# How Many Are Concerned About Pakistan And it's 100 nukes?



## AquaHull (Jun 10, 2012)

Pakistan parliament backs embattled prime minister as crisis deepens | Reuters

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_...s-for-worst-case-scenario-with-pakistan-nukes


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

they are all pointed at India, and have been for a very long time, its classic cold war


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

Eventually a nuclear device will be detonated...some where by someone. Wish it wasn't so, yet the longer there are nukes in the world the greater the odds of one being used. My biggest concern about Pakistan, is that radicals will take over and give bombs to groups that shouldn't have them, like ISIS...etc.


----------



## AquaHull (Jun 10, 2012)

Winner Winner You Get A Chicken Dinner

There is a growing concern that IS ,ISIS etc will gain control of some of Syria's undeclared chemical weapons.

Put that is one of the 11 airliners

Meanwhile Back At Mama's( I just heard Tim & Faith),the USPS has my .405 plated projectiles "Out For Delivery" at Mama's


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

As the nukes stand I am not particularly concerned. As ISIS continues to be unchecked that concern will grow. I believe we currently could destroy Pakistan's nukes worth conventional weapons launched from sea. India has the population to over run Pakistan if the mikes were neutralized. Therefore there is a reasonable way to combat medium range nukes held by the current government of Pakistan. Should it turn to a terrorist state there will be a problem. This is why not permitting terrorist to grow in Afganistan is important. IMO


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

pheniox17 said:


> they are all pointed at India, and have been for a very long time, its classic cold war


 India has been sitting there for a long time just waiting for a reason to nuke Pakistan


----------



## AquaHull (Jun 10, 2012)

And that folks could very well be the start of the last big one where no flesh would survive unless the ........................

India,China and Russia(Rosh) could amass a 200 times 100,000 man Army quickly


----------



## MI.oldguy (Apr 18, 2013)

The nukes give them a stalemate,neither country wants to be fried I'm sure.India or the pakis dont have the balls.


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

I worry about *any country* with nuclear weapons, even if they don't have the necessary means to deliver them.


----------



## Jeep (Aug 5, 2014)

Its a concern, but as of now not my main concern


----------



## Ragnarök (Aug 4, 2014)

armies are expensive. just because you have a large population does not mean you can mobilize giant armies easily..this is why china in my opinion is not a scary military threat. Russia is a different story however. Isis is a huge threat because they are radical.


----------



## AquaHull (Jun 10, 2012)

It won't be easy to dry up the Euphrates River either.For mere mortals that is.


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

MI.oldguy said:


> The nukes give them a stalemate,neither country wants to be fried I'm sure.India or the pakis dont have the balls.


just think USA vs USSR cold war....

the Isis threat is a worry, as Pakistani defences on nuke facilities.... is way below the min "standard" as a group of us would be able to secure a nuke with minimal resistance, but politically for Isis, that's a no no as Pakistan is a friendly country for them

but on nukes I'm more concerned with Iran, they are a major actor in this issue with Isis (thanks Bush, should have gone to war with Iraq now not in 01 IMO) as Iran is the last independent stable power in the region (not counting Israel... and the united Arab Union) all others are in a state of civil unrest... if Husain was still in power.... at least there would be balance (cards against the USA, but minimal power void to prevent raising groups like Isis)

so Iran will play the "sleeping tiger" and be a future arms supplier when Isis or their new groups agenda suits Iran (cough Israel)

its a more advanced game of chess


----------



## Derma-Redi (Aug 23, 2014)

No worries, ISIS is a JV team according to the fraudulent president...


----------



## dannydefense (Oct 9, 2013)

pheniox17 said:


> but on nukes I'm more concerned with Iran, they are a major actor in this issue with Isis (thanks Bush, should have gone to war with Iraq now not in 01 IMO) as Iran is the last independent stable power in the region (not counting Israel... and the united Arab Union) all others are in a state of civil unrest...


