Destabilization of Pakistan

[Brian]

Pakistan has already had trouble maintaining a secure government, but as I'm sure you've all noticed its getting a lot worse. Pressure from the united states has put it at war with home grown malitias in the west, but now that there has been a terrorist attack on Pakistan the old conflict there has been ignited again.

Why does this matter? For one, both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers. The chances of Pakistan surviving a war with india are slim. In the event that they didn't use all of their nukes we might be in a worse place than if they had. As the country falls appart, the militias and warlords of the area could forseably take control of several nuclear armaments. Worse, more organized groups like Al-Qaeda, already present in the area, could also obtain access to nuclear armaments.

In addition to this, the destabilization of pakistan removes a parliamentary government and creates another unstable nation in an already unstable region, leaving 3 nations clearly torn appart by war and further involving the United States.

I have a few questions in mind. It is not unusual for the United States military to seek to undermine governments which threaten to oppose the U.S. policy. I'm an American, I'm patriotic, but I know our government isn't innocent in that regard. I half wonder if the Bush administration has anything to dod with this. Even if it's just Al Qaeda, he certainly created the opportunity by investing too much time and many troops in Iraq when they were clearly needed elsewhere.

What are your thoughts on this? Both Pakistan and India have stepped up the dialogue about forseable war and Indian officials have mentioned putting aside the 5 year peace treaty they had signed.

Bad for America clealry. Why isn't anyone talking about this?

[Conspiracy3]

At 11/30/08 10:36 PM, Brian wrote: Why does this matter? For one, both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers.

This is where I stopped reading. Pakistan is not a nuclear power. They are attempting to create a nuclear program but they do not have nuclear weapons.

[Brian]

At 11/30/08 10:56 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote:

At 11/30/08 10:36 PM, Brian wrote: Why does this matter? For one, both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers.

This is where I stopped reading. Pakistan is not a nuclear power. They are attempting to create a nuclear program but they do not have nuclear weapons.

"The U.S.-based Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) estimates that Pakistan has built 24-48 HEU-based nuclear warheads with HEU reserves for 30-52 additional warheads.[9][10] The US Navy Center for Contemporary Conflict estimates that Pakistan possesses between a low of 35 and a high of 95 nuclear warheads, with a median of 60.[11] But these are outdated sources."

[Conspiracy3]

At 11/30/08 10:59 PM, Brian wrote:

At 11/30/08 10:56 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote:

At 11/30/08 10:36 PM, Brian wrote: Why does this matter? For one, both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers.

This is where I stopped reading. Pakistan is not a nuclear power. They are attempting to create a nuclear program but they do not have nuclear weapons.

"The U.S.-based Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) estimates that Pakistan has built 24-48 HEU-based nuclear warheads with HEU reserves for 30-52 additional warheads.[9][10] The US Navy Center for Contemporary Conflict estimates that Pakistan possesses between a low of 35 and a high of 95 nuclear warheads, with a median of 60.[11] But these are outdated sources."

They are outdated sources. And I don't believe a word they say ever since they lied about Iraq having nuclear weapons. (granted they might have actually believed it, but hearing it from a foreign government who heard from another foreign government about one man being tortured in Egypt isn't a very reliable source)

[Brian]

At 11/30/08 11:06 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: They are outdated sources. And I don't believe a word they say ever since they lied about Iraq having nuclear weapons. (granted they might have actually believed it, but hearing it from a foreign government who heard from another foreign government about one man being tortured in Egypt isn't a very reliable source)

I'm not going to argue with you over this one. The pakistani government has tested nuclear arms in the past succesfully and their own commanders claim to have the technology. This isn't a country that's trying to create bombs, they've already done it. Which is why for a large portion of the 90s everyone was staring at the two countries and screaming "WTF ARE YOU GUYS DOING? SIGN THIS TREATY AND STOP IT ALREADY."
The U.S.-based Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) estimates that Pakistan has built 24-48 HEU-based nuclear warheads with HEU reserves for 30-52 additional warheads.[9][10] The US Navy Center for Contemporary Conflict estimates that Pakistan possesses between a low of 35 and a high of 95 nuclear warheads, with a median of 60.[11] But these are outdated sources.

