Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

US in position to nuke Pakistan?


Bella-Angelique

Recommended Posts

Arrival of Nimitz part of deepening relationship with India'

Chennai, July. 2 (PTI): The arrival nuclear-powered American aircraft carrier USS Nimitz, off the Chennai port was "part of a long developing process and deepening of relationship with India", US Ambassador to India, David Mulford said today.

"It is very important for the overall relationship between the two countries," he told reporters after visiting the Indian Council for Child Welfare(ICCW) here where crew of the USS Nimitz and USS Pinckney cleaned and painted the dormitary and day care centre at ICCW premises.

"With a rising number of joint exercises between the two countries, the relationship was very important," he said.

To a query on the protests by various political parties and environmentalists against the Nimitz's arrival in India, he said: "India is a democratic country. Everyone has a right to express...I am not surprised, but we can assure there is no harm(from the ship)."

"We have discussed everything with the Indian government and there is nothing to worry," he said.

When asked about nuclear warheads on board the Nimitz, he said it was a policy of the US government not to discuss the presence or absence of nuclear weapons on their any of their ships or aircraft.

source

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Lord Umbarger

    7

  • Aztec Warrior

    4

  • pimppapa1977

    4

  • Bella-Angelique

    3

Why would we nuke Pakistan? Pakistan is our supplyline for Afghanistan....what we need to do is grab India and Pakistan by the shirt collars, smack their heads together and tell them to stop their squabbling and play nice....

For that matter....why would we NUKE anyone? That's a last resort, suicide, weapon.

Edited by The Mule
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even without the Nimitz in the Indian Ocean region, the United States is at any given moment in position to nuke Pakistan. There is no place on Earth our ICBMs could not reach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as previously mentioned, there is always the ICBM stocks that could be retargeted at a moments notice. I belive that it would be safe to say that ALL the supercarriers carry aircraft delivered tactical nukes at least. I'm quite sure that many of our missile cruisers have a nuclear capability as well. Of course, we are leaving uot the most likely source of a nuclear strike, the subs. They present the best option for a short or no warning strike against any nation. They are forever on patrol and no one knows where they are, what they're packing or even how much of it.

Also, that same sub could then quietly disappear and the U.S. would have a high degree of "plausible Deniability". (It wasn't our nuke, nobody saw us launch it you can't prove it wasn't an Al Qaeda weapon that went off while they were trying to construct it). By the time the info leaked out, we could be several years or more down the road. A night time sub launch from a couple of hundred miles out to sea is, by far, the best option, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little of the latest from the Nimitz. It's listed as in the Gulf but, not necessarily in striking range of Pakistan. Of course, what is that? A days sail away?

Go to sea with the Nimitz here...

Edited by Lord Umbarger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a silly thread.

The 'headline' was " US in position to nuke Pakistan?, The Nimitz and India", whereas the story merely described the movements of an American aircraft carrier. (and associated escorts).

Can anyone spot the difference between the Headline and the Story ?

First off, the USA can nuke any country on the planet, without deploying aircraft carriers.

So there's no story there.

Secondly, the grammer of the headling implies that "the US is in a position to nuke India, Pakistan, and the Aircraft Carrier Nimitz".

Why would the US government nuke it's own aircraft carrier ?

If it WANTED to destroy its own Aircraft Carriers, it would simply allow the Democrats to get into power.

Meow Purr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's NO reason the USA would nuke Pakistan.. for goodness sake, Bush considers Pakistan a strong non-NATO alliance for the USA.

India and Pakistan signed an agreement to stop nuclear testing 3 years ago, and in-so-far that treaty has held fast. They still don't like each other, but in the last couple of years, the borders opened and Indians and Pakistani's have been crossing back and forth with caution.

The way I see it, the USA isn't going to nuke India, Pakistan, or anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bella, I am somewhat surprised with your post. What are you saying?

India is a traditional Soviet friend, while Pakistastan has been that of the US. The simple existance of an aircraft carrier in the region doesn't really mean much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bella, I am somewhat surprised with your post. What are you saying?

