Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Emergency plan for nuclear disarmament of Pakistan

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Emergency plan for nuclear disarmament of Pakistan, this year by US and NATO forces – that must become a priority task for US Congress and Bush’s Administration in 2007. Democrats should insist on 100 % guarantee plan of 100 % destruction and evacuation of military nuclear facilities of Pakistan facing a serious threat of transition of power in Pakistan into the hands of most radical Islamic groups through forthcoming rotation in Pakistan parliament after nearest parliamentary election. The result of radicalization of Pakistan voters will be parliament majority in Pakistan under control of political parties comparable with Al-Kaida or Hezbollah and other extremist Islamic and pro-Iranian forces.

The emergency plan of evacuation and destruction of nuclear arsenal of Pakistan because of the threat of moving this arsenal into the hands and political control of clear anti-western and anti-American forces must become a priority goal for Democrats in the US Congress and for all men of reason in the Republican Administration as well.

Nevertheless today there is no indications of concrete steps and guarantees for Americans and Europeans that something urgent and effective is done by Pentagon to prevent next coming disaster - excess of AL-Kaida and Iran to Pakistan nuclear arsenal - created with the help of Americans and may be delivered to the hands of most radical Islamic forces after upcoming fall or end of ruling of general Musharaf in Pakistan and radicalization of Pakistan after nearest parliamentary election or resignation of current Musharaf government.

American Political leadership should prevent transfer of Pakistan nuclear weapons and facilities into the hands of AL-Kaida plus active pro-Iranian forces in Pakistan.

Their aim is very clear.

Emergency plan must be implemented into life and be a priority agenda for Democrats and Republicans in US Congress and in current US Administration.

Do not let Pentagon to leave next Administration a new horrible problem pretending that today everybody has slept over this clearly coming disaster. Congress and American public must insist on concrete preventive measures to avoid planning nuclear blackmail and political catastrophe in Pakistan.

Alexander Bogdanov.

Saint-Petersburg,

Russia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Pakistan has been used by the West for a long time now... It was armed when USA wanted it to fight its war, sanctions were imposed when Pakistan tried to do things against USA's will. When India tested the their nuclear arsenal, USA advised Pakistan to do the same to ensure balance of power in the region and to send a clearcut message to India not to become too strong. At the same time USA also imposed limited sanctions on Pakistan making it even more vulnerable economically.

People of Pakistan have not achieved anything from Pakistan's nuclear achievements except maybe a false sense of security from a malicious neighbor called India. Islamic militants were created by USA, nuclear technology was given to Pakistan by USA and the war on terror and global terrorism is because of US foreign policies. Pakistan is just a small country caught in the crossfire.

Although, dozens of innocent people are killed by the militants in Pakistan, yet Pakistan is considered a terrorist state. Pakistan is not a terrorist state, but a state under attack by the terrorists, which were created by USA. Disarming Pakistan's nuclear arsenal might bring peace of mind to the west, but has west ever thought of people of Pakistan?

I think that if we are going to talk about nuclear disarmament, then we should talk global disarmament, lets start with Pakistan and India together. The two countries don't have any major threat from any other countries and then do the same with all other countries that have nuclear arms. West thinks that they have a right to retain their WMDs and Muslim world should stay unarmed. That sounds a bit suspicious!

Pakistan needs support from the world to fight this terrorism. They don't need threats. Our soldiers are fighting a battle against Al Qaida, our innocent people are dying at the hands of suicide bombers. People are scared. Our children are not safe. We are the ones who are under threat not the west. If one bomb goes off in the west its a big deal... we are humans too. Every life lost in Pakistan is as important as any other life in the world.

