Fox News: Special ops planning to seize Pakistan’s nukes if things get hairy
posted at 6:45 pm on May 14, 2009 by Allahpundit
No surprise. Iran, at least, is a modern state with proper chains of military command, notwithstanding their appetite for jihad. It’d be an international nightmare if they got the Bomb but it’s not impossible that they’d behave rationally. If the Taliban rolls into Islamabad and grabs Pakistan’s nukes, there’ll be nothing to check them except the whim of whichever cavemen warlords and remnants of the Pakistani military happen to possess the actual devices. Under the circumstances, it’s not hard to see why India might try a preemptive strike. Which means the success of a U.S. operation to grab the nukes first and disable them might be the only thing standing between that region and a nuclear exchange. Think happy thoughts.
JSOC is the military’s chief terrorists hunting squad and has units now operating in Afghanistan on Pakistan’s western border. But a secondary mission is to secure foreign nuclear arsenals — a role for which JSOC operatives have trained in Nevada…
“Small units could seize them, disable them and then centralize them in a secure location,” the source said…
What makes the Pakistan mission especially difficult is that the military has its missiles on Soviet-style mobile launchers and rail lines. U.S. intelligence agencies, using satellite photos and communication intercepts, is constantly monitoring their whereabouts. Other warheads are kept in storage. U.S. technical experts have visited Pakistan to advise the government on how to maintain and protect its arsenal.
Also, there are rogue elements inside Pakistan’s military and intelligence service who could quickly side with the extremists and make JSOC’s mission all the more difficult.
“Its relatively easy to track rail-mounted ones with satellites,” said the intelligence source. “Truck- mounted are more difficult. However, they are all relatively close to the capital in areas that the government firmly controls so we don’t have to look to far.”
It’s similar to a strike on Iran’s reactors, except in this case if it doesn’t work, you risk having boots on the ground stranded behind enemy lines. I raised this point in a previous post a few weeks ago but it’s worth asking again: Why would the Taliban want to take over Pakistan, exactly? Like Hezbollah, they’ve got a good thing going with their current arrangement as a state within a state. They get to plot attacks on Afghanistan and run things shari’a style in their part of the country, and meanwhile a secular-ish government remains in place to take care of mundane civic business. If they take over, not only does that mundane business become their business but they’re going to have a war with India (and America?) on their hands sooner rather than later. Better to just keep absorbing territory where they can and leave Islamabad alone as an insurance policy. Or am I giving them too much credit in thinking they might behave strategically?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Er … are we talking about the same Iran?
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 6:47 PM
You DON’T Say!?
upinak on May 14, 2009 at 6:47 PM
LOL!!!
FloatingRock on May 14, 2009 at 6:48 PM
ha!
My final in foreign policy class was to write a policy brief on what i considered the most pressing international challenge facing the US. I picked pakistan, and the 1st of my policy recommendations was to immediately draw up a “go it alone” contingency plan for securing the nukes. i went on as per the assignment but i like that they’re taking my advice telepathically :-)
ernesto on May 14, 2009 at 6:49 PM
For the same reasons they took over Afghanistan and other fundamentalists took over Iran.
TheBigOldDog on May 14, 2009 at 6:50 PM
Allah, have you been breathing Spanish air?
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 6:51 PM
Before or after we organized a toppling the government?
emailnuevo on May 14, 2009 at 6:51 PM
You’re kidding, right?
AcronisF on May 14, 2009 at 6:53 PM
Which would be the best thing for the world and which we should have let happen back in 2003, when it was close.
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 6:53 PM
Well,Obama said he would bomb Puck ee Stan!!
canopfor on May 14, 2009 at 6:53 PM
Hmm I wonder if he has little mushroom cloud hallucinations?
upinak on May 14, 2009 at 6:53 PM
Something’s going on, in there. Hallucinations would, at least, be an acceptable excuse.
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 6:55 PM
Hey AP having Iran getting nukes is as BAD as Taliban getting nukes. They are one and the same.
BroncosRock on May 14, 2009 at 6:55 PM
I brought this up over at the GreenRoom back on 1 May:
“As for our involvement in helping to secure Pakistan’s arsenal, if it comes to that, in October 2001, the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) presented its recommendations. There have been rumors that Pakistan’s nukes have already been relocated outside the country, but I have grave doubts this has occurred. A few days ago, Obama stated he is confident that Pakistan’s arsenal is safe. Being outside the loop, and the Beltway, I am not sanguine with that Obama statement insofar as the United States is concerned. On the one hand, there is planning that might include a United States “team” arriving in Pakistan and spiriting away their nuke arsenal. But, the actual arrival of US special operations forces and C-17’s at any Pakistani airfield or military base unless handled with the full agreement of both Kidwai and Kiyani and Pakistan’s National Command Authority, and in complete secrecy, no leaks from Washington, such could have disastrous results for any government in Islamabad.”