The NRDC's and the Carnegie Foundation's estimates of approximately 50 weapons are from 2002-03 estimations. In 2000, US Military intelligence estimated that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal may be as large as 100 warheads.[12]. The actual size is hard for experts to gauge owing to the secrecy which surrounds the program in Pakistan. In recent developments, retired Brig. General Feroz Khan, previously second in command at the Strategic Arms Division of Pakistans' Military told a Pakistani newspaper the nation has "about 80 to 120 genuine warheads," and also revealed that Pakistan has decoy or dummy warheads to complicate any designs by aggressors.[13][14]

Pakistan tested plutonium capability in the sixth nuclear test of May 30, 1998 at Kharan. In this test, the latest and most sophisticated bomb design made to be carried by missiles was tested. And it was a very compact, yet powerful device.[citation needed] Compactness is also an issue with F-16s and other fighter-bomber aircraft of the same class, unless the platform happens to be a dedicated strategic bomber. F-16s have limits to the size and weight of the bombs they can carry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_an d_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Arsenal

[aviewaskewed]

At 11/30/08 10:36 PM, Brian wrote: Bad for America clealry. Why isn't anyone talking about this?

Because sadly most people in this country are absolutely retarded when it comes to world politics. I doubt most of them could find Pakistan on a map (or even get the general geographic area correct), let alone have a clue about it's political stability or lack thereof. I doubt most people have even heard of the heavy Al-Qaieda prescence there.

As far as the instability, I'm not sure how much (if any of it) could be levied at the Bush administration without some damn solid evidence. Bush has pretty much shown he's not a president who likes the cloak and dagger much, he tends to like to make big loud statements and turn things into a full scale public war vs. trying to get the enemy to beat itself from within.

Considering it's a nuclear power talking about fighting another nuclear power while the government potentially crumbles one would have to hope that the UN is taking note here and other governments are going to want to try and help calm the situation. There's only so much any one nation can do and an unstable nuclear power doesn't just threaten the US, it has the potential to threaten the world at large.

[Imperator]

At 12/1/08 12:22 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:
Considering it's a nuclear power talking about fighting another nuclear power while the government potentially crumbles one would have to hope that the UN is taking note here and other governments are going to want to try and help calm the situation. There's only so much any one nation can do and an unstable nuclear power doesn't just threaten the US, it has the potential to threaten the world at large.

My guess is the UN will do what is typical: nothing effective.

It seems to be the biggest flaw in the UN that they don't actually have a whole lot of practical power. They seem to ride on influnence and trust most of the time. Since the US, by virtue of its strength, is always the most likely candidate for actually enforcing UN mandates, it'll be interesting to see what the US does considering the current diplomatic and military weaknesses.

My guess is you'll see actions from Israel, India, the US, or China (perhaps in resposne to India) before you see any sort of productive move by the UN. Seems to me most nations don't necessarily wait for UN approval before acting on their own initiatives.

[Brian]

At 12/1/08 12:22 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Because sadly most people in this country are absolutely retarded when it comes to world politics. I doubt most of them could find Pakistan on a map (or even get the general geographic area correct), let alone have a clue about it's political stability or lack thereof. I doubt most people have even heard of the heavy Al-Qaieda prescence there.

I'd disagree slightly. I'm sure they've heard about it, I just doubt anyone recognizes the significance of Pakistan and its tense relationship to India (which is SO close to China on top of everything).

As far as the instability, I'm not sure how much (if any of it) could be levied at the Bush administration without some damn solid evidence. Bush has pretty much shown he's not a president who likes the cloak and dagger much, he tends to like to make big loud statements and turn things into a full scale public war vs. trying to get the enemy to beat itself from within.

I certainly don't want to turn this into a blaim bush game, but I'm be more than willing to wage a bet that Bush has acted in a cloak and dagger way numerous times, and if not on his orders he has certainly approved CIA projects with people who would know how to do that. I remember there being reports of attempts to destabilize Iran, though nothing much has come of it. Pakistan is the easier of the two to destabilize, but the only reason I could see the CIA even thinking of doing that is if they feared the government was too far in bed with Al-Qaeda to be managable anymore, especially with the recent resistance to US raids with in their borders and the reaching out to militants for peace.

I can't blame Bush for this directly, but he certainly had a hand setting up the most recent catalists on the western side of Pakistan. I wouldn't blame him for any of the the stuff on the east side though, its more a 50-50 split there.

Considering it's a nuclear power talking about fighting another nuclear power while the government potentially crumbles one would have to hope that the UN is taking note here and other governments are going to want to try and help calm the situation. There's only so much any one nation can do and an unstable nuclear power doesn't just threaten the US, it has the potential to threaten the world at large.

