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.