Nuclear disarmament should not be a issue right now... Helping Pakistan and countries like Pakistan, who are fighting terrorism, should be the foucus. Don't call Pakistan a terrorist state, we are peaceful people who love our children and want global peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Islamic militants were created by USA, nuclear technology was given to Pakistan by USA and the war on terror and global terrorism is because of US foreign policies.
Islamic militants were created by Islam itself, especially the Islamists extremists who want to establish an Islamic regime in place of a secular one. Global terrorism was created as a method of imposing Islamist rule. However, I agree that the US should have done a better job of preventing Pakistan from getting the bomb.
Pakistan is not a terrorist state, but a state under attack by the terrorists, which were created by USA.
More accurately, Pakistan is a "terrorist-impotent" state -- one where the government is not effective at controlling terrorists, though the current regime doesn't apparently directly aid terrorists. What is a matter of concern is the future of Pakistan, the fact that it would not be so difficult for the current dictatorship to fall apart into Taliban-Afghanistan style chaos. God help the world if those nutters take over and have the bomb. That is really the fundamental reason why Pakistan needs to be disarmed. (There are science-fiction scenarios about a better government, but, uh....).
West thinks that they have a right to retain their WMDs and Muslim world should stay unarmed. That sounds a bit suspicious!
Well, it's an unfortunate fact that Russia has the bomb, and we really don't know how to change that. Nobody here supports Greece, for example, having the bomb. The question is whether there is any free nation whose population is predominantly Muslim. Bosnia and Herzegovina might almost qulify on population grounds, but it's clearly not yet stable enough that nukes wouldn't be a huge threat. I think in 100 years, it's possible that Turkey will have finally joined the free world, although they have a nasty way of backsliding. Lebanon used to be pretty civilized, but it's really a hell-hole now.

The best way to look at it is, all Muslim nations should be carefully watched and prevented from arming themselves. Because, being a "Muslim nation" is an invalid basis for nationhood. It's not a problem if there is a free nation with a majority of the population incidentally being Muslim, the problem arises when being Muslim is seen as important to the nation itself. Iran is the reductio ad absurdum of Islamic nations. So yeah, nations like Iran should definitely stay unarmed, and even better, should be dismantled in favor of a free nation.

The very basis of Pakistan is, unfortunately, the seed of its future destruction. Nations defined or created for religious purposes are born with a huge handicap, which will take massive effort by its citizens to overcome. Only through renunciation of religion as the basis for the nation will Pakistan have any chance of being peaceful, let alone prospering. I just don't think such a renunciation is likely anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious why you think Turkey is not part of the free world?
They still engage in some of their traditional primitive tribalist practices, including insulting Turkish identity which is a crime (Article 301); prohibiting use of languages other than Turkish; there is still no general right of freedom of the press and Turkey is in the bottom third in terms of press freedom in the world; Turkish police in Kurdistan still behave like VEVAK agents; there is also Article 305 which outlaws acts "against the fundamental interest". The involvement of the military, lurking in the wings with the threat of taking over again (recall, 3 coups since 1960), is real. However, it is true that their last intervention was in aid of a good cause, getting rid of an overly Islamic PM.

They are really on the brink, from what I can tell. I consider it entirely possible that they will continue on the righteous path and will become a free nation, no doubt spurred on by the prospects of EU membership, unless there is a fundamentalist backlash that returns them to the dark ages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While we are on the topic, what would happen if Turkey invades Iraq?
My assumption is that they would gun down a bunch of Kurds and try to establish a "security zone". Whether it becomes permanent annexation really depends on whether the US tells them to back off, and whether they are unambiguously told that that would be the end to their EU hopes. And if they actually invade, I can't imagine they they won't have already decided "To hell with the west".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . nuclear technology was given to Pakistan by USA

That's the first time I've heard that, and I don't believe it.

and the war on terror and global terrorism is because of US foreign policies.

That is just standard Islamist propaganda.

Pakistan is just a small country caught in the crossfire. Although, dozens of innocent people are killed by the militants in Pakistan, yet Pakistan is considered a terrorist state. Pakistan is not a terrorist state, but a state under attack by the terrorists, which were created by USA. Disarming Pakistan's nuclear arsenal might bring peace of mind to the west, but has west ever thought of people of Pakistan?

Are you suggesting it is the West's responsibility to take care of Pakistan? Are we our brother's keeper?

I think that if we are going to talk about nuclear disarmament, then we should talk global disarmament, lets start with Pakistan and India together. The two countries don't have any major threat from any other countries and then do the same with all other countries that have nuclear arms. West thinks that they have a right to retain their WMDs and Muslim world should stay unarmed. That sounds a bit suspicious!

The US does have the right to retain their nuclear weapons. And the Muslim nations, as long as they are a threat to America, should be prevented from acquiring and/or keeping any WMD.

