Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 41

Thread: Obama: Withraw from Afghanistan? Never.

  1. #16
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    Really. You seriously underestimate a nuclear device being handed off in briefcase form and being detonated at the top of a skyscraper in any major city to approximate an air burst, smuggled in through your ports where only 5% of cargo carriers are scanned for radioactive isotopes.

    Also *if* pakistan collapses, and that's a ridiculous long shot, what do you propose? The wholesale invasion of Pakistan using the broken military of the US exhausted from Iraq? Tactical nuclear strikes? Simple bombardment? Pakistan right now is an ally, and co-operating (mostly) with US wishes concerning the borderlands despite the numerous Predator strikes that have been killing innocent villagers left and right.

    So really, why so bloodthirsty? The US can't even afford the wars it has now much less engage in a new one. Try getting ONE right first before jaunting off for more.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  2. #17
    Elite Member Wiseguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,201

    Default

    Bloodthirsty? Hardly. Realistic - yes. Pakistan is a major threat not just to the US but to the West.

    So, what is your solution, Grimm??


  3. #18
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    Let the Pakistanis run their own fucking affairs. Pakistan is a threat, Iran is a threat, Afghanistan is a threat, Iraq was a threat, Russia is a threat, south american yahoos are a threat, the whole fucking planet outside of Europe is a threat to Amurrica apparently.

    If there isn't a current threat, one will be always be invented.

    People need to grow the fuck up and stay out of each others business.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  4. #19
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    33,872

    Default

    Pakistan's nukes are safe. Maybe.

    An excellent series of recent articles on the subject by Shaun Gregory, Rolf Mowatt-Larssen (a former director of intelligence at the Department of Energy), and Brig. Gen. Feroz Hassan Khan (Ret.) assess the very grim threat of Pakistan losing control over its 60-warheads-and-growing nuclear weapons arsenal. Given the lack of publicly available data on this critical issue, such articles by extremely knowledgeable scholars and practitioners represent some of the best information we have on realistic threats to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

    Gregory's article has gotten some recent attention for noting that there have worryingly been several attacks at the perimeter of bases that may house nuclear components, though U.S. intelligence officials are quick to point out that there is little reason to believe that nuclear assets were ever at risk. So what are the primary risks to the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal?

    In answering this question, it is important to differentiate between the various organizations involved with Pakistan's nuclear weapons, and where and when nuclear assets are more or less vulnerable to internal and external threats. The bigger threat is probably not the Army losing control of nuclear assets, but rather insider-outsider collusion or diversion of nuclear material from the civilian nuclear agencies during either the production phase or transfer to Army locations.

    The good news is that once the Pakistani Army takes custody of nuclear assets, the threat of terrorists successfully boosting a warhead or fissile cores -- either through direct attack or facilitated by insiders -- is reassuringly low. The Pakistani Army has every incentive to ensure firm control over the country's nuclear assets since, should they be lost or stolen, there would literally be hell to pay.

    A combination of security measures instituted by the Strategic Plans Division, headed by Lt. Gen Khalid Kidwai (Ret.), has increased confidence that the Pakistani Army has firm control over nuclear assets, particularly during peacetime with India, when Pakistan's nuclear weapons are believed to be kept in component form with warheads disassembled and separated from the missiles that would deliver them, in highly secret fixed locations that are easier to protect through concentric rings of security forces (believed to include the ISI, regular Army, and dedicated elite forces to protect nuclear assets).

    Even in the unlikely event that Bruce Riedel's nightmare scenario of a jihadist takeover of the Pakistani government unfolds, there is little reason to believe that the Army would give up or lose control of nuclear weapons -- indeed, there is little evidence that the Army has relinquished control even to Pakistan's current civilian government. The highly professional nature of Army units charged with guarding Pakistan's nuclear assets, procedural protections that require at least the "two-man rule," the SPD Personnel Reliability Programme (which monitors the loyalty and mental states of military personnel), and the ability to protect fixed locations against most realistic terrorist threats suggest that in peacetime the Pakistani nuclear arsenal that is in the custody of the Army ought to be relatively secure.

