Who will be first to use the next nuke? (In conflict)

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Dec 26, 2007
11,782
2
76
Originally posted by: The Green Bean

*snip*

I know that Nato is not the U.N.

India condemned the Israeli barbarism so did Turkey, Spain and other NATO members. The British called for immediate ceasefire. Only a few countries supported Israel. The situation is self-defense. Terrorists have killed almost 1/2 of what they killed on 9/11.

Interesting that India (whom you say is another nation of terrorists and is evil and all that), condemned it.... maybe they aren't such bad people after all.... I digress though.

More on topic, I am not talking about the current Gaza situation. You are trying to combine the Gaza situation and a completely different scenario in which Palestine and Pakistan (maybe others) form an alliance to attack Israel. I am talking about other countries attacking Israel like the 6 day war. In that situation the countries that condemned the Gaza situation would almost certainly back Israel.

It doesn't matter if they condemned the "Israeli bararism" regarding Gaza. Another 6 day war situation (where an alliance of Arab nations like you say they should do) would cause most European nations and the US to back Israel. Although based on history, they may not need any help....
 

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Originally posted by: The Green Bean

*snip*

I know that Nato is not the U.N.

India condemned the Israeli barbarism so did Turkey, Spain and other NATO members. The British called for immediate ceasefire. Only a few countries supported Israel. The situation is self-defense. Terrorists have killed almost 1/2 of what they killed on 9/11.

Interesting that India (whom you say is another nation of terrorists and is evil and all that), condemned it.... maybe they aren't such bad people after all.... I digress though.

More on topic, I am not talking about the current Gaza situation. You are trying to combine the Gaza situation and a completely different scenario in which Palestine and Pakistan (maybe others) form an alliance to attack Israel. I am talking about other countries attacking Israel like the 6 day war. In that situation the countries that condemned the Gaza situation would almost certainly back Israel.

It doesn't matter if they condemned the "Israeli bararism" regarding Gaza. Another 6 day war situation (where an alliance of Arab nations like you say they should do) would cause most European nations and the US to back Israel. Although based on history, they may not need any help....

Do you mean to say while you had the right to defend yourself after 9/11 and invade 2 countries we don't have the same right to form a coalition to defend ourselves? It's a similar situation. No matter what the Israelis say. More than 1/3 of the dead are children.

I never said the Indians are terrorists. The government is aggressive and has become an expert at pointing fingers. India has many internal violent problems that's all. I think India and Pakistan should form a better relationship; starting with trade and eventually a defensive pact to fight terrorists.
 

CLite

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,726
7
76
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
The Arab leaders should grow balls. An all out invasion into Israel should be launched. The Israelis are fascist terrorists.

From a purely practical standpoint how would this be accomplished? Every time the Arab countries have gone up against Israel in a war they have been defeated and usually loose even more land in the process.

During the last war we sent pilots. This time we will send planes and missiles. With the combined efforts of SA, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria and the rest of the Arab countries there is every possibility of destroying the IDF once and forever. The USA is too busy and the world won't stop us. We will be defending ourselves against 1100 civilians that the terrorists have killed. This is no longer the 1970s. Saudi Arabia alone spends more on its military than Israel.

United we stand; divided we fall. Why haven't the muslim leaders realized it yet. Go Colonel Qaddafi!!


Ok, everyone responding to this guy is getting 100% trolled. This scenario is just comedy, and the thought that the US is "too busy" but the largest portion of the U.S. forces outside the continental USA is right in Iraq.... man fucking priceless.
 
Dec 26, 2007
11,782
2
76
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
*snip*

Do you mean to say while you had the right to defend yourself after 9/11 and invade 2 countries we don't have the same right to form a coalition to defend ourselves? It's a similar situation. No matter what the Israelis say. More than 1/3 of the dead are children.

I never said the Indians are terrorists. The government is aggressive and has become an expert at pointing fingers. India has many internal violent problems that's all. I think India and Pakistan should form a better relationship; starting with trade and eventually a defensive pact to fight terrorists.

