believe that the next nation (or group) that uses or attempts to use nuclear weapons will be roundly vilified and denounced by the world at large, possibly by longstanding allies as well.

(Aside - This is precisely the reason why I think China has/had a vested interest in keeping N. Korea on a rather tight leash. Sure they'll let them bark and generally make asses of themselves and whomever they're trying to play hardball with, but when the rubber hits the road, China does not want to give them any excuse that would possibly lead up to 1. a US lead war that would involve land invasion, a Korean War II if you will, or 2. an exchange of nuclear weapons due to it's proximity to China proper. Pakistan doesn't seem to be in a situation like that at all, however they do have India to contend with, and I think India has been doing a good job of checking their power.)

However, it is still quite an effective deterrent IMO. Yeah, the ability to lob a nuke off at your opponents is a large ego boost for any nation that possesses them, however in terms of dealing with the US, or even Russia and China, one must realize that they MIGHT be able to get in one shot, somehow, maybe... but if they succeeded (or even didn't) then we all have the capability to turn whomsoever's little chunk of the world into a large radioactive glowing crater many, many, many times over. In other words, they might get in that one good sucker punch or two, but that's all they'll get and their demise totally guaranteed. I think this is one reason the US has been able to get away with as much BS as it has globally in the decades since WWII.

[Hosakawa Tito]

No, not easy - unless either the Pakistani army or intelligence services decided to do it. My point was that IF a very powerful organisation wishes to undertake the course of action it does allow for plausible deniability - quite useful if the alternative might be the USA turning large parts of the country into a vitrified dessert.

Yeah, and no one's had the cajones to test that theory yet. Apparently life is too sweet for those in power, and when they speak of matyrdom for the cause...they mean some other poor dumb s.o.b.

[drone]

The UN needs an escrow program where countries going through upheaval can put their nukes until they get sorted out.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I wouldn't call it the most feeble.

If I read your intent properly (I hope), then I do agree that the actual usage of nukes in a combat or wartime scenario, or even at all, is generally unthinkable by anyone with a shred of common sense and realistic thought. I firmly believe that the next nation (or group) that uses or attempts to use nuclear weapons will be roundly vilified and denounced by the world at large, possibly by longstanding allies as well.

My point was that deterrence only works against states that fear annihilation.

Al-Qaeda is an stateless organisation proven to be uncaring of death - indeed, many of its operatives seek their own death and the immolation of "collaborators" as a holy mission. If they could explode a device in Washington, they wouldn't care a jot if the whole Middle East was then incinerated - they'd probably wish it as a curse on the less devoted.

Pakistan has a significant part of its state apparatus (the security service ISI) highly sympathetic to al-Qaeda.

It is therefore not inconcievable that nuclear materials through to actual warheads could be supplied to al-Qaeda by sympathisers.

Threatening Pakistan with retaliation for such an act, when the government of that state has no effective control over those who may commit it, is pointless.

Thus, it is a feeble countermeasure to rely on deterrence to prevent such a scenario.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I should add that Pakistan's nuclear warheads are not so easily smuggled, and I would be hard to convince that al-Qaeda had the wit to deploy them effectively - but the truth remains, in a world where we get our panties in a bunch over a state like Iran getting nukes (which is entirely susceptible to deterrence) Pakistan's high level Islamicist sympathisers remain the biggest danger for terrorists getting a bomb.

[JR-]

The UN needs an escrow program where countries going through upheaval can put their nukes until they get sorted out.

agreed, but personally i would prefer pakistan didn't have nukes at all, they aren't grown-up enough to be allowed them.