Yeah, which invites a whole host of other problems. Who is going to help Pakistan during this economic crisis and in what form? What will the American-China reaction be to both Pakistan and each other if either has a hand in the actions. Don't forget it was China that helped Pakistan progress it's Nuclear arms program which has been suspected of proliferating Nuclear weapons in an irresponsible fashion according to the wikipedia article.

It's not very pretty.

[Musician]

At 11/30/08 10:56 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: This is where I stopped reading. Pakistan is not a nuclear power. They are attempting to create a nuclear program but they do not have nuclear weapons.

What are you talking about? Pakistan has had nukes since the mid-90's.

[n64kid]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sta tes_with_nuclear_weapons

The US has the bomb.
Russia has the bomb.
England has the bomb.
France has the bomb.
China has the bomb.
Israel has the bomb.
India has the bomb.
North Korea has the bomb.
Pakistan has the bomb.

Several others can obtain nuclear weapons through trade and treaty as well.

[Brian]

At 12/1/08 12:32 AM, Imperator wrote: My guess is the UN will do what is typical: nothing effective.

It seems to be the biggest flaw in the UN that they don't actually have a whole lot of practical power. They seem to ride on influnence and trust most of the time. Since the US, by virtue of its strength, is always the most likely candidate for actually enforcing UN mandates, it'll be interesting to see what the US does considering the current diplomatic and military weaknesses.

I imagine that the U.S. will continue raids into the western part of Pakistan while Pakistan continues to be inefectual against it. Then, if we ever manage some semblance of stability in Afghanistan we'll focus more heavily on Pakistan if the U.S. isn't tired of fighting a war there. If we get tired, then Pakistan will be allowed to corrupt itself until "terrorists" or rather, some bad people, have enough control in the government to continue training camps, shuttle funding through loop holes and black doors, and possibly acquire equipment to carry out terrorist acts.

If that happens then it can only be assumed relations with India will crumble and we'll have to deal with a corrupt nuclear power that didn't manage to demoralize its population like N. Korea and hence have a much harder time getting things under control. Which we won't succeed at.

It would take a home grown political movement and desire to move away from these things and I don't think any of the current conditions "on the ground" are pushing any Pakistanis in that direction in a significant enough number.

My guess is you'll see actions from Israel, India, the US, or China (perhaps in resposne to India) before you see any sort of productive move by the UN. Seems to me most nations don't necessarily wait for UN approval before acting on their own initiatives.

Israel won't do anything. Pakistan is far enough away and Israel is too concerned with Gaza and its closest neigbors, and then of course Iran. A destabilized Pakistan is not good for Israel, but its outside the zone where they need and want to be effective and a force for their interests.

China and the US however will most likely meddle given the opportunity. I see more coming from China and Russia at this point as far as "new" developments than any change of course by the U.S. Though Obama has expressed concern over Pakistan.

The U.N. as you argued probably won't do anything more than issue a degree and be upset with anyone who actually does something in the end. The U.N. is a force for inaction at all the wrong times and action in all the wrong times as well.

[Conspiracy3]

At 12/1/08 12:22 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 11/30/08 10:36 PM, Brian wrote: Bad for America clealry. Why isn't anyone talking about this?

Because sadly most people in this country are absolutely retarded when it comes to world politics. I doubt most of them could find Pakistan on a map (or even get the general geographic area correct),

Pakistan is the one next to Canada right?
jk

As far as the instability, I'm not sure how much (if any of it) could be levied at the Bush administration without some damn solid evidence. Bush has pretty much shown he's not a president who likes the cloak and dagger much, he tends to like to make big loud statements and turn things into a full scale public war vs. trying to get the enemy to beat itself from within.

US intervention would only make the situation worse. The only way any meaningful success could occur is if the Pakistani government captures Osama Bin Laden. Right now Pakistan has a bad reputation on the world stage. Osama has been known to be hiding there and he is wanted in several dozen nations throughout the middle east and the rest of the world.

I wouldn't mind if Pakistan sought nuclear power programs. Many other nations have completely unregulated nuclear power programs, and we shouldn't give other nations special status. Giving Pakistan uncontrolled rights would be a major security concern so the only way the situation could truly be resolved is if the UN creates an international nuclear regulatory committee that would manage the nuclear programs of not only Pakistan but the rest of the world. UN programs are notoriously toothless so nations across the globe would have to give the UN a standing army to enforce their decisions.

Considering it's a nuclear power talking about fighting another nuclear power while the government potentially crumbles one would have to hope that the UN is taking note here and other governments are going to want to try and help calm the situation. There's only so much any one nation can do and an unstable nuclear power doesn't just threaten the US, it has the potential to threaten the world at large.