    Now, for the potentially bad news. As Gregory, Khan, and Mowatt-Larssen all suggest, the primary risk to the Pakistani Army's ability to safely secure nuclear assets in its custody would likely be during crisis scenarios -- either against India or due to a perceived Western threat to the integrity of Pakistan's arsenal -- that might cause Pakistan to move to a higher state of nuclear readiness. If the Army feels compelled to rapidly disperse or relocate nuclear components and loses the defensive advantage of protecting them in secure fixed locations, insider foreknowledge of movements and the loss of centralized control could increase the probability of theft or loss.

    This threat could be magnified if the Pakistani Army assembles warheads before moving them for procedural or technical reasons, thereby removing some -- if not all -- safeguards preventing unauthorized or accidental detonation. There is some ambiguity about the so-called Pak-PALs (Permissive Actions Links, which are basically locks for nuclear warheads) that Kidwai claims Pakistan has developed to prevent unauthorized or accidental use. Modern U.S. PALs, for example, are digitally integrated into the firing system of a fully assembled weapon, so developing PALs for disassembled weapons may perhaps involve only rudimentary physical locks to prevent assembly of the weapon without a proper code (either colocated with the assets or held centrally) that are easier to bypass.

    The removal of already-weak safeguards as Pakistan moves to a higher state of nuclear readiness would be consistent with its nuclear posture of credibly threatening the early first use of nuclear weapons against Indian forces to deter an Indian conventional attack, but it increases safety and security risks.

    There are some indications, though no clear publicly available evidence, that Pakistan has moved or readied nuclear assets several times, and only in response to external threats: in the 48 hours after 9/11 when General Musharraf feared that the U.S. might attack Pakistan and perhaps during 2002 when Pakistan feared that a major Indian conventional attack was imminent during the Parakram crisis. So although crisis scenarios may pose the greatest risk to the Pakistan Army's ability to securely guard Pakistan's nuclear weapons, the empirical record suggests that Pakistan has only alerted forces in supreme emergencies when the state's survival was potentially threatened by external threats, so this threat -- while very real -- should not be overstated.

    Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is also vulnerable at several points before the Army takes control of assets from the civilian nuclear infrastructure in fixed locations. Thousands of civilian personnel are responsible for the production of Pakistan's nuclear weapons components. In recent years Pakistan has established a Human Reliability Programme (HRP) to regularly monitor civilian nuclear personnel, ensuring that there are no extremists within the system, and has also established a Nuclear Security Action Plan to establish best practices and deal with recovering orphaned radioactive sources (mostly contaminated metals).

    There are a few scenarios that could pose risks to Pakistan's nuclear weapons, aside from the obvious risks of direct attacks on civilian nuclear installations or radical insiders within the organization who might transfer nuclear weapons to terrorist organizations (e.g. a repeat of the UTN episode or an A.Q. Khan-like figure willing to do business with al Qaeda or the Taliban); security around nuclear installations is robust and tight, though nothing is ever totally impenetrable, while the PRP/HRP is tasked with ensuring that the latter scenario does not unfold.

    The first risk is the threat of a diversion of fissile material at the production stage by one or more Pakistani nuclear scientists, either at once or slowly over time, with the latter being more difficult to detect. Given the accounting uncertainties in even the world's most secure nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards, it might be impossible to detect the diversion of a few kilograms of fissile material accumulated over long periods of time, particularly as Pakistan is ramping up production of the weapons-grade material (both plutonium and HEU) needed to make nuclear weapons.

    While protection and accounting in Pakistan's nuclear establishments have reportedly improved since 2001, perhaps partly with U.S. assistance (though much of this remains highly classified and it is not clear how much Pakistan trusts or would accept U.S. assistance), it was considered rudimentary prior to that and it is therefore a daunting task to ensure that 100 percent of Pakistan's fissile material produced over the past 20 years is accounted for, since accounting uncertainties of just a few tenths of a percent could be sufficient to develop a radiological or nuclear device -- and no regulatory authorities may even realize the material is missing.