As I stated earlier I disagree with the Iraq war. I don't believe we had any reason to go there, and shouldn't have gone. Afghanistan I am neutral on, because there were justified reasons to be there to a point. Now that we are in both countries, I believe we need to finish the job. I just wish we hadn't gone into Iraq.

The situation with Gaza is similar in so far as terrorists attack them on an almost daily basis, and if anything they have more reason for Gaza than we did for Iraq. Unfortunately Gaza is so packed that civilian deaths are going to happen. Children will be included in that. If they were targeting children that would be one thing, but when you have Hamas hiding behind civilians (and children) you have to expect loss of life that isn't your intended target. It's sad that innocent people die in war, but unless we go back to the days of armies lining up in formation against one another it's going to happen (although even then civilians were killed on accident).

I thought I had read you saying that somewhere, if you didn't and I am wrong then sorry for my mistake. India I don't believe has become agressive, but I will admit I don't know all the facts. India has many internal problems, but so does Pakistan. Pakistan may even have more. Then again what country doesn't have problems? Every country does, including the US.

We do agree on one thing though. India and Pakistan need to stop their conflict, come to mutual agreement and peace, and start working together. So does the whole world though. Now I sound like Miss America with world peace and working together though, because realistically peace in the ME is not happening anytime soon (and most likely never). India/Pakistan won't be peaceful anytime in the near future either unfortunately.
 

nixium

Senior member
Aug 25, 2008
919
3
81
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
The Arab leaders should grow balls. An all out invasion into Israel should be launched. The Israelis are fascist terrorists.

From a purely practical standpoint how would this be accomplished? Every time the Arab countries have gone up against Israel in a war they have been defeated and usually loose even more land in the process.

During the last war we sent pilots. This time we will send planes and missiles. With the combined efforts of SA, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria and the rest of the Arab countries there is every possibility of destroying the IDF once and forever. The USA is too busy and the world won't stop us. We will be defending ourselves against 1100 civilians that the terrorists have killed. This is no longer the 1970s. Saudi Arabia alone spends more on its military than Israel.

United we stand; divided we fall. Why haven't the muslim leaders realized it yet. Go Colonel Qaddafi!!

You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel with this post. You're proposing the annihilation of everyone in Israel? Every civilian? You clearly need help.

I never knew educated Pakistanis could harbor such despicable thoughts. I thought it would be good to have peace with your country, but such bloodthirstiness, especially in one who considers himself the educated elite, has shown me the folly of such hopes. I shudder to think of what savagery and barbarism the uneducated masses in your country are capable of.
 

nixium

Senior member
Aug 25, 2008
919
3
81
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Originally posted by: JTsyo
Terrorist using nukes would be the dumbest move they could make. It would open up public opinion to almost any reaction. Though terrorist don't seemed to think out their plans all the way through.
With India and Pakistan, do they have enough nukes for a MAD situation? India is a pretty decent sized country, though I guess most of it's population is in large cities.

Pakistan has about 100 Hiroshima+ missiles that can be deployed within 24 hours. They have the missile technology to reach any target within India. It's about as close to MAD as you can get between the two countries.

Personally, I think either Israel or Pakistan will be the countries that do end up using the bomb. I can see, in 40 or 50 years, that if Israel finally gets overrun by it's surrounding neighbors, it'll do a final "FU" to the nations involved and nuke their major cities.

Likewise, I can see Pakistan using nukes on India in an escalating war, basically reducing the entire subcontinent into a glowing mess. Both sides would be annihilated, but if Pakistan was already going to lose massively in a conventional war, why not make India pay dearly for it. 10 nukes per major city will definitely put a cramp in India's victory.

Is this the stuff of your wet dreams? Nuking every Indian city 10 times over?

Sicko.

Edit: The Pakistanis on this board are really friggin nutcases. Are there any that are actually rational and not serial killer material?