The terrorist summer surprise may be dirty nukes in India or the takeover of the Pakistani government and its nukes by the fundamentalists. These are possibilities that have been considered as well as small scale terrorism in other nations and are being watched for. A possible India/Pakistan nuclear exchange has been discussed among the permanent members of the UN security council for a long time now.

In the first situation the possibility exists because of India's stand on how they will respond to any form of attack involving radiation, that the only way to block a full nuclear exchange between the two nations would be for someone else to stand in for India and do a much smaller more strategical one or try to limit damage in another manner. In the second scenario the reason for a strike would be more obvious, to neutralize the nuclear missile area.

I have found that when you attempt to warn people that what is unbelievable to them is possible that they best way is often just to keep redirecting their eyes to what they do not want to see and let them wonder and gather the information themselves until they comprehend that the danger they are in is real.

The problem with fundamentalism is that as brilliant as many fundamentalists may be they still fall back on the belief that their will is God's will and their way is God's way and their success in any attack proves that. Failure most often suggests to them that they were heading in the wrong direction at the wrong time and turn to a different ongoing plan as the one that God wills for this time. That is a major difference between true fundamentalists and those with power ambitions who use religious belief as a mask and a tool, and true fundamentalists are also more likely to actually use nuclear devices with no thought to consequences as all consequences will be decided by God and if it is his will he will save those who truly believe and serve him.

Familiarity breeds contempt. When India and Pakistan first tested their nukes most were aware of the danger but they have since seemed to come to regard it as a Soviet/US type of detente, which it is not. Most attention is focused on the possibilities of nuclear threats rising in the Middle East with little real attention being paid to the clear, and present danger that exists in the situation between India and Pakistan.

There are very many good people in Pakistan and India who strongly value life and and are accepting of others and then there are also very many that are not. The same could be said about any nation at any point in time really, but then it is usually not the good people that ever start wars and it is almost always the power hungry and fanatics among them that do.

War was declared against India by both of these types from a large and powerful group in Pakistan who are chattering excitedly about a surprise coming. Because I do care about all good people I am wishful that if the worst does happen that they are somewhat alert and somewhat prepared for it.

Serbia did not deserve to be attacked by Austria, but it happened anyway. Multiple overlaid events have a way of sucking people into chaos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...the takeover of the Pakistani government and its nukes by the fundamentalists.
This has been a concern of mine every since I first read about Pakistan getting the bomb. The current government took power through a coup and the people feel that it is too pro western. It is a nice set up for a big problem to spill out over night.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been a concern of mine every since I first read about Pakistan getting the bomb. The current government took power through a coup and the people feel that it is too pro western. It is a nice set up for a big problem to spill out over night.

The only "fortunate" side of Pakistan falling into a fundamentalist regime (which is always a possibility; even if Musharif is pro-America, more than a few members of his government are sympathetic to radical Islamist groups, and have been so since the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan in 1979) is that most likely, the first target of Pakistani nukes would be India.

As for the "plausible deniability" you mentioned above, keep in mind that all the watchers after a nuclear attack would be examining every angle for where the nuke came from, including satellite images, and it would become clear quickly that the strike was from a nuclear submarine. Unfortunately, only a limited number of countries in the World (and a smaller number that those that possess ICBMs or the nearest equivalent) possess nuclear missile submarines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How exactly did we make the jump from an aircraft carrier moving to nuking Pakistan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bella knows a fiend in high places?

How does a nuclear weapon "neutralise" a nuclear weapons area? Neutralise is the wrong expression. 'Turn into a monstrous death zone' sounds closer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

first we lift nuclear sanctions on Pakistan and grant nukes to India. then sell more than 2 dozen F-16's to Pakistan in 2005.

again = no longterm thinking. Just like the war in Iraq. It's what happens when you have pudding for brains.