    The second point of vulnerability is during the transfer of nuclear assets from civilian organizations to Army locations. Mowatt-Larssen writes that Pakistan "transport[s] and deploy[s] weapons clandestinely rather than in convoys that have a stronger, highly visible security profile" which could "paradoxically ... backfire in the event a malicious insider gained access to locations of weapons storage sites, transportation routes, and similar insider information, especially because more moving parts are involved in assembling weapons when they are being deployed. In such a case, there would be fewer barriers between an outside group and the bomb."

    That is, Pakistan relies on less-guarded, secret transfers instead of heavily armed convoys, which means that an attack that either knowingly (through insider collaboration) or by chance targeted a nuclear transport would have a higher probability of successfully boosting nuclear material. This could be a particularly attractive mode of attack since terrorist organizations might be able to successfully steal nuclear assets with only the assistance of a lone malicious insider who had foreknowledge of transport times and routes.

    The key point here is that there are different organizations responsible for the production and stewardship of Pakistan's nuclear weapons and each one presents its own points and scenarios of vulnerability. The Pakistani Army may face acute challenges ensuring centralized command and control of nuclear assets during times of crisis. And with respect to the civilian nuclear agencies, highly accurate accounting and controls, rigorous screening procedures, and secure transfer of materials to and by the Army are crucial to ensuring that Pakistan's nuclear assets are not vulnerable to corrupt insiders or external terrorist threats.

    Is Pakistan's nuclear arsenal safe? | The AfPak Channel

    No nuclear power can 100% guarantee that it's nukes will never be captured. A grab could be made for weapons in any of the countries that have the bomb. Not even the US can account for all their nuclear weapons and materials. Pakistan's are as safe as anybody else's. No need to get the vapors.
    It's no longer a dog whistle, it's a fucking trombone


    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  5. #20
    Elite Member Wiseguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    Let the Pakistanis run their own fucking affairs. Pakistan is a threat, Iran is a threat, Afghanistan is a threat, Iraq was a threat, Russia is a threat, south american yahoos are a threat, the whole fucking planet outside of Europe is a threat to Amurrica apparently.

    If there isn't a current threat, one will be always be invented.

    People need to grow the fuck up and stay out of each others business.
    I've argued the point that troops in Afghanistan need to be cut back dramatically and that the world's focus should now be on countering terrorism in Pakistan. In the words of Hillary Clinton, Pakistan is a "mortal threat" to world security. Extremists are in control of large chunks of the country where they hold most of the world's terrorist training camps.

    Sitting back and doing nothing about Pakistan is not the answer. Destabilizing terrorist camps and focusing on counter terrorism in the regions below is a much better option, not just for the US, but for world security.

    The Taliban are extending control of large areas of NW Pakistan. The Pakistani government are basically abdicating control to the Taliban and other extremists.


  6. #21
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,250

    Default

    He's still a million times better than Bush, a thousand times better than Clinton, and a billion times better than the 2008 version of John McCain who picked Palin as his running mate.

    The Dow would likely be headed to 3000 and not 10000 if McCain were President and we didn't have the stimulus package.

    Sure, I'm concerned about our exit strategy for Afghanistan, but I'm willing to give Obama a chance.

    Let the Pakistanis run their own fucking affairs. Pakistan is a threat, Iran is a threat, Afghanistan is a threat, Iraq was a threat, Russia is a threat, south american yahoos are a threat, the whole fucking planet outside of Europe is a threat to Amurrica apparently.

    If there isn't a current threat, one will be always be invented.

    People need to grow the fuck up and stay out of each others business.
    That's a dangerous view of the world. Isolationism is just as stupid as the neo-conservatism that ran amok in the Bush WH.