As for the Taliban taking over Pakistan…Zardari has directed General Kiyani to use what force is necessary to eliminate the Taliban from Sway and other regions close to Islamabad, at the same time stepping up the tempo of attacks against Taliban and foreign elements in the Tribal Areas. Unless there is a completely breakdown of the Pak military, the Taliban will not be able to mount a serious threat to Islamabad. The Pak armed forces understand this clearly.
Providing encouragement, low-key support, and allowing Pakistan to take care of a Pakistani problem on their terms, well away from the press, seems to be having desired results.
coldwarrior on May 14, 2009 at 6:56 PM
he can take the bet Iran will act rationally….I’m fallout proofing my basement if needed.
sven10077 on May 14, 2009 at 6:56 PM
Nuclear War Survival Skills
sven10077 on May 14, 2009 at 6:57 PM
Call me crazy but I don’y like our odds:
‘Divine mission’ driving Iran’s new leader
TheBigOldDog on May 14, 2009 at 6:57 PM
DUDE, I am so going to print that out. And then give copy to the BF and some people at work.
upinak on May 14, 2009 at 6:59 PM
Yep, it’s an old story: power.
FloatingRock on May 14, 2009 at 6:59 PM
No, they’re not the same, although both scenarios would be dreadful. Iranians may be many things, but they’re not primitives. The Taliban are. Who would you rather see with a nuclear weapon, a bad yet sophisticated man — or a caveman?
Allahpundit on May 14, 2009 at 6:59 PM
study the section on making your own potassium iodide it may save your glands….
sven10077 on May 14, 2009 at 7:00 PM
By that logic, Hezbollah would have taken over Lebanon last year when they marched into Beirut. Instead, they left quietly.
Allahpundit on May 14, 2009 at 7:00 PM
Not impossible, but it is highly irrational to propose that Iran would behave rationally with nukes.
This reminds me of your arguments, during the campaign, for why BHO would be a rational and decent Precedent, and not at all radical. That worked out well.
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 7:00 PM
Gee, it’s good to know we have a plan.
But you know, maybe it’s just silly little me, but I’d like to think we had leaders who aren’t depending on some one in a million longshot to take nukes away from lunatic zealots who will blow up the world if they ever get their hands on nukes.
On the other hand, i’m not the smartest man in the world, and I don’t know how to pronounce Pakistan correctly, as does the genius in the WH.
So I know we’re really really safe with him in charge.
After all, he has been playing Risk with his dorm room buddies for the last 20 years.
notagool on May 14, 2009 at 7:01 PM
Not sure where we disagree.
Allahpundit on May 14, 2009 at 7:01 PM
AP: You do know that drinking and blogging don’t mix, right?
Friends don’t let friends blog drunk
This is AP’s way of tagging who he’s going to call when the jihad shows up at his door.
Blacksmith8 on May 14, 2009 at 7:01 PM
You have much more faith in Imanutjob Inadinnerjacket than I could ever muster.
Branch Rickey on May 14, 2009 at 7:02 PM
Ok and what about India, Allah?
upinak on May 14, 2009 at 7:02 PM
I disagree what you are facing are zealots who were exposed to and rejected culture and sophistication as opposed to cavemen who are simpler in goals and thinking and lack the wealth and foresight to harden areas to hide the device and subtlety to use it most effectively with plausible deniability….Iran is more dangerous for its sophistication not less they were sophiticates who chose zealotry.
sven10077 on May 14, 2009 at 7:02 PM
No, they just think it’s the end of days and it’s their job to help pave the way for their Messiah by helping things along…
TheBigOldDog on May 14, 2009 at 7:03 PM
A caveman.
Aristotle on May 14, 2009 at 7:03 PM
Do you mean like, the Iranians have more to lose than the Talibs?
blatantblue on May 14, 2009 at 7:03 PM
“If the Taliban rolls into Islamabad and grabs Pakistan’s nukes, there’ll be nothing to check them except the whim of whichever cavemen warlords and remnants of the Pakistani military happen to possess the actual devices. Under the circumstances, it’s not hard to see why India might try a preemptive strike.