Bush Waives Nuclear-Related Sanctions on India, Pakistan

Alex Wagner

Exercising waiver authority granted by Congress in 1999, on September 22 President George W. Bush lifted sanctions imposed on India and Pakistan for their 1998 nuclear tests. The president also removed other sanctions related to Pakistan’s development of nuclear weapons.

The decision to lift sanctions on Pakistan came in large part due to the cooperation Washington received from Islamabad after the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. At a September 24 press briefing, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said, “We intend to support those who support us. We intend to work with those governments that work with us in this fight [against terrorism].”

Boucher also said that removing the sanctions is “an important step forward in being able to pursue our goals with Pakistan, to be able to support Pakistan, and to cooperate more easily with Pakistan in the fight against terrorism.” He added that this “allows us to do some things very quickly and very immediately to support Pakistan.”

The nuclear sanctions on Pakistan, some of which date back as far as 1979, were originally intended to prevent the further development and testing of nuclear weapons. After the 1998 nuclear tests, the Clinton administration tried to use those sanctions and the test-related sanctions to pressure India and Pakistan to restrain their nuclear weapons activities.

The nuclear sanctions barred all U.S. economic and military assistance to Pakistan, and their waiver would have allowed nearly all of this aid to proceed. However, other sanctions imposed after the October 1999 military takeover of Pakistan’s democratically elected government prohibit Washington from providing most of this assistance. In addition, other sanctions imposed for the receipt of Chinese missile components do not allow certain Pakistani entities to receive U.S. missile and space assistance.

However, the coup sanctions do not bar U.S. commercial military sales of spare parts or U.S. support of applications for loans from international financial institutions such as the World Bank. As a result, Washington can now resume these activities, both of which are important to Islamabad. According to a State Department official, the ban on spare-parts sales has had “a strong impact” on Pakistan’s military capabilities.

Removing the coup sanctions would require a presidential certification that democracy has been restored, something Bush cannot provide at this time, or the passage of congressional legislation authorizing a waiver of the sanctions. According to a House aide, there would be little resistance in Congress to passing such legislation. The aide noted that, since the terrorist attacks, Congress’s attitude has been “to give the administration what it asks for.”

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0330-27.htm

reminds me of the excuse Bush gave for not going into Pakistan after bin laden -- that he couldn't because Pakistan was a sovergn nation.

??????????????????????? can't because it''s a sovergn nation ? well so was Iraq. what a turd.

Edited by Lt_Ripley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The terrorist summer surprise may be dirty nukes in India or the takeover of the Pakistani government and its nukes by the fundamentalists.

I'm more inclined to think the summer surprise will be an attemted overthow of the Pakistani government. Looks as though it's already begun.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - More than 700 followers of a radical mosque surrendered Wednesday as government troops with armored personnel carriers tightened their stranglehold on the complex a day after clashes killed at least 16 people, officials said.

The events came after a day of bloody clashes in Islamabad at the mosque between security forces and militants living inside the sprawling mosque, which has been at loggerheads with the government. The violence was sparked when male and female student followers of the mosque -- some of them armed -- rushed toward a police checkpoint.

The bloodshed added to a sense of crisis in Pakistan, where President Gen. Pervez Musharraf already faces emboldened militants near the Afghan border and a pro-democracy movement triggered by his botched attempt to fire the country's chief justice.

The mosque siege sparked street protests Tuesday in the cities of Lahore and Quetta organized by radical religious parties.

Now that's an ugly thought.... a nuclear armed Taliban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a silly thread.

The 'headline' was " US in position to nuke Pakistan?, The Nimitz and India", whereas the story merely described the movements of an American aircraft carrier. (and associated escorts).

Can anyone spot the difference between the Headline and the Story ?

First off, the USA can nuke any country on the planet, without deploying aircraft carriers.

So there's no story there.

Secondly, the grammer of the headling implies that "the US is in a position to nuke India, Pakistan, and the Aircraft Carrier Nimitz".

Why would the US government nuke it's own aircraft carrier ?