  7. #22
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visitor42 View Post
    He's still a million times better than Bush, a thousand times better than Clinton, and a billion times better than the 2008 version of John McCain who picked Palin as his running mate.

    The Dow would likely be headed to 3000 and not 10000 if McCain were President and we didn't have the stimulus package.

    Sure, I'm concerned about our exit strategy for Afghanistan, but I'm willing to give Obama a chance.



    That's a dangerous view of the world. Isolationism is just as stupid as the neo-conservatism that ran amok in the Bush WH.
    Obama is certainly better than W...but is the bar really set that low? As for being better than Clinton...Which part of peace and prosperity for 8 years did you not like?

  8. #23
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visitor42 View Post
    That's a dangerous view of the world. Isolationism is just as stupid as the neo-conservatism that ran amok in the Bush WH.
    Yes, instead lets invade every other country and have multiple wars going on at the same time.

    Do you actually think the wars the US fights are for "Freedom" and "democracy" and all that other bullshit? LOL
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  9. #24
    Elite Member Wiseguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scooter View Post
    Obama is certainly better than W...but is the bar really set that low? As for being better than Clinton...Which part of peace and prosperity for 8 years did you not like?
    Peace?? Some experts think Clinton was merely paying lip service to the threat of terror attacks during his terms. According to Larry Johnson, formerly with the CIA and the State Department and the current CEO of the Business Exposure Reduction Group, he believes Clinton's weak response to the terrorist attacks that occurred during his presidency paved the way for the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Here is a list of the terror attacks on US soil during Clinton's watch:

    1993 World Trade Center Bombing
    On Feb. 26, 1993, a car bomb was detonated at the World Trade Center in New York City, killing six people and injuring thousands. The bomb caused extensive damage to the complex. Osama bin Laden is suspected to have been behind the attacks.


    Clinton made no changes in policy to prevent further attacks until the Oklahoma City bombings in 1995.


    1996 Khobar Towers Bombing
    On June 25, 1996, terrorists attacked the U.S. military complex and Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 Americans and wounding hundreds more.
    Shiite militant terrorists with connections to bin Laden are thought to have been responsible for the attacks.


    ...Early indications were that the explosive used in the bombing of the Khobar Towers came out of the Becca Valley in Lebanon. A year later, however, Clinton restored full diplomatic relations with Lebanon including lifting travel restrictions and trade restrictions, Johnson said, "without requiring them to locate, arrest, apprehend or compensate U.S. citizens. He just let it go."


    1998 Embassy Bombings
    On Aug. 7, 1998, terrorists bombed the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 258 people. More than 5,000 were injured.
    The attacks were blamed on bin Laden's terrorist group, al-Qaeda, which by this time had developed into a worldwide network.


    2000 USS Cole Bombing
    On Oct. 12, 2000, terrorists bombed the USS Cole as it sat in the Yemeni port of Aden. The bomb killed 17 U.S. sailors. American officials quickly linked the attack to bin Laden and al-Qaeda.


    Source: Clinton Paid 'Lip Service' to Terror Attacks, Expert Charges

    Yes, instead lets invade every other country and have multiple wars going on at the same time.
    Nobody wants war, but what is the other option? Let al-Qaeda continue to build up the world's largest terror training camps so they can unleash even worse terror attacks than 9/11?? al-Qaeda already control of 2/3 of Pakistan. Obviously their plan is to control all of Pakistan with no government intervention. They have the nuclear bomb, 100 nuclear weapons and a bigger army than the US and those statistics continue to grow by the month. And your solution is to do nothing?????


  10. #25
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    33,872

    Default

    Ah well, if it's from Newsmax, I'm sure it's not at all biased from a neo-con standpoint.