 

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
Originally posted by: nixium
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
The Arab leaders should grow balls. An all out invasion into Israel should be launched. The Israelis are fascist terrorists.

From a purely practical standpoint how would this be accomplished? Every time the Arab countries have gone up against Israel in a war they have been defeated and usually loose even more land in the process.

During the last war we sent pilots. This time we will send planes and missiles. With the combined efforts of SA, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria and the rest of the Arab countries there is every possibility of destroying the IDF once and forever. The USA is too busy and the world won't stop us. We will be defending ourselves against 1100 civilians that the terrorists have killed. This is no longer the 1970s. Saudi Arabia alone spends more on its military than Israel.

United we stand; divided we fall. Why haven't the muslim leaders realized it yet. Go Colonel Qaddafi!!

You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel with this post. You're proposing the annihilation of everyone in Israel? Every civilian? You clearly need help.

I never knew educated Pakistanis could harbor such despicable thoughts. I thought it would be good to have peace with your country, but such bloodthirstiness, especially in one who considers himself the educated elite, has shown me the folly of such hopes. I shudder to think of what savagery and barbarism the uneducated masses in your country are capable of.

No. I mean destroying the terrorist IDF and letting the Israelis be; except those that collaborated with the IDF or those we deem as a threat. Those should be tried. Some people would call for them to be sent to a Guantanamo style prison but that's unjust torture.
 

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
Interesting read: How secure are India's nukes?