If it WANTED to destroy its own Aircraft Carriers, it would simply allow the Democrats to get into power.

Meow Purr.

Good point! We have always made Indian Ocean runs in the Navy. We have a nice little Island we stop at called Diego Garcia. If anyone is going to wake up to a Ten thousand degree sunrise, I think it would be Iran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another aside: If the U.S. was planning to nuke somebody, why not just fly a B-2 Spirit in there and drop it. It would be virtually invisable and by the time people were able to figure out that it was a nuke, the plane would be long gone.

As far as satillite imaging, I don't know. The sat would have to be in the right place at the right time and the only nations that have that kind of numbers would be the U.S., may the Russians.

I'm not saying that no other nation could but, I would say that we could determine when and where their sats were and plan the attack at a time they are not "looking". Besides, although many nations have sats up there, nobody has the constellation that we do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another aside: If the U.S. was planning to nuke somebody, why not just fly a B-2 Spirit in there and drop it. It would be virtually invisable and by the time people were able to figure out that it was a nuke, the plane would be long gone.

As far as satillite imaging, I don't know. The sat would have to be in the right place at the right time and the only nations that have that kind of numbers would be the U.S., may the Russians.

I'm not saying that no other nation could but, I would say that we could determine when and where their sats were and plan the attack at a time they are not "looking". Besides, although many nations have sats up there, nobody has the constellation that we do.

True! The Russkies already have to replace a swarth of Sats. They are selling some of their Alpha class subs to China to afford it. What a Country!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another aside: If the U.S. was planning to nuke somebody, why not just fly a B-2 Spirit in there and drop it. It would be virtually invisable and by the time people were able to figure out that it was a nuke, the plane would be long gone.

As far as satillite imaging, I don't know. The sat would have to be in the right place at the right time and the only nations that have that kind of numbers would be the U.S., may the Russians.

I'm not saying that no other nation could but, I would say that we could determine when and where their sats were and plan the attack at a time they are not "looking". Besides, although many nations have sats up there, nobody has the constellation that we do.

I doubt that it would take very long to work out that a nuclear bomb had detonated! And if the plane was long gone/jammed to local radar, maybe Pakistan's first thought would be to fire one at New Delhi, thinking that's where it must have originated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt that it would take very long to work out that a nuclear bomb had detonated!
With the EMP shutting down electronic communication, it might actually take a few hours to figure out why they've not heard from the province. Maybe less. Those who were within a certain radius but, at a far enough distance might well be able to discribe it. In Afganistan, the U.S. set off some rather big stuff and the Northern Allience was convinced that it was nuclear. They were afraid to go into some of the dropzones until the U.S. ground forces assured them it was safe. What I'm getting at is that no one has seen a nuke used in anger in 62 years. In a lot of the world, that is longer than life expectancy. From time to time, people have mistaken any mushroom cloud for a nuke.

maybe Pakistan's first thought would be to fire one at New Delhi, thinking that's where it must have originated.

That would be highly likely. Those two have been at each others throats for decades now. It would be perfectly reasonable for Pakistan to assume it came from India.

Edited by Lord Umbarger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we should really think of what if scenario of Mushareff being gone, and taliban style goverment taking over, with nuclear weapons now that is scarry thought its not Iran but Pakistan we have to worry. We must do all we can to keep Musharaff in power, and if all else fails bombs away until they have a chance to nuke NYC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mushariff being assasinated is the worst of all possible outcomes for the U.S. regarding Pakistan. There is no one there that is as friendly towards the U.S. as he is that is in line for power. Some half radical may well bow to the will of his people and let the Terrorists have the bomb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If US can nuke Paquistão why Syria can't nuke Israel or even England?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If US can nuke Paquistão...
I don't recall the U.S. ever having nuked anyone other than the Japanese.

why Syria can't nuke Israel or even England?
That you would even ask that indicates that you are probably unable to understand why. A more appropriate question would be "Why should the civilized world allow Syria to kill our citizens?".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.