Pakistan needs support from the world to fight this terrorism. They don't need threats. Our soldiers are fighting a battle against Al Qaida, our innocent people are dying at the hands of suicide bombers. People are scared. Our children are not safe. We are the ones who are under threat not the west. If one bomb goes off in the west its a big deal... we are humans too. Every life lost in Pakistan is as important as any other life in the world.

American soldiers, and American money, shoud be used only in defense of America. Sometimes that means fighting in foreign countries. It does not include sacrificing Americans for Pakistanis, or Iraqis, or anyone else. We are not the world's police force.

Nuclear disarmament should not be a issue right now... Helping Pakistan and countries like Pakistan, who are fighting terrorism, should be the foucus. Don't call Pakistan a terrorist state, we are peaceful people who love our children and want global peace.

When there is a potential Islamist coup in Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons, nuclear disarmament of Pakistan is a very big issue. Just as it is in Iran. Global peace is not a primary aim, either. Freedom is the goal. Peace is secondary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I would not be opposed to the disarming of Pakistan, due to the current circumstances, I don't think Pakistan has the capabilities to hit the United States with a nuke. So we can at least be somewhat reassured by that.

What does it mean to "hit the U.S. with a nuke"? If you assume other methods of delivery than air or missile attack any country with nuclear capability can either ship a bomb (intact) to a port city like New York and set it off or components can be shipped in over a period of time and assembled in the U.S. for deployment.

Why do I say this? Because only 5 percent of containers delivered to the Port of New York or to New Jersey are inspected closely. In addition the port facilities are now operated by a company with H.Q. in the Emerates.

Nor does Pakistan have to do the deed. All that need be done is to let various and sundry Islamic terror organizations have the parts. The recipients of the parts need not know how to manufacture them. The only need to know how to assemble and deploy them.

I, for one, am not the least bit reassured.

Bob Kolker

Edited by Robert J. Kolker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can a nation be too secular? And how can being secular cause a return to the Dark Ages?

Turkey is secular to the point that government employees cannot freely practice their religion. If you work for the Turkish government (including being in the military) , and are seen going to the mosque too often, or if a coworker visits your home and sees that your wife wears Muslim garb and you have Islamic symbols displayed on your walls, it can seriously impact your livelihood, to the point of losing your job. This is true even if you keep your religion separate from your work and lead a totally private Islamic life. That is taking secularism way too far.

I say that it could result in bringing the Dark Ages back to Turkey because those kinds of practices could (and are, in some cases) causing an Islamic backlash. A lot of people who aren't really Islamic fundamentalists will actually end up supporting a fundamentalist movement, because they view it as the only way to protect their own religious freedoms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't have one without the other. Freedom is only possible with the prospect of peace.

But you can have peace without the prospect of freedom. Slaves have existed throughout history, in times of peace, and times of war. There exist many people, pacifists, socialists, communists, environmentalists, Islamists, who are perfectly willing to live as slaves (indeed, are willing to fight in order to be slaves), rather than fight for freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does it mean to "hit the U.S. with a nuke"? If you assume other methods of delivery than air or missile attack any country with nuclear capability can either ship a bomb (intact) to a port city like New York and set it off or components can be shipped in over a period of time and assembled in the U.S. for deployment.

Why do I say this? Because only 5 percent of containers delivered to the Port of New York or to New Jersey are inspected closely. In addition the port facilities are now operated by a company with H.Q. in the Emerates.

Nor does Pakistan have to do the deed. All that need be done is to let various and sundry Islamic terror organizations have the parts. The recipients of the parts need not know how to manufacture them. The only need to know how to assemble and deploy them.

I, for one, am not the least bit reassured.

Bob Kolker

You've watched Sum of All Fears one time too many. The UAE is hardly an Islamic fundamentalist country. And I'm not surprised that you aren't reassured, since your blatant alarmism rivals that of Al Gore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turkey is secular to the point that government employees cannot freely practice their religion. If you work for the Turkish government (including being in the military) , and are seen going to the mosque too often, or if a coworker visits your home and sees that your wife wears Muslim garb and you have Islamic symbols displayed on your walls, it can seriously impact your livelihood, to the point of losing your job. This is true even if you keep your religion separate from your work and lead a totally private Islamic life. That is taking secularism way too far.

But that isn't secularism. That is totalitarianism.

I say that it could result in bringing the Dark Ages back to Turkey because those kinds of practices could (and are, in some cases) causing an Islamic backlash. A lot of people who aren't really Islamic fundamentalists will actually end up supporting a fundamentalist movement, because they view it as the only way to protect their own religious freedoms.

It would be a backlash against totalitarianism. That is similar to blaming atheism for the atrocities of communism. The blame falls on statism/totalitarianism/communism, not on atheism or secularism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've watched Sum of All Fears one time too many. The UAE is hardly an Islamic fundamentalist country. And I'm not surprised that you aren't reassured, since your blatant alarmism rivals that of Al Gore.

What would it take to convince you otherwise? A mushroom cloud over Manhattan?

I don't believe the coconuts migrate.

But I do believe that nuclear material can be imported. It is a possibility. I am not reassured by a government that let all the signs and portents of the 9/11 attack go unheeded. If that is being alarmist, then so be it. I am an alarmist. If the worst does happen, you have my solemn word I will not say (to you) "I told you so". I won't have to.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that isn't secularism. That is totalitarianism.

It would be a backlash against totalitarianism. That is similar to blaming atheism for the atrocities of communism. The blame falls on statism/totalitarianism/communism, not on atheism or secularism.

I'll buy that distinction, although I don't think I would call Turkey totalitarian.

What would it take to convince you otherwise? A mushroom cloud over Manhattan?

And you wonder why I call you an alarmist?

But I do believe that nuclear material can be imported. It is a possibility.

Anything is a possibility. It's now a matter of assessing the likelihood. I don't know what all would be involved in smuggling a nuclear weapon into Baltimore inside a vending machine, but I strongly suspect that it's not an easy task.

I am not reassured by a government that let all the signs and portents of the 9/11 attack go unheeded. If that is being alarmist, then so be it. I am an alarmist. If the worst does happen, you have my solemn word I will not say (to you) "I told you so". I won't have to.

I'm not saying it's not possible. I'm just saying that you too are far to eager to say "the sky is falling," anytime anything is said about fundamentalist Islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you can have peace without the prospect of freedom. Slaves have existed throughout history, in times of peace, and times of war. There exist many people, pacifists, socialists, communists, environmentalists, Islamists, who are perfectly willing to live as slaves (indeed, are willing to fight in order to be slaves), rather than fight for freedom.

I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong here, but I think Ayn Rand linked peace with justice, as in, where justice exists, peace will exist also. The problem is not that there are "many people, pacifists, socialists, communists, environmentalists, Islamists, who are perfectly willing to live as slaves." The problem arises when these people who are willing to live as slaves impose this slavery on those who do not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More accurately, Pakistan is a "terrorist-impotent" state -- one where the government is not effective at controlling terrorists, though the current regime doesn't apparently directly aid terrorists. What is a matter of concern is the future of Pakistan, the fact that it would not be so difficult for the current dictatorship to fall apart into Taliban-Afghanistan style chaos.

Not exactly. Pakistan is extremely duplicitus in that it plays the dual role of supporting the Jihad while attempting to appear to support the west. When the US launched cruise missiles on Afghan training camps in 1998, Bin Laden and his terrorist thugs were warned in advance by the ISI (the Pakistani intelligence agency). The ISI has also historically diverted large amounts of foreign aid to Islamic causes, which has been overlooked by Washington for “pragmatic” reasons. Pakistan's contributions to the War on Terror have been largely superficial.

The only reason Pakistan is still in existence is due to various realpolitik strategies engaged in by the US. If not for our interference, semi-free India would have destroyed them long ago. Keep in mind that Pakistan is still waging a proxy war against India in Kashmir, and the only reason India can't retaliate is because we keep them on a short leash.

I'll be curious to see how this martial law situation changes things. I would guess not very much. Clearly it's not desireable for Pakistan to have nukes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you can have peace without the prospect of freedom. Slaves have existed throughout history, in times of peace, and times of war. There exist many people, pacifists, socialists, communists, environmentalists, Islamists, who are perfectly willing to live as slaves (indeed, are willing to fight in order to be slaves), rather than fight for freedom.

That's the peace of cowards, and a contradiction. Peace is living in a state of being free from the initiation of physical force or the threat of it. Slavery is constantly living under the use of force. Those who accept that state are cowards because they don't fight for peace and freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the peace of cowards, and a contradiction. Peace is living in a state of being free from the initiation of physical force or the threat of it. Slavery is constantly living under the use of force. Those who accept that state are cowards because they don't fight for peace and freedom.

I completely agree. Pacifists are using a stolen concept when they call for world peace, because what they want is not genuine peace, but exactly the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Its great to see so many replies, comments and opinions regarding Pakistan's nuclear weapons, Islamic Fundamentalists and Pakistan's role in war against terrorism. After what happened on 9/11 in USA, one can't blame Americans for being anti-Islam and feeling threatened by Islamic religious extremists. What happened on 9/11 was inexcusable.

What the people in USA and other western countries need to realize is that Islam and terrorism have been wrongly associated with each other. Islam is a religion of peace and strictly prohibits suicide attacks, killing women & children is a crime, attacking civilians is forbidden. These rules apply in war and peace times. Therefore, any terrorist activity is not part of Islam and any cult or group which adopts terrorist tactics is a non-Muslim.

Someone in the forum, objected to my point that these terrorist outfits like Taliban were created by USA. Well USA did not create a terrorist outfit but they did create Taliban (Mujahidin) to fight Russia. These Mujahidin were trained, funded and recruited by USA's CIA. This is a fact. Another fact is that to do all this Pakistani soil, airspace and military was used.

On American, pressure Pakistan was forced to accept Afghan refugees... This is the point when drugs and weapons started pouring in to Pakistan. Afghans setup drug and weapons smuggling, law and order situation started deteriorating.

Once, Russia was defeated, America pulled out of the whole thing and left Afghan mujahidin (Talibans) and Pakistan (full of uneducated armed Afghan refugees) on their own. Mujahidin were warriors who lacked every other skill and had no means of earning as Afghanistan was in ruins after the war.

This, angered the Afghan warriors, they felt cheated by a friend. I know this is to some people and cultures in the world a normal thing to use someone and then move on. But Afghan culture is quite different. Anyway, suddenly USA decided that "ok Russia is defeated, we don't need Pakistan or Afghanistan... but we do need to make money to recover our war costs... so lets look for a good market to sell our products" and bang suddenly India and USA are friends! This angers Pakistan and Muslims in general and an anti-American sentiment starts to develop in the Muslim world.

In the meantime Pakistan makes few stupid mistakes trying use Mujahidin in Kashmir region to fight Indian forces... it work for some time but eventually USA puts pressure on Pakistan to stop sending "Islamic militants" to Indian held Kashmir. Suddenly the very people who were figting for USA in Afghanistan against Russia, were now militants.

Anyway, this is not a history lesson... so put 2 and 2 together and you'll understand.

I also recall someone saying that USA did not provide nuclear technology to Pakistan... Well I'm sorry but USA did provide us the nukes and why because USSR was doing the same for their "friend" India... So USA also needed a nukes base to as counter measure. It would have taken USA far less time to strike USSR from Pakistan than it would from their own territory. Plus, do the dirty work your self when you have poor "friends" to help you out.. right?

I don't believe in living in the past... and I certainly don't support terrorists and extremists. In fact I hate terrorists because I lost two close friends in WTC (9/11) tragedy. I believe in moving on towards a better future. Unfortunately, sometimes the mess we made in the past catches up with us and needs to be dealt with.

Pakistan has always been loyal to USA... we have done whatever USA ever asked us to do. The only thing we ask in return is to give us respect and credit. Today US and Pakistan armed forces are fighting side by side against terrorism. Stakes for us are much higher... we can loose our country if the Taliban are not stopped. People of Pakistan don't want to live under terrorist's rule.

So please remember... Pakistan = Friend , Islam is not equal to terrorism, extremism is not Islam... Pakistan is fighting anti terror war for the whole world.... Majority of Taliban (terrorsts) are non-Pakistanis... they belong to Afghanistan, middle east and central Asia...

For more information visit our Research & Analysis Forum and website: Spearhead Research

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...