[gumOnShoe]

I feel the need to bump this topic that I made 6 weeks ago as a preemptive "I might have told you so." (yeah, Brian's my alt, get over it)

Anyhow, now that the swat valley has fallen to the Taliban and has been put under strict Sharia Law are there any new opinions on this?

The main problem appears to be that Pakistan is mostly a Feudal nation and hence has many "serf-equivalents" which are all to eager to rise against their land lords for a chance at money, power, and any progress.

Anyways, I'm still watching this closely and its not looking good.

[gumOnShoe]

At 4/19/09 01:35 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: I feel the need to bump this topic that I made 6 weeks ago as a preemptive "I might have told you so." (yeah, Brian's my alt, get over it)

months/not weeks.

[gumOnShoe]

At 4/19/09 02:03 PM, KemCab wrote:

At 12/3/08 12:31 AM, Contipec wrote: India is an idiot country who promotes racism and hatred.

Holy shit, will you shut the fuck up? Nobody gives a shit about which countries fit your stupid socialist bill.

Note he posted that last December. :/

Its kind of old hat now.

At 4/19/09 01:35 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

Yeah. I'm still convinced that Pakistan is a backward country mostly because of Islam.

Nah, Islam is just being used to justify backwards beliefs. I know you're this guy who thinks science and atheism will liberate everyone, but honestly its not that simple. People who want to do bad things and control people will use whichever doctrine they can to achieve their ends. See eugenics, something completely unrelated to religion.

Its mostly backwards due to the social structures they're using and have chosen to use. People are people and the uneducated who know there's something better out there are always a dangerous element in a culture where they're being offered a better life. Islam is just one way to connect to them, but its money and land that's convincing them to overthrow their land owners. Sharia law is something the Taliban wants and thats a seperate issue.

Rape is effectively legal there now, and the prisons are packed with women who evidently violated Islamic law by being a victim. The funny thing is that the government has agreed to a cease-fire with the Taliban.

Well the government is still convinced India is the threat because they've allowed themselves to be polarized into a mindset and position.

What kind of allies are these? They have the manpower to get rid of them, yet they won't. Great Muslim friends we have.

They're just now waking up because to them, this is like Canada taking over 10 square miles of Alaska on the Canadian border. Most of the U.S. would just be like.... ok then... have it.

The main problem appears to be that Pakistan is mostly a Feudal nation

Living in the 10th century anyone? The problem with all these backward little nations is that no one has taken the trouble to actually modernize them. Sure, they all want independence but that's as far as it goes. Then it all splinters and falls apart.

Anyways, I'm still watching this closely and its not looking good.

Yeah, it really isn't. I don't trust the Pakistanis really.

I don't trust the uneducated, people with a violent agenda for radical change, or people who think people with different ideas must be a threat.

[gumOnShoe]

At 4/19/09 03:01 PM, KemCab wrote: And why do they have to cave into their demands? The country is getting worse and worse and the government is basically taking it from the Taliban, a militant fundamentalist group.

A man walks up to you in a bar when you are drunk and upset over your situation, tells you its your boss that's the problem and that if you join his group, he'll pay you better and you'll get to put your old boss out of business. You don't have anything to your name, but this man is offering you money and the means to do what he says and all you have to do is hold strictly to the ideology you've supposedly held your entire life. Good deal no?

Wow, they're complete idiots. India, with all its problems, is fairly stable, secular, and is growing economically, whereas Pakistan just seems to be digging a hole for itself.

Yeah, but the bigger problem is that if the Taliban gets a big enough hold we get to see a civil war in a country with nuclear weapons.

Then again, I wonder what would happen if they got into a nuclear war in the near future.

They won't with India, unless the Taliban believes its in their interest to do so after they get a hold on nukes.

But it's more than 10 square miles, and the United States would never let any other nation take over its territory, much less a militant group. It's letting them get a foothold in Pakistan. I guess it shows how much they really care about the welfare of their own country.

Its more than 10 square miles, but the mountainous regions were barely "pakistani" whereas the swat region is very close to settled areas so now people realize this isn't just some group of hicks out in the hills, its close and real.

Yeah, I don't trust them. At the same time, I don't trust that the government will be wholly effective either. And their economy is going to go to the shitter if they scare away tourists and foreign companies with all this religious nonsense.

Which is likely a goal of Al Qaeda & the Taliban. More unhappy people means more people willing to go to extremes and join up. Afghanistan used to have lots of tourist attractions.

[gumOnShoe]

At 4/19/09 05:51 PM, KemCab wrote:

At 4/19/09 03:23 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Good deal no?

