US Planning to Snatch Pakistan's Nukes

[khurasaan1]

So that cat is coming out of the hat now... the drama started from 9/11 and systematically it has came to the one and only thing.. Pakistan's Nukes!It has been widely understood in circles which think 'out of the box' that this whole mumbo jumbo of 9/11, 7/7, Iraq and Afghan war was solely for one purpose and one purpose only, destabilize Pakistan, the only Muslim country that can respond and retaliate any invader.. Other Muslim countries, ignorant of all this scenario and indulged in their 'sharab kabab' are going to become the next target for this 'global village' scheme of one international government, one international parliament and one international bank.

..

This will be only in their wet dreams.........Insha-Allah,,,,,,,,

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

The second part quoted by you was one the side factors such as bribing concerned officers...... Generals with every possible lucrative item and make them do the work in their favor...... I won't go deep..... being a professional you know better how a superior enemy uses his purchasing power to serve their goal.

i think you got a lot to learn about the command structure; the oversight, and other things. . .

i'm not too convinced

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

I have seen naxals...... been with them...... my house is very near to their belt..... and let me tell you they are no where near to what people think about them here !!

I can give a full detail how they get their arm, how they get their finance etc..... their ideology is totally different..... they are more of a violent demonstrators against the state policies which are capitalist to them in nature......

uh huh great story, that's why they've killed and even beheaded scores of civilians......not just elements of the 'state'

anyways, not the time or place. I shouldnt have brought it up.

 

[jbond197]

Stick to the topic please - one has to reference 'using nukes' when talking about 'deterrence'. The US and USSR did not maintain a Cold War detente by 'not threatening to nuke the other nation and its allies', the threat of 'nuking the other nation and its allies' was always there. The fact that each could do it to the other was what kept the two largely away from any major direct confrontation.

The references to 'nuking the Gulf Oil infrastructure, Israel, India, US bases in the region' is solely meant as a hypothetical exercise to illustrate the level of losses to the Western (Global) economy in case of an unprovoked military assault to 'neutralize Pakistan's nukes'. It has nothing to do with 'pure hate' (we obviously have no major beef with the Gulf nations whose oil infrastructure we would be destroying) - it is solely about finding targets that would hurt a potential Western enemy the most, and therefore perhaps deter that enemy from 'crossing Pakistan's red lines'.

AM, just for discussion sake.. Why not China? they are actually better targets.. They are the biggest manufacture/supplier of goods to west as well as they have plenty of investments in all the major western economy. An attack on them will have huge impact on global economy and trade. There are chances that world will come to stand still and hence your objective will be achieved in a much better way.

But if your argument is that you are going to attack only western allies then India does not actually fit the bill. India has never been a US or even Russian ally in the past and even today. So inclusion of India in your nuke list appear purely hate oriented and I can understand that..

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

A question for you "What would Pakistan do if 3-5 of its nuclear site is taken out by US commandos tonight ??"

ask yourself the same question if it happened to your country

you'd probably have an answer

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

. India has never been a US or even Russian ally in the past and even today. So inclusion of India in your nuke list appear purely hate oriented and I can understand that..

dude, what are you smoking??

 

[T-Rex]

AM, just for discussion sake.. Why not China? they are actually better targets.. They are the biggest manufacture/supplier of goods to west as well as they have plenty of investments in all the major western economy. An attack on them will have huge impact on global economy and trade. There are chances that world will come to stand still and hence your objective will be achieved in a much better way.

But if your argument is that you are going to attack only western allies then India does not actually fit the bill. India has never been a US or even Russian ally in the past and even today. So inclusion of India in your nuke list appear purely hate oriented and I can understand that..

According to his dubious logic the US should be a target of india because the US is a trade partner of China.

 

[TOPGUN]

dude, what are you smoking??

Give em hell Abu Bahi lolz these trolls need a wake up call .

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM, just for discussion sake.. Why not China? they are actually better targets.. They are the biggest manufacture/supplier of goods to west as well as they have plenty of investments in all the major western economy. An attack on them will have huge impact on global economy and trade. There are chances that world will come to stand still and hence your objective will be achieved in a much better way.