Sorry, I stroked out right in the middle... when I woke up, I had but one question floating on my now pretty much blank mind; how was this Bush's fault again?


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Pakistan has been a problem ever since the inception of a nuclear program in 1972 due to the goofy way some British diplomat drew up the boarders. India is such a threat that as long as the current regime stays nominally in power I doubt that its weapons will be diverted. Then again Iran is hardly benevolent. If that government is toppled by radical elements....it could prove to be a hair raising experience. I would assume the US has some sort of contingency plan to rapidly secure these facilities and weapons or to render them unusable.


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

dannydefense said:


> Sorry, I stroked out right in the middle... when I woke up, I had but one question floating on my now pretty much blank mind; how was this Bush's fault again?


launching 2 wars on 2 theaters at the same time, its the only real fault I can give him (compared to Obama where the list dosn't end)


----------



## Zed (Aug 14, 2014)

MI.oldguy said:


> The nukes give them a stalemate,neither country wants to be fried I'm sure.India or the pakis dont have the balls.


Lol i'm Indian...Its not about balls..Its that Indian cannot afford war...
We won't be able to defeat pakistan..neither they would be..we will have like 100 year war...
And India has 'no first use' policy. We won't start..but if we are attacked by nukes..we will pretty much make entire pakistan inhabitable for next 100 years ..that i can guarantee


----------



## Zed (Aug 14, 2014)

AquaHull said:


> And that folks could very well be the start of the last big one where no flesh would survive unless the ........................
> 
> India,China and Russia(Rosh) could amass a 200 times 100,000 man Army quickly


Well i can't tell about China, Russia. But India would be able to amass not just 100k..but 200k for sure.. Question is we only got men.. Our army still uses WW2 equiments. Would we be able to stand on our feet? i think NO.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

Ragnarök said:


> armies are expensive. just because you have a large population does not mean you can mobilize giant armies easily..this is why china in my opinion is not a scary military threat. Russia is a different story however. Isis is a huge threat because they are radical.


You are wrong about China's military but right about Russia being the bigger threat.


----------



## firefighter72 (Apr 18, 2014)

dannydefense said:


> Sorry, I stroked out right in the middle... when I woke up, I had but one question floating on my now pretty much blank mind; how was this Bush's fault again?


Because they really do have WMD's now.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

pheniox17 said:


> just think USA vs USSR cold war....
> 
> the Isis threat is a worry, as Pakistani defences on nuke facilities.... is way below the min "standard" as a group of us would be able to secure a nuke with minimal resistance, but politically for Isis, that's a no no as Pakistan is a friendly country for them
> 
> ...


You are wrong about President Bush and Iraq try reading a book on military strategies before popping off about a subject on which you are completely ignorant.


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

PalmettoTree said:


> You are wrong about President Bush and Iraq try reading a book on military strategies before popping off about a subject on which you are completely ignorant.


how many USA troops were in Afghanistan during the Iraq invasion, when you find that out, then you can question my ignorance on strategies??


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

don't misunderstand me, Iraq had to happen, it was inevitable... but it could have waited until Afghanistan was secure


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

pheniox17 said:


> how many USA troops were in Afghanistan during the Iraq invasion, when you find that out, then you can question my ignorance on strategies??


Numbers are not a military strategy. They are part of the TO&E. Bush fielded a great strategy against global terrorism. When the complete history is written after declassification he will go down in history as a Great War time leader. The results of which Obama tossed away.

I'll say this the Muslims thought Bush would be stupid like the Russians, the English and every other country that invaded Afghanistan. He did not play into their hands. It is clear you would have.


