What a wonderful time to be alive. Political unrest in a nuclear capable country, Al Qaeda running around and potential access to the nuclear weapons.

George Bush did not include Pakistan in the Axis of Evil that he identified a few years ago, so I don't think we have anything to worry about.

They could have been PALs but for some silly excuses.

So we're complaining that a dangerous unstable nation led by a madman has nukes? I can hear the "pot kettle black" pronouncements from here.

sounds like we could have a possible conflict with similarities to the storyline in call of duty 4.

all it takes is a would be al asad and a single stolen nuke placed in basrah, along with some S.A.S. action in russia, the only difference is that the russian federation could be a little bit crazier than what the game portrayed them to be, which would start a third world war.

/do I smell CoD-5 world in conflict? nah must be the litterbox again.

Xxplosiv: do I smell CoD-5 world in conflict?

CoD 5 is in the pipeline. That's as much as they have said so far.

Yes, but they're our friends...

so let's keep wringing our hands and beating the war drums over Iran's imaginary nuclear arsenal.


I still say this was the work of the Pakistani Army. No way they were going to tolerate a "power sharing" agreement with Bhutto just because America wanted one.

Plus they can easily point the finger at the extremists.

It just talk on fark but,

I believe that Muslim terrorists would be insane to attack any western target with either a dirty bomb or a true nuke. They risk having their holy sites denied them for thousands of years if not forever. Is it really worth the risk? It's hard to haj when you're trail leads to strontium.

One wonders what India would do with all of this, esp if the BJP becomes more than a fringe political party. I'm not worried about one of these Pakistani weapons getting smuggled into NYC as much as I am worried about India deciding that an unstable, ultra-Islamic, nationalist faction controlling Pakistan is a threat to their continued existence.

RabidDog: What a wonderful time to be alive. Political unrest in a nuclear capable country, Al Qaeda running around and potential access to the nuclear weapons.

Amen brother....I have been concerned about this since we bought Pakistan off following 9/11. I wouldn't trust Musharraf as far as I could throw him.

Whenever I hear lamenting about some thirdworld country's nuclear "capabilities" I am always reminded of a quote from Hugh "Gallager" Beaumont--" Do you realize that soon there will be countries with nuclear weapons that do not even have AN AIR FORCE... How are they gonna get it there? Federal Express ?"

Personally I picture a few of them at the top of a hill lighting a long fuse on a "fatman" style bomb and rolling it down at India and then running away with their fingers plugging their ears.

One Bad Apple: Personally I picture a few of them at the top of a hill lighting a long fuse on a "fatman" style bomb and rolling it down at India and then running away with their fingers plugging their ears.

Haha..thanks for the image! :0)

How many people afraid of Iranian or Pakistani nukes which maybe could take out one or two US cities if they got into terrorist hands remember the Cold War and the fact that the entire US and human civilization could have been ended within an hour of one man's decision? Ya young scared assed pussies need to get off my lawn.

thedarkshadow: It just talk on fark but,

I believe that Muslim terrorists would be insane to attack any western target with either a dirty bomb or a true nuke. They risk having their holy sites denied them for thousands of years if not forever. Is it really worth the risk? It's hard to haj when you're trail leads to strontium.

I understand your point. But the hardliner factions believe that the holy sites are "protected" by God and nothing can happen to them. They would gladly use a nuke or a dirty bomb against Israel or if they could against America without any concern for the safety of those sites since they are under "divine protection".

WorldCitizen: Ya young scared assed pussies need to get off my lawn.

Haha...those were the days, having the drills in school where you went into the hallway and crouched on the floor with a book over your head! Now that would protect you from a nuclear attack don't you think? ;0)

flaEsq: They could have been PALs but for some silly excuses.

Groan...

/heh

Must be time to go shopping............again


/or take a vacation

[rummages for his Twilight 2000 gameset]

thedarkshadow: It just talk on fark but,

I believe that Muslim terrorists would be insane to attack any western target with either a dirty bomb or a true nuke. They risk having their holy sites denied them for thousands of years if not forever. Is it really worth the risk? It's hard to haj when you're trail leads to strontium.

So you think western powers would retaliate by attacking a target not directly connected to whoever struck them? It is not like the British invaded the Vatican in revenge against the IRA. Such a move would only make enemies out of much of the rest of the world and benefit the terrorists cause.

The scenario would work like this:

Day1 after a nuclear terrorist attack: every nation on earth declares sympathy and loyality to the victim pledging aid and support. Even countries and groups unfriendly to the victim will make a show of being friends and unite in condemming this terrible crime against humanity.

Day2: Nuclear retaliation strike against muslim holy site. Everybody is appaled at the attack on civillians and religion all muslims who before proclaimed sympathy immeditaley turn about and all islamic countries declare war. Those whose governemnts hesitate have violent change in leadership before declaring war. All neutral western parites immeditely withdraw their offers of support and step back. A very costly war follows eaxactly as the terrorist wanted.

You have to face it: against a decentralized group of people willing to die for their cause hiding in countries world wide among a sea of civillians there is no effective means of either deterrence or retaliation.

Nukes only scare nationstates with infrastructure and a civillian populace. Against terrorists groups they are decidedly useless. The same goes for most other weaponsystems and doctrines that were thought up to fight the soviets in WWIII.

Yeah, if only we could support some military strong-man dictator who could assure us that under his brutal regime everything would be paddy-cakes!

I guess the US should have said something to General Zia back in the day when he started building nukes- but oh yeah, we were busy being his buddy because the CIA and Saudi Arabia were funneling money through the Pakistani ISI, to the Mujahideen fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. Remember how well that turned out, helping create the conditions that brought rise to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and a nuclear-armed Pakistan?


FTA: Finally, the larger society has a decidedly negative view of the United States. In a 2007 Pew poll, two out of three Pakistanis named the United States as the greatest threat to their country.

Interesting. I guess that whole unilateral unending war on a muslim neighbor-nation thing might make a people nervous.

Either Pakistan will work it out, or Pakistan will be the next Algeria. The US should get off of foreign oil and out of the Middle East.

You would think after a couple of months that the Fark admins would realize that Newsweek is no longer part of MSNBC.com and change the URL so the old Newsweek icon would appear next to Newsweek links.

Loki-L: thedarkshadow: It just talk on fark but,

I believe that Muslim terrorists would be insane to attack any western target with either a dirty bomb or a true nuke. They risk having their holy sites denied them for thousands of years if not forever. Is it really worth the risk? It's hard to haj when you're trail leads to strontium.

So you think western powers would retaliate by attacking a target not directly connected to whoever struck them? It is not like the British invaded the Vatican in revenge against the IRA. Such a move would only make enemies out of much of the rest of the world and benefit the terrorists cause.

The scenario would work like this:

Day1 after a nuclear terrorist attack: every nation on earth declares sympathy and loyality to the victim pledging aid and support. Even countries and groups unfriendly to the victim will make a show of being friends and unite in condemming this terrible crime against humanity.

Day2: Nuclear retaliation strike against muslim holy site. Everybody is appaled at the attack on civillians and religion all muslims who before proclaimed sympathy immeditaley turn about and all islamic countries declare war. Those whose governemnts hesitate have violent change in leadership before declaring war. All neutral western parites immeditely withdraw their offers of support and step back. A very costly war follows eaxactly as the terrorist wanted.

You have to face it: against a decentralized group of people willing to die for their cause hiding in countries world wide among a sea of civillians there is no effective means of either deterrence or retaliation.

Nukes only scare nationstates with infrastructure and a civillian populace. Against terrorists groups they are decidedly useless. The same goes for most other weaponsystems and doctrines that were thought up to fight the soviets in WWIII.

That's true, Mecca wouldn't be nuked, but there's a reason why Haliburton has been prominently featuring mosques in those population centers they've been constructing around the country that the tin foil hat guys rant about. Unlike WW2 where Japanese-Americans were interned for the security of America, Muslims will need to relocate for their own security from redneck mobs.

Wow this article had zero details. The writer obviously had a deadline and just crapped out something. This article was as vague as can be.