But if your argument is that you are going to attack only western allies then India does not actually fit the bill. India has never been a US or even Russian ally in the past and even today. So inclusion of India in your nuke list appear purely hate oriented and I can understand that..

Why assist in taking out an entity that the West perceives as the 'enemy'? Secondly, we would need China on our side in the UN if the US tried to take the 'UNSC Resolution for authorization of war' route.

Finally, Indian and Gulf targets (in terms of oil infrastructure and major economic and industrial hubs) are within the range of existing Pakistani short and medium range missiles. Most of China's major hubs, IIRC, are more Eastern and Central China, where Pakistani missiles would be hard pressed to reach in any case.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

According to his dubious logic the US should be a target of india because the US is a trade partner of China.

Not really - if the Chinese really wanted to take out India, 'trade' would not really stop them.

Trade and economic impact works better in the case of the West because the politicians and industry have significant influence through lobbyists on their respective governments. The average voter does not want to see oil at $500 a barrel or more, with major shortages, industrial shutdowns, etc. etc. Nor does any government really, unless it is a situation akin to Nazi Germany threatening them and/or the world.

If you disagree that the damage imposed upon the West through the destruction of the Gulf oil infrastructure, Indian and Israeli economies and Western bases in the region, would be a sufficient deterrent to an 'unprovoked neutralizing of Pakistani nukes', please offer your own opinions on why.

As I said, this is a hypothetical exercise, and I would like to see what flaws you guys dig out.

 

[jbond197]

dude, what are you smoking??

What exactly did you not get it in that comment?

 

[jbond197]

Why assist in taking out an entity that the West perceives as the 'enemy'? Secondly, we would need China on our side in the UN if the US tried to take the 'UNSC Resolution for authorization of war' route.

Wow, you think you will survive a counter attack that you will need them to be on your side in UN..

Finally, Indian and Gulf targets (in terms of oil infrastructure and major economic and industrial hubs) are within the range of existing Pakistani short and medium range missiles. Most of China's major hubs, IIRC, are more Eastern and Central China, where Pakistani missiles would be hard pressed to reach in any case.

I read on this forum somewhere that some of your missiles are of 2500-3500 km range. So you can target them if you really wish to. BTW, my reply to you was hypothetical and I know it will not happen in real but since we are discussing hypothetical scenarios here then what's wrong with this..

 

[jbond197]

Give em hell Abu Bahi lolz these trolls need a wake up call .

We are discussing hypothetical scenarios here like nuking India, Israel, Gulf to stop US snatching Pakistani nukes.. I gave other options as well.. If you don't like it then very well ignore it but my reply was on topic and not troll in any sense. BTW, you are giving troll fatwa which is against forum rules and I hope mods will take action on it.

 

[AAtish]

We are discussing hypothetical scenarios here like nuking India, Israel, Gulf to stop US snatching Pakistani nukes.. I gave other options as well.. If you don't like it then very well ignore it but my reply was on topic and not troll in any sense. BTW, you are giving troll fatwa which is against forum rules and I hope mods will take action on it.

India: Purely on the basis of their war-mongering attitude - you being one example
Israel: to make their lobby active in deterring any threat imposed towards them if cowboys went cowboy
Gulf: They really don't want to reduce their level of 'enjoyment', so they'll make sure any such thing never happens.. Plus as Agno so rightly stated.. breaking the backbone of oil infrastructure of the world..

Let's add nuking the US/NATO soldiers in Afghanistan just to put icing on the cake..

Yes we might not survive, buy hell neither is the world going to revive itself for next 3-4 decades, and that includes India..

Hope this answers your hypothetical questions..

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

What exactly did you not get it in that comment?

factually incorrect statements are hard to digest.....as for indian aspect, well you'd be naiive to think india wouldnt play a role in seeing her archrival get "de-fanged"

kindly refer to AM's posts as he has addressed the issue throughout the thread.