Indian Congress seeks to declare Pakistan a terror state...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
The world needs us more than we need them.

No, the world doesn't need Pakistan at all. Pakistan could be annihilated tomorrow and it would make no difference. No one would care. The world would go on.

Edit: Everyone knows this.

I nominate you for being in the country that is the most powerful in the world, deciding the fates of lesser powers. You clearly have the moral compass for the responsibility.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: tvarad
Originally posted by: firewall
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Someone really needs to off that little f**ker, AQ Khan ... in the worst GD way.

What if he had obtained nuclear weapons for YOUR country, in a cold war where your enemy had nuclear weapons with which to threaten you? You would call him a hero, right?

Pakistan isn't the first nation to place its own interests in having the power of nukes ahead of the global interest in preventing nuclear war.

There's nothing surprising here - India playing politics with the 'terror' label (who set the precedent for that game?), with the world justifibaly concerned with the nuclear proliferation in the India-Pakistan conflict, while Pakistan is greatful for obtaining nuclear weapons with which to balance India's.

The issue it seems to me is less about assigning blame and wanting to go assassinate a Pakistan patriot for serving his nation's interests - however dangerously for the world - than in dealing with the threat of the nuclear conflict and looking for ways to prevent a nuclear exchange, with whatever combination of reducing tensions, disarming nukes, etc.

Before we see more of the cowboy mentality on this to just call them an enemy for getting nukes, how willing are people to give up our nuclear weapons?

We're part of the problem. One choice is to not have nukes in the world. People who can get them refuse that choice for their own nation. A second choice is to help non-proliferation by guaranteeing the security of non-nuclear states so they don't feel the pressure to get nukes. Nations in a position to violate others refuse that choice and continue to pose a threat to non-nuclear nations, leaving the demand high.

So that leads to the road of ongoing encroachments, ongoing proliferation, until eventually a nuclear exchange is increasingly likely.

Very rational points. Nice post.

I don't see this act by Indian Congress to be anything other than being politically motivated. Elections are coming up and they need to use the anti-Pakistan sentiments to get public support. The Indian economy isn't really that good with all that happened with Satyam and other companies.

For the foreseeable future, at least until the elections, expect elevated levels of rhetoric from India to gain political support.

I think the day of reckoning for countries like Pakistan, North Korea and Iran which have no cohesive basis for nationhood other than ideology is fast approaching. Pretty soon, we can start taking bets on which will be turned to glass first.

I submit this post into evidence for proving how we create the need for Iran and others to get nuclear weapons.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
There is no possibility of us being declared a nuclear state in the foreseeable future. The world needs us more than we need them.
With all due respect, your entire country and all of its people could vanish into thin air tomorrow, and the only result would be a marked improvement in the security, stability, and economy of the entire region.

Now, I sincerely hope that never happens, and I do believe you can change directions if you ever decide to really try. But, the first thing you need to do is to accept reality.

It's like being an alcoholic... your first step is admitting you have a big problem.

I digress...

Releasing Khan was a huge mistake. The man may be a hero to the people of Pakistan; but, to the rest of the world, he's the worst sort of criminal (like most Pakistani heroes?).

I pray that Khan dies soon.
 

tvarad

Golden Member
Jun 25, 2001
1,130
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: tvarad
Originally posted by: firewall
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Someone really needs to off that little f**ker, AQ Khan ... in the worst GD way.

What if he had obtained nuclear weapons for YOUR country, in a cold war where your enemy had nuclear weapons with which to threaten you? You would call him a hero, right?

Pakistan isn't the first nation to place its own interests in having the power of nukes ahead of the global interest in preventing nuclear war.

There's nothing surprising here - India playing politics with the 'terror' label (who set the precedent for that game?), with the world justifibaly concerned with the nuclear proliferation in the India-Pakistan conflict, while Pakistan is greatful for obtaining nuclear weapons with which to balance India's.

The issue it seems to me is less about assigning blame and wanting to go assassinate a Pakistan patriot for serving his nation's interests - however dangerously for the world - than in dealing with the threat of the nuclear conflict and looking for ways to prevent a nuclear exchange, with whatever combination of reducing tensions, disarming nukes, etc.

Before we see more of the cowboy mentality on this to just call them an enemy for getting nukes, how willing are people to give up our nuclear weapons?

We're part of the problem. One choice is to not have nukes in the world. People who can get them refuse that choice for their own nation. A second choice is to help non-proliferation by guaranteeing the security of non-nuclear states so they don't feel the pressure to get nukes. Nations in a position to violate others refuse that choice and continue to pose a threat to non-nuclear nations, leaving the demand high.

So that leads to the road of ongoing encroachments, ongoing proliferation, until eventually a nuclear exchange is increasingly likely.

Very rational points. Nice post.

I don't see this act by Indian Congress to be anything other than being politically motivated. Elections are coming up and they need to use the anti-Pakistan sentiments to get public support. The Indian economy isn't really that good with all that happened with Satyam and other companies.

For the foreseeable future, at least until the elections, expect elevated levels of rhetoric from India to gain political support.

I think the day of reckoning for countries like Pakistan, North Korea and Iran which have no cohesive basis for nationhood other than ideology is fast approaching. Pretty soon, we can start taking bets on which will be turned to glass first.

I submit this post into evidence for proving how we create the need for Iran and others to get nuclear weapons.

Dude, you're naive to think that the thugs running Iran, Pakistan or North Korea need an excuse for acquiring nukes.