The Talibans Atomic Threat

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Skynet, May 2, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The Taliban's Atomic Threat
    The extremists who harbored al Qaeda could get control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.


    At his press conference Wednesday evening, President Barack Obama endorsed Pakistan's official position that it has secure control over its nuclear-weapons arsenal. Mr. Obama said he was "gravely concerned" about the situation there, but "confident that the nuclear arsenal will remain out of militant hands."

    His words are not reassuring in light of the Taliban's military and political gains throughout Pakistan. Our security, and that of friends and allies world-wide, depends critically on preventing more adversaries, especially ones with otherworldly ideologies, from acquiring nuclear weapons. Unless there is swift, decisive action against the Islamic radicals there, Pakistan faces two very worrisome scenarios.

    One scenario is that instability continues to grow, and that the radicals disrupt both Pakistan's weak democratic institutions and the military.

    Often known as Pakistan's "steel skeleton" for holding the country together after successive corrupt or incompetent civilian governments, the military itself is now gravely threatened from within by rising pro-Taliban sentiment. In these circumstances -- especially if, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified recently, the nuclear arsenal has been dispersed around the country -- there is a tangible risk that several weapons could slip out of military control. Such weapons could then find their way to al Qaeda or other terrorists, with obvious global implications.
    More on the link's_Most_Popular
  2. The construction of a thermo nuclear device in India or Pakistan by irregular forces is limited to using conventional explosives to detonate Uranium material and create a Dirty Bomb as opposed to a nuclear one.
    It is unfeasible that, in the event of a change of leadership within the Pakistan army, the Engineers employed on the current nuclear programme would be allowed to continue there work uninterrupted.
    The threat here is insignificant.
  3. Old Walrus Moustache still peddling his sh*t then?

    Thanks to him and others like him, we arrive where we are now.
  4. I stopped reading after this bit: By JOHN R. BOLTON

    Blah blah blah blah etc.
  5. Are you saying that there is absolutely no capability in the PA to make a TND? If rogue elements take power, would they not seek to use this capability - forcing engineers down that route if necessary? Is there any real difference in outcome between being under a dirty bomb or a TND? You say It is unfeasible (sic) that, in the event of a change of leadership within the Pakistan army, the Engineers employed on the current nuclear programme would be allowed to continue there (sic) work uninterrupted.
    The threat here is insignificant
    What way do you see the change in their work being interrupted?
  6. Sorry am I missing something? Where does the article mention thermo-nuclear devices or are you assuming that when he talked about "further development" this is what he meant?

    Unlike the general consensus so far I think there is a danger of the current breed of Pakistani nuclear weapons falling under Taliban control.
  7. Thank you oldredcap for exposing the errors in my syntax but English is not my first language and I trust it did not detract from your understanding of my proposition,
    Pakistan and India have had a nuclear capability for over 30 years, the difference with Pakistan is that they developed there weapons with very little outside help. It is believed that Pakistan has at least 250 Nuclear weapons spread around 15 plus sites, with a mixture of delivery systems.
    It is quite probable that each site has been given the ability to destroy the weapons each has, to prevent there use by an advancing enemy. This ability could be/ is available to the USA should it be required, for many complex reasons, including the survival of the engineers and scientists employed there. This would prevent the weapons from being deployed by any religious extremists.
    It has been pointed out that there is a significant flaw in this reasoning and that is should any change in control of the army, not the government, reveal a majority of the officers having extreme religious views, until now kept to themselves, there may be an upsurge of Islamic violence orchestrated by the army themselves. In which case the American saying “all bets are off” will stand.
  8. Destroy them all. We used to own that part of the world and look at the disaastrous way how they have tried to build it. \destroy them all, they contribute zilch to the world other than terrorism and we can all get on woth our lives . paki shop owners excluded
  9. (All my bold)
    (And that is when sand would become glass in some or other area of the world)
  10. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    I've always thought that only the terminally stupid would actually use a nuke and even the Taliban aren't that dumb. There’s only one possible response to firing off a nuclear weapon, complete annihilation, what benefits would that bring to any cause?
  11. The Taliban become Shaheed and take the Magic Carpet Ride to Paradise and the 72 Virgins/Raisins. :roll:

    Never, EVER dismiss any possibility on the grounds that nobody is stupid enough to do it! 8O
  12. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    You're probably right, there is always one as the saying goes ;)

    Although I don't feel less safe today than I did when Ivan and Seamus were the bogey men, despite this governments best efforts to scare us all to death. :D
  13. Fair one. I grew up at the height of the Cold War, when Ronnie Ray-gun was President and the threat of MAD was very real. 8O

    Ah, the Good Old Days! :D
  14. Insane actions are the hallmark of a terrorist - their aim is to create terror as a precursor to change of government. I agree there might not be a monster bang as Hiroshima but a limited yield dirty bomb - say 5 mile radius - would make their point. Total kill - maybe double 9/11 so not too scary in their view. I see he biggest risk arising from reaction post terrorist bomb. If it went off in Israel we would all be meeting at the river pretty quick. If a Yank thing, they would retaliate in the wrong place. Interesting would be if they set it off in India.
  15. If the Taliban look to be close to gaining control over Pakistan's nukes, I'd expect India to get it's retaliation in first! 8O

    If that does'nt happen, and we assume a worst case scenario where the Taliban have total control of the Paki's nukes(unlikely but not impossible)what kind of range are we talking about here? Could they hit the USA or Isreal? Could they hit us?