Please… we still cannot catch the guys who planned and orchestratred the Mumbai Massacre ( remember that ?) – now we are supposed to premptively strike them ?
India’s nuclear arsenal and setup is meant to be more of a deterrent – infact we have fewer nukes than Pakistan, NoKo etc.
The Taliban-Paki military are essentially two sides of the same coin. If the Taliban does march on to Islamabad, the military will sign a “peace” agreement and try to provide security guarantees to the US about nuclear weapons.
There are really very few options for the US or for any other country. Pakistan was mistake of epic propotions and nothing can reverse that mistake.
nagee76 on May 14, 2009 at 7:03 PM
Allahpundit casually quips,
After so many choruses of “Death! Death! USA!”, I ask you:
Defend this statement of yours, child.
Lockstein13 on May 14, 2009 at 7:03 PM
Errr … who issued Special Ops’ plans as a news release? I mean, of course we hope they’ve got a contingency plan to try to keep nukes out of the Taliban’s hands, but discussing openly how Special Ops will be deployed in advance? Is it meant to be a deterrent or something?
aero on May 14, 2009 at 7:03 PM
The extremists took over afghanistan remember ?
What did they do ? Every irrational act that they could. Public executions, bacing of Osama’s war with the west, instituting Sharia law.
Understand that it is a totalitarian veiw. They saw the 9/11 attacks as a neccessary victory. They would see a nuke attack as the final thing that would collapse America and open the way for World domination.
William Amos on May 14, 2009 at 7:04 PM
They are both about the same [taliban with nukes and Iran with nukes], except that Iran with nukes is MUCH MORE DANGEROUS.
They’re insane, aggressive, and looking to bring on a global conflagration. And they are pretty damn primitive, too.
Neither, but given the limited choice – A caveman. He is more likely to screw up trying to deliver and use it.
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 7:04 PM
the Iranians are Shia muslims, and part of their religion, as I understand it, is to usher in the 12th Mahdi by war and bloodshed…the taliban are sunnis, and while they support al-qaeda, as far as I know, they don’t fund terrorists all around the world, like iran does, nor have they directly attacked us, and held our embassy hostage, for example, as Iran did…
right4life on May 14, 2009 at 7:04 PM
Pakistan is a sovereign nation – wouldn’t this be an act of war?
And if the US special ops could do it, why couldn’t some other group or country do it first in coordination with Pakistani insider bad guys?
And once the nukes are secured, how soon before India comes marching in to take over Pakistan?
Sounds like the makings of a bad James Bond-type, B-movie.
albill on May 14, 2009 at 7:04 PM
LOL.
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 7:05 PM
As this is most likely a mission of last resort, I’m sad to say we must be willing to sacrifice a small troop contingient to prevent a greater disaster.
Zaire67 on May 14, 2009 at 7:05 PM
….before we invaded afghanistan that is..
right4life on May 14, 2009 at 7:05 PM
The Obama administration is leaning on Netanyahu…
Not a good idea to do so in public.
Iran has us and the Euros exactly where he wants us…talking about talking. Israel is the trump card in this game. So long as the mullahs in Iran can see a very real threat of Israel pulling off an Osirak 2.0 they will continue to try to rein in Ahmadinejad, which former Iranian President Khatami is urging.
if the mullahs come to understand that Israel can do nothing, Ahmadinejad’s game is still on.
The big unknown is still Russia…it needs money, cash, and now. Putin has bitten off more than he can chew insofar as the Russian economy is concerned, and the tsiliviki, those paid-for Putin loyalists are havign a tough go of it. Iran, in return for Russian technical assistance and military hardware, is a source of hard currency for Putin.
Interesting times.
coldwarrior on May 14, 2009 at 7:06 PM
It’s similar to a strike on Iran’s reactors, except in this case if it doesn’t work, you risk having boots on the ground stranded behind enemy lines.
As this is most likely a mission of last resort, I’m sad to say we must be willing to sacrifice a small troop
contingientcontingent to prevent a greater disaster.Zaire67 on May 14, 2009 at 7:05 PM
Zaire67 on May 14, 2009 at 7:06 PM
No frikkin’ kidding.
profitsbeard on May 14, 2009 at 7:06 PM
So you’re saying Hezbollah doesn’t want to control Lebanon if it can? Really? What do you base that on?
TheBigOldDog on May 14, 2009 at 7:06 PM
Also like North Korea Osama would see a nuke as a barganing chip.