Yeah, fuck, wow. What about suicide bombers?

You'll have to excuse the scenario, its slightly off. Muslims don't drink alcohol, but if there's enough unrest and the situation is bad enough you'll have about the same capacity to make good decisions, I'd bet. Suicide bombers are usually younger people indoctrinated in the cause who are impressionable. There have been known cases of using the mentally handicapped, using young men from impoverished families while supplying the family with payments after the fact. The point is, the boys are told they can be heroes and that their family's condition will be greatly improved, in addition to any after life implications used to justify it.

In any case, a strong response from either their government would be needed, unless we have to take care of the place ourselves.

Well, sadly enough, some Pakistanis are looking at the drone attacks as a good thing simply because their government is so ineffectual. I'm not saying its not a good thing, but people who hated the attacks are looking to a foreign power for protection and stability. That's how bad the situation is. Imagine counting on Canada in a war between us and Mexico, (thats a stupid example, but still).

That's troubling. That should be enough reason for armed intervention if things get out of hand. With the anti-Western sentiment brewing there it's very likely that could happen.

Whose armed intervention? Ours? If we do it without government consent would the radicals just ally with the Taliban and hand them and Al Qaeda the launch codes to the nukes? I mean, I don't even know what would happen. I imagine a more silent "peace keeping" mission in the west thats spun away from the true occupation that it is, but I doubt Obama would even fly that as an option.

If they do get ahold of Pakistan's nukes, they will probably use it on India, because of its relative proximity, population density, and lots of Hindus and some tourists. That or Israel, but either way you can't take that risk.

I don't think the Taliban is that concerned with Israel or with India. Al Qaeda, a completely different entity, might be. I'm sure India wouldn't be happy, but I don't know what would happen on any level on that front. Maybe someone who knows more can step up?

And the Taliban are basically moving in. It's very unsettling, considering that a million people live in that region. They'll pick up momentum too, if they don't do anything about it either, except appease them.

Yeah, Sudetenland all over again.

The recession is also making it worse.

Yeah, I can see all of that playing out. I'm not entirely sure what the recession is doing to Pakistan.

It's not the end of the world but it potentially looks like a very serious crisis.

Indeed, but I don't expect to hear much from the media unless there's a full government collapse, and even then it will be minimal. :(

[gumOnShoe]

At 4/21/09 05:21 PM, KemCab wrote: Good decisions?

Misinterpretations! I was saying that people who are poor and ignorant are as likely to make a good decision in respect to their necessities and their rights as a person whose had too much to drink. They can't see clearly. So, I was saying they can't make good decisions.

I take it some people still drink though. It may be illegal there but there's always a black market or exception for foreigners.

Yeah, it entirely depends. There is probably alcohol in the country, but the Islamic faith discourages drinking.

Well, sadly enough, some Pakistanis are looking at the drone attacks as a good thing simply because their government is so ineffectual. I'm not saying its not a good thing, but people who hated the attacks are looking to a foreign power for protection and stability.

Fuck yes. I love robotic war machines.

In all seriousness, though, it's better that they trust us rather than them. We need trust on their part in order to get more people on our side. It's better economically for them, too, because building trust will improve the economic situation. However, the government itself should NOT be a puppet of the West and actively take steps to reform the shitty country.

I don't think its a trust thing, I think its that they've lost faith in their own goverments ability to do anything so they are just looking for someone. They like that we are taking out the Taliban, some of them, but that doesn't mean they like us.

Well, who else's? Besides the radicals are pretty much in league with the Taliban anyway. We've helped them secure their nukes anyway, mainly because of this threat. They probably have contingency plans for this. Either way, if a full-scale war breaks out it would be nonsensical not to intervene against the Taliban.

Yeah, well, we didn't intervene in Iraq the first time when it looked nonsensical not to do so. It will depend on whether obama thinks our armed forces can open yet another front up to full out war. The American People certainly won't be happy.

But for all we know they could be working through the Taliban. Also, having them in control of Pakistan, or its nuclear weapons, means they might otherwise be at risk anyway. Also, I can imagine that if a very fundamentalist government takes over, they will have tens of millions possible crazed fanatics at their disposal, crying out in the streets for Western blood. And on top of that, it's a nuclear state, so even crazier fanatics might advocate beginning a global jihad with atomic weapons.

I don't know. I would think a second Taliban regime would look like Iran.

I'l respond to the other stuff later when I have the chance

[gumOnShoe]

An update - Pakistan mustering army.