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

PalmettoTree said:


> Numbers are not a military strategy. They are part of the TO&E. Bush fielded a great strategy against global terrorism. When the complete history is written after declassification he will go down in history as a Great War time leader. The results of which Obama tossed away.
> 
> I'll say this the Muslims thought Bush would be stupid like the Russians, the English and every other country that invaded Afghanistan. He did not play into their hands. It is clear you would have.


its always about numbers

the results have left a massive power void in the middle east, allowing the rise of this new threat...

and my strategy on Iraq would be simply wait.... or occupation for a good 50-100 years as look at the middle east, USA actions have left Iran as the last stable power over there.... and Iran pisses on the USA more than Isis....


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

pheniox17 said:


> its always about numbers
> 
> the results have left a massive power void in the middle east, allowing the rise of this new threat...
> 
> and my strategy on Iraq would be simply wait.... or occupation for a good 50-100 years as look at the middle east, USA actions have left Iran as the last stable power over there.... and Iran pisses on the USA more than Isis....


There is no way to have separate strategies. It is one war on terror. Education and experience does not necessarily mean a person's position is right. Quite often it is a disgraceful use for personal career advancement over the best mission strategy. However I was lucky to study at the college level "Evolution of Warfare" under a former OSS officer with a history PhD.

Got to go more later if I am not kicked off.


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

PalmettoTree said:


> There is no way to have separate strategies. It is one war on terror.


and that I agree and is recorded as one of the issues, 2 separate wars should have been treated as such, with that same single goal, this is something I'm keen on discussing with you (maybe a little private tho) as some finer points may feed the "enemy" with ideas...

but I will reinforce Iraq had to happen, not due to the media propaganda, they had a true despot in power that needed a kicking... and to remove safe havens for the enemy...

but back on topic Pakistan is a safe haven for the enemy (proved more when the worlds number 1 most wanted was found and killed!!) and is the Muslim foothold in Asia, for some its worth getting a Atlas, and marking out the international threats given..
.


----------



## Ragnarök (Aug 4, 2014)

PalmettoTree said:


> You are wrong about China's military but right about Russia being the bigger threat.


One thing to do is never under estimate your enemy. so maybe I am wrong I will concede you that ^^. My decision on China is referred to their naval fleet. they have only one air craft carrier currently and it is outdated. However, you never want to awaken a sleeping tiger as the Japanese found out in ww2. Things can be put into production this is true. As things stand now though Chinese military is not a huge threat to the united states especially since they are heavily invested in us.

A war with China will not happen in our foreseeable future. only my humble opinion. I am curious, with all due respect, how large an army do you think China could muster, How advanced the technology, and for how long could they fight us? disregard their heavy investment and say they decide to wage war.


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

Ragnarök said:


> One thing to do is never under estimate your enemy. so maybe I am wrong I will concede you that ^^. My decision on China is referred to their naval fleet. they have only one air craft carrier currently and it is outdated. However, you never want to awaken a sleeping tiger as the Japanese found out in ww2. Things can be put into production this is true. As things stand now though Chinese military is not a huge threat to the united states especially since they are heavily invested in us.
> 
> A war with China will not happen in our foreseeable future. only my humble opinion. I am curious, with all due respect, how large an army do you think China could muster, How advanced the technology, and for how long could they fight us? disregard their heavy investment and say they decide to wage war.


India is the USA defense plan on dealing with China...

the foreseeable future, China will move against Japan, and the USA as a modern ally of Japan... OK judging by Ukraine, will do nothing of value (and this worries me, not China but the current USA policy on defence treaties...)

but superpower vs superpower war I can't see unless its over resources, but also we have 2 emerging superpowers, and the possibility of a religious actor also becoming a superpower...

only time will tell here....


----------



## Zed (Aug 14, 2014)

I don't think Japan will be able to hold its own against China even with help of USA. The war between China and USA will be fought on island of Japan and whatever may be the outcome of war...Japan will be the one to loose most. 
Secondly China will never fight against Japan-US on west and India on south. India won't do anything even under US pressure. We have lost previous Indo-china war.


----------



## mcangus (Jun 3, 2014)

I am worried more about my country with all its nukes. Afterall it is the only country that I know of that actually used it on people.


----------

