If we were told the reason the USA needs military bases in Afghanistan

[Winterblues]

was so we could be immediately on site if for some reason Pakistan's Nuclear arsenal were to become threatened. If their government were in extreme danger of collapse and an extreme radical group was ready to take control. Would it be in our national interest for us to immediately go into Pakistan and secure those weapons so they could not fall into the wrong hands. If this were a/the reason given for our forces to be in Afghanistan would you accept it?

[closeupready]

1. There 200 million people in Pakistan. It's roughly the size of Texas.

Complicating that domination fantasy is the fact that it is an ally of ours.

So no I would not accept it. India would have to give up its arsenal first. And Israel would have to at the same time. Further, the US is the only nation to have ever used nukes in fact. And not just once, but twice.

[ret5hd]

4. Are governments or countries our allies?

[closeupready]

8. Parse it all you want.

Pakistan is an ally.

[ret5hd]

9. The govt of Pakistan is the ally of our govt.

The govt of Iran was once the ally of our govt. The current govt is not.

[closeupready]

10. Correct. We don't disagree, do we?

:hi: If I'm a little touchy, it's only because I get weary of the constant mindless, indiscriminate Pakistan-bashing that goes on here.

[ret5hd]

11. My point is that with NO change in the attitude of the Pakistani population...

tomorrow, next week or next year the govt of Pakistan (or any other country whose current govt our current govt is currently allies with) could instantly become our current govt's enemy.

The reverse is also true.

Our govt has repeatedly allied itself with govt's that crush its own people, and used that same reason to demonize a whole people. The current state of a govt's "alliedness" with our govt is not a reliable indicator of anything other than what direction the propaganda in this country will lean.

[closeupready]

12. Serious question: do you personally know any Pakistanis?

If not, I don't know where you get this implied notion that Pakistanis hate the US. If you get such information solely from the mainstream media (MSM), please be aware that the MSM has a conservative, pro-war bias. Nobody is claiming, as far as I know, that Pakistanis are crushed by Zadari, that they were crushed by Musharraf or Sharif or Bhutto. With the exception of Musharraf, these were popularly elected presidents. When public opinion turned against Musharraf, guess what, he resigned, which is what happens in democracies.

[ret5hd]

14. I have NO feelings that the avg Pakistani hates the US. Quite the opposite.

My point is that with no change in the avg pakistanis feelings toward the U.S., that the condition of their govt being an ally of our govt can change overnight.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Nope.

[Arctic Dave]

3. Even if Jack Bauer could pull it off, why couldn't it be done from a sea based platform.

Send this scenario to fox, they'll love it.

[Greyhound]

5. No, inventing pretend reasons in preparation for impossible missions is not

any better justification than the current group of lies to justify the ongoing mass-murder.

[Chulanowa]

6. Honestly? No

The real world isn't a Schwarzenegger movie. Nuclear weapons are very secure. You can't just press a button and blow them up. The "scare" ideas of some terrorist using a nuke against a city is just that - something to make you jump and panic.

First off, if Pakistan is ever on the verge of collapse, I imagine that those nukes are getting shipped out to someone else for safekeeping. Possibly the US or Russia, more likely Iran or Saudi Arabia, and as a long shot, India. The launch codes, keys, and all that will not be part of the shipment. If they do in fact "fall into the wrong hands" then the worst that would happen is that they would be sold to interested states - Very likely one of the five I already mentioned. Only a state has the wealth and aparattus needed to do anything with a nuke, even if it's just to deconstruct it for reverse engineering.

We probably have more to worry about from a nuclear Musharrif than any of the other possibilities.

[Renew Deal]

7. It's a worthwhile question

I have to wonder why it's not Russia, China's, and India's responsibility to deal with it. They should be more than capable.

[Echo In Light]

13. No. Glenn Greenwald on the new 'justification;'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7223401

[iamtechus]

15. It would not be necessary to risk American lives in such a scenario

Reason #1: Pakistan doesn't have a delivery system that would put the US in danger.

Reasons #2,3,4,5, etc:

"Fleet ballistic missile submarines (designated as "SSBNs") carry long-range nuclear warhead missiles. They roam the ocean avoiding contact with other submarines and surface ships. The ability of the fleet ballistic missile submarine to survive a nuclear attack against the United States made them the most credible nuclear deterrent during the Cold War.

Fortunately, the threat of nuclear retaliation that U.S. missile submarines have represented continues to be an effective deterrent in preventing nuclear missile attacks on the U.S. 4. How many missiles and warheads are on a fleet ballistic missile submarine? A U.S. Navy fleet ballistic missile submarine carries 24 Trident ballistic missiles. Each missile carries several nuclear Multiple Independently-targetable Re-entry Vehicles (MIRVs)."

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/faq.html

[kenny blankenship]

16. Don't be ridiculous. Pakistan's military will USE those weapons on US

if we attempt to snatch them. US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq aren't so much guardians in this (unlikely) scenario as they are HOSTAGES.

[FarCenter]

17. Bases in Afghanistan are not viable without logistics through Pakistan

Otherwise they have to be supplied by air or very slow surface transport through Russia and Central Asian Republics.