Alexis – we should act as if Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent doesn’t exist. For that matter, we should act as if the present boundary between Afghanistan and Pakistan does not exist, instead regarding Pakistan’s internal boundary with the tribal regions to be Pakistan’s western frontier. Pakistan’s acquiescence to al-Qaeda’s control over the northwest frontier should be considered to be an abdication of legitimate claim over that territory.
Great if you happen to be a lawyer, but stupid if you don’t realize the military implication of cutting your only heavy supply line to Afghanistan, which goes through Pakistan. Violate Pak sovereignity, you just drain out your lifeblood to spite the enemy’s nose and would have to fight a major war with possible nuke use against a very good, battle-hardened military to reestablish your logistics.
Alexis – Al-Qaeda as already attacked us with the equivalent of tactical nuclear weapons against civilian targets; letting Pakistan deter us from attacking al-Qaeda is effectively letting Pakistan get away with murder.
I don’t think you know what you are talking about if you think the destruction of three buildings (inc WTC #7) is equivalent of the destruction of a 500T-10KT tactical nuke set off. It isn’t even as much as a modern heavy bomber could do, or what even 3 160mm howitzers do to a city in 1 hour of firing.
Nor is Pakistan not taking on 30 million armed Pashtuns to get 6 fugitives to hand over to American Jewish ACLU defense lawyers “effectively letting Pakistan get away with murder”. After all, the US has offered sanctuary or at least didn’t go after numerous terrorists that took refuge in the USA. Cuban exiles that blew up planes, African dictators who killed 100s of thousands came here on the run. We offered sanctuary to Chechens and Mujahadeen “freedom fighters”, and to hundreds of IRA terrorists.
sirius_sir – A half dozen thermonuclear devices smuggled into our cities could have as much or more effect. Such weapons could be employed for coercive, deterrent or retaliatory purpose, depending on circumstance and/or whim.
People who keep saying how easy it would be for another nation to conquer us and control us by “simply smuggling nukes in” forget that the US, Russia, and China all agreed that detection or use of such a nuclear strategy would trigger full thermonuclear war. This was called the 4th Protocol.
Rather than capitulate, we would call the bluff on someone claiming 4-5 nukes were ready to blow in America. If one or all went off, we have 290 million people instead of 300, while 70 million in Iran or 120 million in Pakistan, plus the nations themselves – would cease to exist. Because Geneva would cease to exist as a binding treaty, and simply giving devices to terrorists would not shield nations from eradication. Nor would lawyers be able to stop it.
Same thing on people who claim how “easy and simple” it would be to get a bunch of nukes into a country in wartime. Nope, all Borders would be sealed with Draftees if the threat was high enough from shut down universities, all air and sea cargo still allowed would go to remote inspecting stations, not cities. Indeed, that is the reason why ICBMs were invented in the 50s – low probability such stealth nukes would work and bombers less likely to work each year.
And any discussion of the direct threat Iran poses right now – vs. 5 years or more in the future – is not to America, but our NATO treaty partners, the global energy supply, and lastly to the country we have no treaty with or vital interests with – Israel.