    This would be the same Newsmax that incorrectly reported that Hilary Clinton refused to meet with Gold Star mothers, and that published the specualtive piece about Chandra Levy's sex life, reported on the blatantly false nonsense called the 'North American Union', that Rick Santorum was having a fundraiser played at by U2, and just last week published the John Perry article about the military coup that we need against Obama.....
    Last edited by witchcurlgirl; October 6th, 2009 at 10:24 AM.
    It's no longer a dog whistle, it's a fucking trombone


    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  11. #26
    Elite Member Wiseguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,201

    Default

    ^^^There's always bias when it comes to opinions on matters of how to handle conflict. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. There is no doubt that Clinton did not act quickly enough after the World Trade Bombings in 1993. Also, his approval for missile strikes against Bin Laden in 1998 were a little too late in my opinion.

    To be fair, Clinton tripled the budget on anti-terror funding during his second term. But Clinton was on the verge of attacking Bin Laden at the end of 2000, but decided not to act in the hope that intelligence would be enough. I also think that was a fatal mistake.


  12. #27
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    33,872

    Default

    ^ Of course the truth is in the middle. Even in the Newsmax article you quote there's a difference of opinion:

    Chuck Pena, senior defense analyst for the Cato Institute, agreed that Clinton's actions after the 1993 attack failed to match his words.

    But, Pena said, the circumstances were different than they are today. "[Clinton's] actions were not necessarily 100 percent reflective of his rhetoric, nor were they effective."

    However, "there are some reasons for some of that. At the time, we were not looking at four or five thousand casualties as a result of a single terrorist act."

    Pena said one must consider that terrorism was not the high-priority issue it is today.

    "Part of it reflects, at that time, a certain tolerance for terrorism that was, compared to September 11, pretty small scale. I think the Clinton administration may have been overly cautious about not wanting to respond disproportionately to the terrorist acts that were perpetrated."

    And in being fair, it's also unfair to lay the blame entirely at Clinton's feet. We now know that Bin-Laden's Al-Qaeda was helped brought into being through actions that took place as far back as the Reagan era.
    It's no longer a dog whistle, it's a fucking trombone


    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  13. #28
    Elite Member Wiseguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,201

    Default

    ^^^Agree that it's not fair to lay all the blame at Clinton's feet. I have no doubt that the Saudi government would have blocked many attempts at prosecuting the masterminds behind the terror attacks.

    Here is an article (yes, by a conservative columnist) that also raises some questions about Clinton's handling of the terror attacks during his term.
    The Facts About Clinton and Terrorism by Byron York on National Review Online

    Although it's a conservative viewpoint, I'm not going to discount some valid points raised by the author.


  14. #29
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    33,872

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseguy View Post
    ^^^Agree that it's not fair to lay all the blame at Clinton's feet. I have no doubt that the Saudi government would have blocked many attempts at prosecuting the masterminds behind the terror attacks.

    Here is an article (yes, by a conservative columnist) that also raises some questions about Clinton's handling of the terror attacks during his term.
    The Facts About Clinton and Terrorism by Byron York on National Review Online

    Although it's a conservative viewpoint, I'm not going to discount some valid points raised by the author.
    I wouldn't dismiss it, I read both sides of the issues, I just tend to pick who on I both sides I read. Newsmax is not a favorite, but I'm also aware of Media Matters bias, and I don't like Olbermann either
    It's no longer a dog whistle, it's a fucking trombone


    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  15. #30
    Elite Member Wiseguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,201

    Default

    I wouldn't dismiss it, I read both sides of the issues, I just tend to pick who on I both sides I read.
    Likewise.


Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. President Obama angry at Gen McChrystal's speech on Afghanistan
    By witchcurlgirl in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: October 12th, 2009, 11:06 AM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: April 6th, 2009, 12:43 AM
  3. US to send 20,000 more troops to Afghanistan
    By witchcurlgirl in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 11th, 2008, 04:14 PM
  4. Afghanistan: The aimless war
    By celeb_2006 in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 11th, 2008, 10:32 AM
  5. Barack Obama to explore new approach to Afghanistan war
    By Belinda in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 11th, 2008, 10:10 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •