     MAD MAC | Monday, January 29, 2001 - 02:35 am
I would like to get your opinions on something. Pakistan now has a small quantity of nuclear weapons. Of course, Pakistans biggest rival is not Israel, it's India. And India has both a much larger stockpile of weapons and more capable delivery systems. Nevertheless, the Pakistanis do have a medium range missile and should be able to minaturize a warhead to place on it in the not too distant future. Also right now there is a very strong Islamic movement on the model of the Taliban. This movement is full of what are essentially professional Jihadists - people who have made militant Jihad a full time occupation. For anyone who's interested in the details I'll get you the info, but my point is, if Pakistan was controlled by such a regime, do you think they would be more or less inclined to use such weapons? How about using such a weapon against Israel (even though this doubtelss would mean killing a lot of Musilms in the process)? Would, in your estimation, a militant Islamic regime risk a nuclear cataclysm and the detruction of Pakistan and use such a weapon. What do you guys think? A lot of people think the next nuclear war will be between India and Pakistan and will result in deaths that may end up in the 9 figure category. |
| TLG | Monday, January 29, 2001 - 08:35 am
MM, Please tell me you are not down with this whole "jihad factory" jibe that the media has been raving recently in reference to Pakistan!!! I thought you "see things with clarity that others lack".
The Fanatic Sikhs and Hindus are as dangerous as the Muslims. Infact in Canada, many sikhs have been deported for such reasons. So, why the foucs on Pakistan? And they say islam is not a threat to the West.
My comments a lil later insha Allah.
Hey Common, did you read the piece on Pakistan in that article "changing Face of Islam" in the LA times? Did you notice how the writer was demonizing the movement in that country? I was told that the revival of true Islam is skyrocketting in Pakistan. Even the Women gather in some of the biggest hotels to organize conferences and study cirlces. No wonder the Paranoia from MM's cohorts! |
| MAD MAC | Monday, January 29, 2001 - 10:48 am
TLG
There's a very good article on that subject in the October issue of foreign affairs. The description according to foreign affairs, which I would not discount (look at Al-Itihad in your own country. It has several violent off-shoots). Basically the development appears to have run like this. Pakistan, which is hopelessly outgunned and outnumbered by India, is looking at using insurgency to unseat Indian presence in Kashmir. The recruitment effort to achieve this has been derived through a violent interpretation of Jihad. The problem is, after a sustained period of time, you create people like me, who only know how to soldier. But in this example there's no pension plan. When one war dries up, they look for another. They are externally funded (not just through the Pakistani government). Hence it becomes like a Hydra, you cut off the head an another one replaces it. Make no mistake this is a dangerous development which could unseat the current military dictatorship (judged no Islamic enough). Nevertheless, my question stands. Do you think the Pakistani weapons might be used, regardless of the consequences, if they fell into the hands of a Talibani like Islamic movement? |
| JB | Monday, January 29, 2001 - 02:15 pm
MM
I have a few Pakistani friends and they will disagree with your view on the strength and weakness of India and Pakistan. It’s beside the point.
Lets keep in mind that the U.S of A is the only nation on earth to have actually used a nuclear bomb against another nation! Islam forbids the killing of Innocent women children and men. Under what grounds do you justify the United States use of a nuclear bomb? Allah only knows how many innocent people died.
If it was right for them (USA) to use it then I’m sure other nations will find a similar circumstance to use it and similar justification. Are you saying that only America has the right to serve its self-interest? Or is America the good guys and Taliban the bad Guys? You've come to an Islamic discussion board and you want to convince us of Talibans's evil intentions! Give us a break, bro. While some of us are more open minded then others none of us on this page is Stupid. I’m not saying that the Taliban represent every thing that is good and Islamic. They have faults. Full time mujahids are no different then you or what you were. Trust me, while they do not have a pension plan like you they will retire due to age. This is not a discussion about American foreign policy but the Taliban have less blood, destruction, sabotage and every other dirty scheme on the chest.
Now to the real issue of using a nuclear weapon. Allah says,:” …And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you. Observe your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with those who ward off (evil).”(2:194).
So if a notion was to use a nuclear bomb against Muslims Allah grants us permission to attack them in a like manner. A more important question is, is it permissible to use ‘The Bomb’ first? As a preemptive strike. I don’t know. Mad Mac you know better than us that the arrival of nuclear weapons has made the world safer. Nothing says “Lets get along” quite like Assured Mutual Destruction. I think its Only fair that other nations get nuclear weapon. Heck if America, china and all the good colonial countries can be trusted, why not pakistan. You may have a problem it this if your accustomed to being the bully. |
| MAD MAC | Monday, January 29, 2001 - 09:59 pm
What grounds do I justify the use of nuclear weapons? When did I do that? What does that have to do with the subject at hand? Nothing. But you asked and I'll answer. Different standard. WW II was a total war against a ruthless enemy. The Japanese were not ready to capitulate (revisionist nonsense aside). A US invasion would have caused somewhere around 1,000,000 casualties on the US side alone. The number of folks killed in each atttack was somewhere between 30,000 and 100,000 (depending on who's counting). So in light of the times it's understandable. All of that having been said, had I been king I would have used the first device (we only had two, the third not being completed until six months later) as a demonstration device in Tokya harbor. If it failed to function no big deal, and since it did (using a high air burst to avoid serious collateral damage) I think this demonstration would have made it clear to the Japanese leadership that it was time to pack it in.
Your friends who contest the military situation between Pakistan and India need to learn to count. There's a reason that Pakistan keeps getting smoked every time it fights India.
In some respect you are correct, the arrival of nuclear weapons has made the world safer. The primary concern is that a warhead fall into the hands of a nutcase(s) who might actually use it. Or that the ground war in Kashmir spins out of control. The balance of power between us and the Soviets prevented usage in the cold war. We never fought each other directly. But if deterence fails then the consequences are nasty. I assume from your write up the bottom line is no first use by Islamic militants. Thanks for the response. |
| RPG7 | Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 08:23 pm
Some Facts:
Todays nuclear weapons are in the size of Mega tons that is 100 000 times more powerfull than the bombs that fell over Nagazaki and Hiroshima(Japan). You can just imagine the ferocious destructiveness of these horrendous eliminator bombs.
Now the fact that India has a larger stocpile of bombs and a longer range type of missiles is realy not relavant in the Pakistan-India context since both have the capability of eliminating the other, this is also the resaon why they are unlikely to fight, after all you fight a war to reach a goal and a goal where you and your opponent both perish is not realy attractive to either government lol!!
In the global context it is very unlikely that a muslim country or any country for that matter is going to use nuclear weapons against Israel, why??
Well for a number of reasons:
1. Israel and Palestine is the same country and the Holy Mosque is located there so it is very unlikely that these fundamentalists are going to blow up Islams third holiest place.
2.As i have stated N-bombs are ferocioulsy terryfying these days and an attack on Palestine(also known as israel) would make waist land out of not only Palestine but also Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and other Muslim countries and perhaps even many European countries remember that the wind can take the radioactive dust far far into other countries perhaps back to the country who sent
the bomb!
3.Any country that launches an attack will be attacked similarly pretty quickly
(early warning systems) thus it is unlikely for somebody to attack.
Basically it is very unlikely for this scenario about Israel-Pakistan to unfold. However what is more scary is the accidental nuclear war, the world has been close a couple of times but it has yet to happen.
Countries with nuclear weaponns include:
USA, Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan and Israel.
Countries who have the capability to make them but who has absatained from doing so include:
South Africa, Brazil, Germany, Australia, Ukraine, Sweden, Norway and many other countries!!
ALLAHU AKBAR!!!! |
| MAD MAC | Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 09:29 pm
RPG-7
Good analysis. Makes sense to me. I am concerned that things could spin out of control between India and Pakistan, but maybe the same things that kept the US-USSR conflict in check will contain theirs as well. |