By Adnan GillLos Angeles, CA
India already enjoys the dubious distinction of running the most unsafe nuclear program, now it can hold the crown for running the most insecure one too. The Indian nuclear program has become a serious threat to world security. By and large, the security threats posed to its nuclear reactors stem from within. It is a ticking time bomb waiting to be tripped by the numerous insurgencies and separatist movements plaguing India, or by natural disasters. Well over half of India is virtually controlled by insurgent groups, like the Naxalites, where the government?s control is minimal to non-existent. Other security threats emanate from the Indians choosing to construct their nuclear facilities on coastlines prone to natural disasters like the monstrous tsunami of 2004.
India is afflicted with countless insurgencies. Over 53 per cent of its geographical territory is under the control of insurgents and separatists. A debilitating insurgency in the Indian-controlled-Kashmir is still carried strong by groups like All-Parties Hurriyat Conference. The Sikh Khalistani movement seeks to create an independent Sikh State out of India's breadbasket state of Punjab. Northeastern India is bled by at least 50 separatist movements, out of which, the most prominent and oldest one is the Naga militant group/National Socialist Council of Nagalim. However, the most serious threat to Indian national security is posed by the leftist Naxalite separatists. Prime minister Manmohan Singh described this Maoist insurgency as "the single biggest internal security challenge ever faced by our country".
Once dismissed as little more than an irritant, the Maoist movement is gaining ground in India. The Naxalites are fighting the Indian government in states like Chhattisgarh, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Karnataka, Kerala, Uttaranchal, Tamil Nadu, and Andhra Pradesh. Over 45 per cent or two-fifth of Indian territory is now under Naxalite influence which extends to 15 States, affecting 509 police stations. Currently, as few as 25 battalions of military and central paramilitary forces are fighting the armed Naxalites who have a presence in 220 districts and are in absolute control of over 160 districts, and spreading wide and far. They have over 55,000 well-trained, well-armed and highly motivated cadres, hi-tech weapons in plenty and a well-honed fighting strategy. Indian intelligence agencies believe that Maoists of India and Nepal have also begun joint operations. Sri Lanka's LTTE and French Maoists are providing full support to the Indian and Nepalese Maoists. In return, the Indian Maoists provide shelter and training camps to Nepal's Maoists.
A day after the British police said they foiled a major plot to attack transatlantic airliners, and exactly a month after Mumbai, India's commercial hub, was hit by a series of bomb blasts, the US embassy in India warned American citizens of possible attacks in or around New Delhi and Mumbai. The US embassy spokesman warned, "Likely targets include major airports, key central Indian government offices, and major gathering places such as hotels and markets." Judging from the September 8, 2006, horrible bomb blast in Malegaon (Maharashtra), which claimed at least 37 victims, it would be safe to assume that the warnings issued by the US embassy were based on credible information. Even though the public warnings issued by the Americans did not include direct threats to the Indian nuclear facilities, still the Indian government deployed 38 elite commandos at its Kalpakkam fast breeder reactor in the southern state of Tamil Nadu. At the same time, the Press Trust of India reported additional commando deployments at other nuclear facilities. It reported, ?The armed forces were given the responsibility of securing [nuclear] facilities and NSG commandoes were deployed at many nuclear plants.?
Few details are available regarding the security standards in place for the Indian nuclear program, but they are believed to be primitive and outdated at best. Depending on the sensitivity of materials, it is generally believed that different levels of security are in place, including fencing and sentries. Physical barriers are installed at nuclear facilities in an effort to deny access to the sensitive areas, and access control is maintained over personnel by visually verifying paper laminated identity cards.
Security experts believe a well-conceived attack on Indian nuclear assets by any number of highly-motivated insurgents and/or their sympathizers can potentially materialize in any of the following scenarios:
Scenario # 1: The insurgents steal an intact nuclear weapon from Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) and detonate it in the middle of Mumbai. Though highly improbable, of all the separatist threats facing India, perhaps the gravest is the possibility of militants obtaining a fully assembled nuclear weapon and detonating it in a metropolitan. Insurgents could potentially acquire nuclear weapons through one of two plausible ways. They could steal an intact nuclear weapon from existing arsenals, or they could buy a stolen weapon. If an Indian separatist group exploded just one nuclear weapon in a major metropolitan, hundreds of thousands of Indians could die and millions will be seriously injured.
Scenario # 2: The insurgents fashion a crude nuclear weapon by stealing fissile material from the Kalpakkam Atomic Reprocessing Plant (KARP) and explode it in Chennai. In November/December 2004, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists reported that India possesses 300-470 kilograms of plutonium, enough to produce up to 120 nuclear weapons, and a reasonable amount of highly enriched uranium (HEU). According to the report by David Albright and Kimberly Kramer titled ?Stockpiles still growing?, ?India may now be producing HEU in significant quantities at a gas centrifuge plant it has been working on for many years.?
Since only a relatively small amount of HEU or plutonium is needed to build a bomb, separatists could potentially steal enough material to build one or more nuclear weapons. A crude nuclear weapon would need 40-50 kilograms of HEU. However, a more sophisticated design would use approximately 12 kilograms of HEU or 4 kilograms of plutonium. The theft of HEU from uranium enrichment plants like the ones at Trombay and Mysore would be especially worrisome, because it is relatively straightforward to make a bomb using this material. The insurgents could acquire enough fissile material to build a nuclear weapon and the expertise to construct a workable bomb.
Scenario # 3: The insurgent sympathizers smuggle highly radioactive material out of the Nuclear Fuel Complex to detonate a radiological dispersion device or ?dirty bomb? in Hyderabad. In an example of security blunder that could have resulted in the theft of fissile material, in August 2006, security was tightened in and around the Narora nuclear power plant after three men working there were arrested for giving fake addresses at the time of their appointments. Unbelievably, the men were given access to the facilities without first conducting thorough background checks.The problem is that India does not only have 22 declared -- including under construction -- nuclear reactors, but it also has about 60 -- less secure -- agencies connected with nuclear activities. India is well known for lax security and overworked systems; security experts believe smuggling of radioactive materials to be highly probable.
Scenario # 4: Naxalites sabotage KARP facilities to cause large release of radiation in Chennai. Security experts think the nature of specific threats to Indian nuclear facilities may include an attack with explosive laden trucks driven through the security parameters to be exploded next to the nuclear reactors or next to the turbines spun by highly radioactive steam. In the past, such tactics had been employed with marginal success by the Iraqi insurgents who breached the Green Zone (Baghdad) security wall by exploding a truck next to the wall. A second truck drove through the hole in the wall and exploded inside the Green Zone by the second suicide bomber. India is no stranger to suicide bombings. In the first recorded instance of suicide bombing in South Asia, ex-Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a Tamil suicide bomber.