How much could he extort from Obama if he had an acutal nuke to threaten us with ?
If Hitler had the bomb would the west have stood up to him ?
William Amos on May 14, 2009 at 7:07 PM
I’m saying that it is irrational for anyone to propose that Iran would behave rationally with nukes.
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 7:07 PM
I’ll see you LOL and raise ROFL
Ugly on May 14, 2009 at 7:08 PM
*your
/damnit
Ugly on May 14, 2009 at 7:08 PM
I think you’re forgetting about 9/11. We’ve been attacked by both sides of the Islamic divide. Both sides fund terrorism. Both sides engage in it. Both sides cooperate when it suits their purposes.
TheBigOldDog on May 14, 2009 at 7:09 PM
Mr Phelps declined to finish listening to the tape.
Limerick on May 14, 2009 at 7:10 PM
WAAAAAAR CRIMINAL!
MadisonConservative on May 14, 2009 at 7:10 PM
Obama gonna take away their toys…
Wade on May 14, 2009 at 7:11 PM
Interesting point which I don’t know enough about to respond to, but there’s no doubt that desire for power has been one of the primary motivational factors throughout history.
FloatingRock on May 14, 2009 at 7:11 PM
Cry havoc and let slip the bots of war !
William Amos on May 14, 2009 at 7:12 PM
They didn’t want their posters defaced by Hitch.
MadisonConservative on May 14, 2009 at 7:13 PM
no I’m not, I think al-qaeda was behind that…and I don’t know how much more the taliban did than give al-qaeda sanctuary…According to Clinton, Saddam supported al-qaeda too…was he responsible for 9/11?
perhaps I’m splitting hairs, I just think Iran has had a 30 year war against us..and the taliban have not…iran is far more dangerous..
right4life on May 14, 2009 at 7:13 PM
Anyone else think it’d be better if the media just kind of kept this stuff quiet?
BadgerHawk on May 14, 2009 at 7:14 PM
Don’t forget the third side – secular arabs, such as the Baathists and the old PFLP-GC, who are also at war with the West. And, as you said, they all work together on occasion, when they think it’s in their interests, even though they eventually want to kill each other.
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 7:15 PM
Lets hold our horses, boys and girls. We are talking multiple low level helicopter missions involving insertion, seizure, and extraction. Lumped on top of that fastboys have to be providing cover. Most of the targets move around like bunnies.
Not much could go wrong.
Limerick on May 14, 2009 at 7:16 PM
Or rationally.
Johan Klaus on May 14, 2009 at 7:17 PM
That is assuming the media is rational.
Johan Klaus on May 14, 2009 at 7:19 PM
There is a religious aspect that puts it beyond a simple quest for power. I think it was Walid Shoebat in Obsession who said something like, “Radical Islam is far more dangerous than Nazism. In Nazism, it’s the Fuhrer telling you to do something. In Islam, it is God Almighty telling you to do it.”
TheBigOldDog on May 14, 2009 at 7:20 PM
At least they didn’t leak the backup plan, which is that if the Taliban gets their hands on one ore more nukes we immediately encase Pock-ee-ston in glass.
Ooops…
FloatingRock on May 14, 2009 at 7:21 PM
Nothing is impossible. The idea that they would behave rationally given their past is seriously improbable.
chemman on May 14, 2009 at 7:21 PM
so here goes….the ONLY way something like this would have ANY chance of success would be the operators engaging in the most ruthless operations they could fathom…..
not a lot of time to mirandize when doing multiple resisted door kickings…..
will Nan and Harry call them war criminals before we know of success or failure?
sven10077 on May 14, 2009 at 7:22 PM
Neither.
Johan Klaus on May 14, 2009 at 7:22 PM
AQ is Sunni. It is funded by the Gulf States as are the Taliban. The Taliban not only gave AQ santuary, they allowed AQ to build and run training bases where tens of thousand were trained. They essentially bacame two sides of the same coin.
TheBigOldDog on May 14, 2009 at 7:23 PM
So long as we appear to be the weak horse, and encourage our “allies” to also be weak horses, the Islamists will gravitate toward the strong horse, whether Osama, or Ahmadinejad, or anyone else who rises above the sand at some point in the future.
The former caliphate ruled, and completely, with many sects of Islam, led by a succession of strong horses, until a weak one lost territory to Europe, and a succession of weak horses filled the leadership until WWI ended the last remnants of that caliphate, but destroying the Ottomans.
Further, this Osama is a Sunni, and Ahmadinejad is a Shi’ite thus the two cannot work togther for the same end is a falsehood.
Iran will back any nation or leader who opposes the Great Satan…after all, Chavez in Caracas is not exactly a flaming Moslem. So, too, over the history of Iran’s relationship with North Korea [Iran having the second largest embassy in P'yongyang, after the new Chinese embassy, complete with a separate mosque visible on the embassy grounds, and having sent several thousand "students" and technical experts to North Korea, not exactly known as a pro-Islamic nation or a religion- tolerant nation, at that.] there has been extremely close cooperation on nuke and missile issues over the last decade or so between the two.
coldwarrior on May 14, 2009 at 7:24 PM
The Taliban would immediately use the nukes on Israel if they ever got ahold of them.
Iran…they are more sophisticated. They seem to be more concerned about self-preservation than the Taliban. I tend to think they want the nukes not so much to attack Israel but as a shield against us.
It would be much, much worse if the Taliban got nukes.
WisCon on May 14, 2009 at 7:24 PM
Nothing like a bit of opsec being let loose into the press.
rlwo2008 on May 14, 2009 at 7:26 PM
No quick delivery system. but hey why not hit the 100,000 American troops in Afghanistan ?
William Amos on May 14, 2009 at 7:27 PM
Exactly.
And Nan and Harry (and The Precedent) would have them tried as war criminals after the operation, no matter how it went.
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 7:27 PM
You jest; do you seriously think the precedent has a pair big enough to nuke Pakistan over a minor distraction like the Taliban have rogue nukes?
chemman on May 14, 2009 at 7:27 PM
Do we really need to communicate this to the world guys?
Mr. Joe on May 14, 2009 at 7:27 PM
If, by some terrible stroke of bad luck, the Taliban does take over Pakistan, or gets into one of the several nuke depots and grabs a weapons or two, Obama will kneel before the Taliban faster than he bowed to the Saudi king.
coldwarrior on May 14, 2009 at 7:29 PM
and be thrown out of office within 72 hours….
sven10077 on May 14, 2009 at 7:30 PM
With The One in charge, I predict a complete CF just like Carter’s hostage rescue mission. Of course this time it will be a thousand times more costly. But at least the world loves us now.
edshepp on May 14, 2009 at 7:31 PM
Unfortunately, the whole world knows full well that The Precedent hasn’t the balls, nor the inclination, to do anything that would protect America’s interests. The only nation that the Traitor-in-Chief would ever think of nuking is Israel, or parts of the US.
I’m still wondering why The Precedent carries the nuclear football around with him, as that is a war crime, all by itself.
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 7:31 PM
I am sorry just where did you get this piece of insight that Iran would behave rationally? Care to share that piece of knowledge? Was it defying 700 years of diplomatic courtesy and seizing our embassy? Was it financing jihad against our and Israel’s forces? Where did you find the information that led you to this piece of genius?
Jdripper on May 14, 2009 at 7:32 PM
If the Taliban got close to Pockyston’s nukes, would O-bomb-a have the cojones to order the JSOC in to seize them?
Who could become hostages of the Taliban, publicly beheaded (or water-boarded) on Al-Jazeera. Would Obama cave if this happened? Black Hawk Down II ?
There’s also the logistical problem of getting enough Special Ops into Pakistan, either from Afghanistan (having to fly over the lawless tribal areas controlled by the Taliban) or from a Navy carrier in the Indian Ocean (a longer flight, which might have refueling issues).
Obama (unlike Bush, and like Carter) seems to have an aversion to all things military, and might make the same mistake Carter made, in under-planning the Tehran hostage rescue operation, which led to its failure. Having Special Ops guys trapped in Pockyston at the mercy of the Taliban would be a HUGE embarrassment for the Prince of Peace (sarc!), and he might not want to risk it, even at the risk of nuclear weapons in Taliban hands.
If Obama were smart, he would let the military make its own plans, then give them the green light if the Taliban got too close to the nukes. But is EgObama too worried about his reputation as a “peacemaker” to risk a bold but necessary stroke, and leave it to the experts to carry it out, come what may?
Gird your loins!
Steve Z on May 14, 2009 at 7:33 PM
What’s Pakistan’s missile capability? I assumed they could reach Israel.
WisCon on May 14, 2009 at 7:33 PM
No.