Insurgents may even employ other innovative tactics like mounting an aerial attack using an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) or an aircraft in a suicide mission. Naxalites are believed to be armed with short- and long-range rockets. An attack on the nuclear facilities with rockets is also a realistic possibility to cause panic and facilitate breaching of security parameters. The consequences of such attacks could include release of radioactive matter such as contaminated heavy water, pressurized radioactive steam, uranium dust clouds, iodine or cesium, and the associated fires and explosions could cause catastrophic structural failures. In fact, the Indian nuclear program has a history of structural failures. For example, in 1994, owing to faulty design, the concrete containment dome of the Kakrapar Atomic Power Station (KAPS) collapsed.
Scenario # 5: The most realistic scenario. In the aftermath of a massive tsunami, insurgents effortlessly get their hands on unguarded nuclear weapons stored at the unsecured military bases, and fissile materials from the KARP, BARC and/or Tarapur Atomic Power Stations and disperse these weapons and fissile materials all over India. They also sell the loot and stage multiple nuclear attacks. The December 26, 2004 tsunami devastated the coastal stretches of Tamil Nadu. The unimaginable force of the tsunami literally uprooted or flattened every security boundary that was supposed to protect the peripheries of the 500MW prototype fast breeder reactor coming up at Kalpakkam. The security personnel at the facilities were either killed or fled, virtually leaving the nuclear reactor insecure and unguarded for days to come.
In March 2006, the under construction 1,000 MW Koodankulam nuclear power plants were rocked by earthquake tremors. The tremors were strong enough to create severe panic and fear among the local population about the safety and security of the nuclear power project. According to a statement released by the People's Movement Against Nuclear Energy and the South Asian Community Center for Education and Research, "The quake, very close to the Koodankulam reactor site, raises urgent and important questions about the safety of the plants and the security and well-being of the people in Kanyakumari and other southern districts of Tamil Nadu and Kerala". The statement further addressed the slack attitude of Indian authorities towards the safety and security of its nuclear plants: "The local people's concerns about the impact of these plants on their safety, health, livelihoods and well-being have all been simply dismissed so far." Arguably, their fears are not unfounded. It?s not if, but when someone will take advantage of a natural disaster by stealing the fissile materials and/or nuclear weapons from the Indian facilities.
Unfortunately, that?s not where Indian nightmare scenarios will end. In its mad pursuit to become a mini-nuclear power, India is going to ridiculous lengths to amass nuclear technologies in an amateurish hope to enhance its ability to generate additional fissile materials for its nuclear stockpiles. In an example of ultimate irresponsible and reckless behavior, the Indians have tried to negotiate with the Russians to build nuclear reactors even in the open seas. On November 19, 2003, the Indian news daily, The Hindu, reported a conversation between the Indian national security adviser Brajesh Mishra and the Russian atomic energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev on a Russian offer of floating nuclear plants in international waters off the Indian shores, because then, the ownership of the plants can remain with the supplier. How India and Russia planed to protect the floating nuclear power plants in open seas against hurricanes, accidental collisions, terrorist attacks, aerial or underwater attacks, or sabotage is anybody?s guess.
As a member of the Convention on Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials and under UN Resolution 1540, India is required to establish the highest standards of security for its fissile materials. Sadly, so far, the security standards at Indian nuclear facilities are believed to be rudimentary and primitive at best. The Indian nuclear program is fast becoming a serious threat to world security. Rising radioactive plumes from the sabotaged Indian facilities or nuclear explosions will certainly poison the food and water supplies in the Subcontinent. Depending on the time of the year, the radioactive dust from India can be carried by the prevailing upper atmosphere winds all the way to Western Europe and even to the United States!
How Secure Are Indian Nukes?


 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,767
46,572
136
More secure than Pakistan's.

That "article" is pretty much worthless being composed of far fetched speculation.
 

FlashG

Platinum Member
Dec 23, 1999
2,709
2
0
Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Poll doesn't matter

If nukes are used again it would be the last and no one left to know about it.

I doubt that. Personally I think it will be a group or individual that gets a nuke and uses it, probably against Israel. It will spark a lot of fear and outrage, and a massive conventional war that will change the leadership of what ever country(s) is blamed as backing the group or individual, and then nothing much else. I suspect that it will happen a few more times after that before we figure out some way to stop it.

In light of recent developments I am changing my vote to USA, and we will use it against the evil life forms of Mars. How dare they invalidate our terracentric view point with their methane creating heresy! I?m fact I vote that we use the Mars Rovers as spotting devices to target Mars for an immediate full scale nuclear bombardment immediately.

Yes, we need to return Marvin the Martian's Pu-239 space modulator.

 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
I voted for "non-state factions" (ie, terrorists), which is kind of a cop-out since it's such an easy option to pick. After that I guess I'd go with Pakistan simply because that country is infested with Islamicists and the government doesn't look too stable.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: SMOGZINNI doubt that. Personally I think it will be a group or individual that gets a nuke and uses it, probably against Israel. It will spark a lot of fear and outrage, and a massive conventional war that will change the leadership of what ever country(s) is blamed as backing the group or individual, and then nothing much else. I suspect that it will happen a few more times after that before we figure out some way to stop it.

If something like that happens, I wonder if the amount of fear that it would create amongst Americans and Europeans would be such that it would result in a war to stamp out the Islamic religion all together.
 

SamurAchzar

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2006
2,422
3
76
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
The Arab leaders should grow balls. An all out invasion into Israel should be launched. The Israelis are fascist terrorists.

From a purely practical standpoint how would this be accomplished? Every time the Arab countries have gone up against Israel in a war they have been defeated and usually loose even more land in the process.

During the last war we sent pilots. This time we will send planes and missiles. With the combined efforts of SA, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria and the rest of the Arab countries there is every possibility of destroying the IDF once and forever. The USA is too busy and the world won't stop us. We will be defending ourselves against 1100 civilians that the terrorists have killed. This is no longer the 1970s. Saudi Arabia alone spends more on its military than Israel.

United we stand; divided we fall. Why haven't the muslim leaders realized it yet. Go Colonel Qaddafi!!

See that, kids? So who's the real aggressor here? I don't recall Israel sending pilots to help India fight Pakistan. It's yet another example of the Muslims uniting in a Jihad war against Israel. If anyone needed reminders that this is a holy war waged by the Muslims and not a war over territories.

Fortunately neither Pakistan or Iran or the entire Arab League stand a chance against Israel of today, and none will try, too.

Assuming Muslims have their way with Israel, and enforce a Taliban style ruling all over Northern Africa, parts of Asia and the Middle East, who'd be next? You surely don't think they will leave the West alone, right?


 

SamurAchzar

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2006
2,422
3
76
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: SMOGZINNI doubt that. Personally I think it will be a group or individual that gets a nuke and uses it, probably against Israel. It will spark a lot of fear and outrage, and a massive conventional war that will change the leadership of what ever country(s) is blamed as backing the group or individual, and then nothing much else. I suspect that it will happen a few more times after that before we figure out some way to stop it.

If something like that happens, I wonder if the amount of fear that it would create amongst Americans and Europeans would be such that it would result in a war to stamp out the Islamic religion all together.

I have no idea who'll use the nuke first, but I'm pretty certain he'll be Muslim.

 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: RichardE

Either way, Pakistan is a shit hole country that can't even clean up it's own borders.

The Israelis are terrorists occupying land that doesn't even belong to them. The IDF has no land to protect. All land that is "Israel" is illegally occupied land and if anybody should be cleaned up it's the IDF terrorist organization. They are without the doubt the most bloody and sophisticated terrorist network in the world and I think the arabs should clean them up.

wow someone hates the Jews!

I wonder if you even know why Isreal exists and who made it possible?
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: nixiumYou're really scraping the bottom of the barrel with this post. You're proposing the annihilation of everyone in Israel? Every civilian? You clearly need help.

I never knew educated Pakistanis could harbor such despicable thoughts. I thought it would be good to have peace with your country, but such bloodthirstiness, especially in one who considers himself the educated elite, has shown me the folly of such hopes. I shudder to think of what savagery and barbarism the uneducated masses in your country are capable of.

The Islamic religion can do this to people who might otherwise be rational. If we could somehow eradicate this backwards, barbaric ideology, the world would be a much better place. Maybe money that's currently used to combat radical Islam could be used to help the world's poor instead.
 

AFMatt

Senior member
Aug 14, 2008
248
0
0
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Don't both South Africa andAustralia have nukes too?

No. South Africa ditched their very short lived nuclear weapon program in the late 80/early 90s. The only nations with nuclear weapon capability today are the U.S., Israel, Russia, China, France, U.K., India, Pakistan, and North Korea.
 

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
What fucking irony in this thread. It's okay to hate all muslims. But when someone hate all jews (which I don't) he's a barbaric retard. And you say I'm brainwashed!
 

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
COMMENTATORS in Pakistan refer to its nuclear assets much too often and needlessly. They speak of Pakistan and India as ?nuclear armed? neighbours or rivals.

This they do in spite of the fact that the entire world is aware not only of the hostility between these two countries but also that both of them possess nuclear weapons and a nuclear war in this region is not beyond the realm of possibility. Pakistani officials have felt it necessary to assure visiting foreign dignitaries that these weapons are in safe hands beyond the reach of militants and terrorists.

It may be said that these assurances are needless, for no major power has called upon Pakistan to prove to the world?s satisfaction that its nuclear assets are secure. But it is a fact also that governments and think tanks in North America and Europe have periodically expressed concern that these assets might not be secure.

Some Pakistani observers are inclined to interpret this concern as an indication of the western powers? unwillingness to countenance a Muslim nation?s possession of nuclear weapons, emanating from their generalised disapproval of Islam both as a doctrine and a guide to conduct. This interpretation may have an element of truth, but it cannot be the main explanation of the western powers? reservations in this regard.

The apprehension that Pakistan?s nuclear weapons might fall into the wrong hands is based on the hard fact that the ?wrong hands? ? fanatics, militants, terrorists ? do exist in this country in substantial numbers and they are doing their work. It may not be likely that they will come to power through the electoral process or otherwise seize the government. But sceptics worry also that an anti-western coalition of forces ? not only the Taliban and the likes of them but also those who are sympathetic to their ideological persuasion and mission ? may come to power and feel free to use the weapons under its control to the western powers? detriment.

According to some reports, there have been indications on the part of an Islamic party that the Islamic parties in the country could be considered trustworthy guardians of its nuclear weapons if they came to power. These assurances may not be entirely credible in view of the fact that these parties have never condemned the death and destruction that the Taliban and other Islamic militants have been visiting upon this country. In my reckoning, however, it is most improbable that any radical group, Islamic or other, will take control of the government in Pakistan in the foreseeable future. Western worries concerning the security of its nuclear assets are therefore misplaced. They are based upon hypothetical calculations of that which is conceivable, not that which is probable.

It may be true that officials concerned in the American administration prepare contingency plans for immobilising, or taking control of, Pakistan?s nuclear weapons in the event that anti-western radicals do take power in that country. That does not mean that the occasion for these plans to be implemented will ever arise. It should be noted also that the disposition of Pakistan?s nuclear weapons and their security are related to their location and the identity of those who know it.

Pakistan embarked upon a nuclear programme around 1973 and openly became a maker of nuclear weapons in May 1998. It may already have built a small number of warheads by this time. Their production is believed to have been an ongoing operation since then.The places where the US and Russia have stored their nuclear weapons are known and their security is ensured by the erection of insurmountable physical barriers and by controlling access to the sites. In Pakistan these weapons are made secure by the maintenance of strict secrecy regarding their locations. It was said at the time that President Ghulam Ishaq Khan personally supervised and directed the country?s nuclear programme. But one cannot say how much of the specifics of production and storage of weapons he knew.

Gen Pervez Musharraf established a National Command and Control Authority, consisting of some 10 members with the president and the prime minister as chairman and vice-chairman respectively, to supervise Pakistan?s nuclear programme in its various facets. But it is unlikely that all of its members know where the weapons are stored.

It is to be noted that the bombs are not stacked anywhere as completed units, their components are assembled and placed in their casings, with coded switches installed, ready to be mounted on delivery vehicles and fired. The production of a bomb consists of several different processes, each of them housed in a location (usually an army unit) known only to those responsible for carrying it out.

Those who manage one of these processes do not know where and how the other processes are going on. The components produced at these various stations are transported to a central place where they are put together. Each bomb has to have a fissile core and non-nuclear materials. The fissile core is stored in a vault by itself, apart from the other materials. This core is to be placed at the bottom of the heap in the bomb, and a coded off-on switch is installed. The weapon is then ready to be placed on a delivery vehicle and sent away. No one other than the army chief and a couple of others knows the changing location of either the components or the finished product.

It follows that a nuclear weapon is not something that a thief can put in his pocket and walk away with, or even load it on a truck and drive off. The weapons cannot really go into the wrong hands unless their custodians, the army chief and some of his top deputies, are willing to let this happen, I cannot think of any reason why the head of the Pakistan Army and his associates would be willing to transfer nuclear weapons to any outsiders. The greater likelihood is that they would want to be the ones who decide when, where and against whom these weapons are to be deployed. In the making of these choices even the president and the prime minister may have to take the back seat.

The writer, professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, is a visiting professor at the Lahore School of Economics.

This was in the papers today. A good read.
 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,732
2
81
I think it will be Iran; it is a foregone conclusion that they are going to attain a nuclear weapon as early as this year;

Fresh Clues of Iranian Nuclear Intrigue

"There doesn't seem to be any real doubt or debate whether Iran is going for the bomb or whether Iran is using front companies to import things. Everyone agrees on that around the world."

The Iranian government has such an overwhelming desire to see Israel destroyed; it seems it is like a holy mandate to them that must be carried out at all cost. Their President also believes that they will usher in the new messiah by such a holocaust. So once they think they have acquired enough nuclear weapons to do the job, BOOM!
 

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
16,208
4,888
136
Well I believe that Iran will be the next one either directly or indirectly via supplying a terrorist orgnization with one. Regardless of the delivery method you can't change the origin of the device.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
72,904
34,023
136
Originally posted by: Socio
I think it will be Iran; it is a foregone conclusion that they are going to attain a nuclear weapon as early as this year;

Fresh Clues of Iranian Nuclear Intrigue

"There doesn't seem to be any real doubt or debate whether Iran is going for the bomb or whether Iran is using front companies to import things. Everyone agrees on that around the world."

The Iranian government has such an overwhelming desire to see Israel destroyed; it seems it is like a holy mandate to them that must be carried out at all cost. Their President also believes that they will usher in the new messiah by such a holocaust. So once they think they have acquired enough nuclear weapons to do the job, BOOM!

Either that or they want nukes to deter US/Israeli aggression. Bush, Cheney, and Rice swinging their dicks around for eight years, committing war crimes against a next door neighbor, has done nothing but push Iran to move faster on weapons development. Under the circumstances, with nuclear-armed US, Israel, and Pakistan in the region, it would be irresponsible for Iran to not pursue nuclear weapons.