But he will give an eleoquent prime time speech on the dangers of a nuclear world and how we must lead by example and give up ours.
myrenovations on May 14, 2009 at 7:34 PM
I’ll go you one better, he’ll offer to nuke a few US cities to calm the situation down if faced with a nuclear Taliban…..
“FailSafe”
sven10077 on May 14, 2009 at 7:36 PM
Good point. But this might have intimidation value, if the Taliban think they can walk over Obama, well, maybe the military has other ideas.
A hard lesson learned by three Somali pirates…
Steve Z on May 14, 2009 at 7:36 PM
Did anyone actually think that we’d just stand by while the Taliban roles over the Pakistani government and grabs the nukes? I have no doubt the people ‘guarding’ those weapons would turn ‘em over in a heart beat to save their heads….or at least keep them on their shoulders.
GarandFan on May 14, 2009 at 7:37 PM
That could be a problem, if he mistakes it for the Teleprompter. /sarc
Steve Z on May 14, 2009 at 7:39 PM
(Computer voice….)
“Shall we play a game?”
Seven Percent Solution on May 14, 2009 at 7:39 PM
India launching a preemptive strike might well work.
As for U.S. Special Forces grabbing all, or even most of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, that seems highly improbable, unless a cornered Pakistani leadership were to give us a road map and be able to control the troops guarding them for long enough. Does the CIA or DIA or whatever IA even know where they all are? I think they are suppose to have at least a hundred and I doubt they would all be in just one or two places and I doubt that they would tell us in any case.
As to such as -
How do they even know if they are tracking the right thing? Maybe the Pakistanis’s are playing Thimblerig. I know I would be.
MB4 on May 14, 2009 at 7:39 PM
Pakistan, got to be hush-hush on this one, as one small example, and Pakistan has a nice relationship with Israel almost since they were founded. They just haven’t made a big deal of it.
As for Pakistan missile capabilities, they’ve designed their missile forces toward one target – India. A variety of short-range and medium range battlefield weapons, nothing that could successfully target Israel.
coldwarrior on May 14, 2009 at 7:40 PM
+1
FloatingRock on May 14, 2009 at 7:41 PM
Too true. To be more specific, that was my backup plan.
FloatingRock on May 14, 2009 at 7:42 PM
I never said they couldn’t work together against a common foe…its just that Iran has been our enemy for 30 years…at war with us…where the taliban, while they gave al-qaeda sanctuary, I doubt they had the money, or firepower, to support them very much…where Iran has the money, and the firepower, to go after the US…and they have gone after us for decades…
don’t underestimate the schism in islam…when it comes right down to it, Iran wants to be the predominant power of the islamic world…and they’re not going to sit back quietly and let the taliban overtake them…I think they are far more dangerous than the taliban..
right4life on May 14, 2009 at 7:42 PM
Pakistan has spent billions of dollars and decades of time getting these nukes. A couple of thousand taliban with AK47′s that have a home turf advantages in the mountains cannot fight the army in flat lands once they leave the mountains. They don not have the firepower, manpower or support of the people.
In the last election the mullah partys lost big. The people of Pakistan wanted a Western educated liberal (in pakistan that’s good for us.) female as the head of state for the 3rd time. She was assassinated, but her party the PPP still won. The platform of lock up your women and make your boys memorize the quran in Arabic( a language they don’t understand) isn’t somethink the Pakistan people want or support. All the taliban funding comes from either Arab Gulf (your oil money) countries or drug sales (mostly to the West).
Marc01 on May 14, 2009 at 7:44 PM
and if India does do anything, it will unite the entire nation of pakistan under the taliban, or whoever has the most power, and then it will be nuclear war…they hate each other with a passion..
right4life on May 14, 2009 at 7:44 PM
The Special Forces may be special but they are not like Rambo or Chuck Norris or James Bond in the movies. They haven’t been able to get OBL, if he is still alive, and this Snatch-N-Grab seems like something for a movie.
MB4 on May 14, 2009 at 7:45 PM
And by that time it would be too late for glassing because the first thing they would do, (at least if they are even remotely-rational), is disperse the nukes as far and wide as they could manage.
FloatingRock on May 14, 2009 at 7:46 PM
Imagine how different the situation would be if we weren’t Pakistan’s strategic prisoner and didn’t stand between Islamabad and Delhi. What if the Pakistanis had to behave responsibly and stop sponsoring terror attacks against India — or face India’s wrath? Nuclear war? Pakistan would vanish, India would lick its wounds. And the Pakistanis know it.
- Ralph Peters
MB4 on May 14, 2009 at 7:47 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »