Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Britons training in Pakistan for UK terror attacks

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by hammer View Post
    Actually the "dirty bomb" is a possibility. But nukes are a whole different ball game. The Col. is saying that the once the origins of the nuke is found, the country that held the material would be a nuclear waste land. Also I understand that a "dirty bomb" does not warrant a nuclear retaliation. Col, pls correct me If I am wrong.
    A dirty bomb is a chemical attack and thus is a violation of the CWC. Such an attack was warranted a nuclear response since a chem is considered a WMD. However, since Obama's NPR, if you're a non-nuclear weapons state signatory to the NPT, a nuclear response has been taken off the table.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Pakmiran View Post
      It would be nice to think so, eh?
      I know so.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
        A dirty bomb is a chemical attack and thus is a violation of the CWC. Such an attack was warranted a nuclear response since a chem is considered a WMD. However, since Obama's NPR, if you're a non-nuclear weapons state signatory to the NPT, a nuclear response has been taken off the table.
        Sir I need an education. Again. :)

        As in the movie (and a similar novel on which I think the movie was based), does the dirty bomb not have a radiation/sub-nuclear detonation component to it? Made with the stuff used in watches etc.? The helicopter sequence shows that there is also an EMP component involved. I think we are talking about different things then.

        I am talking about the Harrison Ford / Morgan Freeman movie. Not the George Clooney one where its a proper smuggled ex-Soviet nuke.

        Cheers, Doc
        Last edited by vsdoc; 07 Oct 10,, 14:17.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by vsdoc View Post
          As in the movie (and a similar novel on which I think the movie was based), does the dirty bomb not have a radiation/sub-nuclear detonation component to it?
          That's a nuke. A dirty inefficent nuke but still a nuke. The fissible material were blown apart faster than they can achieve initiation but it is a nuke and thus subject to full nuclear retalliation. And no, you cannot build such a bomb from watches. In theory you can but you need 64 kgs and a purity that frankly is not there.

          A dirty bomb is just to spread radioactive materials.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
            That's a nuke. A dirty inefficent nuke but still a nuke. The fissible material were blown apart faster than they can achieve initiation but it is a nuke and thus subject to full nuclear retalliation. And no, you cannot build such a bomb from watches. In theory you can but you need 64 kgs and a purity that frankly is not there.

            A dirty bomb is just to spread radioactive materials.
            Thanks sir. I will get off this topic now or I will have visa issues for my next US visit. ;)

            Cheers, Doc

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Pakmiran View Post
              Always remember that Pakistan has its own interests. What's Pakistan trying to achieve by supporting terror ops? I suspect this blockade of the supply line was a method to aid in the success of these European gunmen by discouraging overt or covert American actions in Pakistani territory. What's the agenda?
              To push NATO and USA towards recognising Pakistan as the only force allowed to operate inside Pakistan, back when the drone wars started Pakistan wanted US to transfer the drones to them so that the operation could go on without much trouble at home, its a major issue (looking strong).

              I ts surprising to see that suddenly the terrorists have had a nice run at blasting supplies into Afghanistan since one route was closed.

              As for terror in general, that depends on which terror ops you are talking about.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by S-2 View Post
                I've a Pakistani friend here, IHM, who's working hard with his friends to shift the paradigm of political thought inside his country. In my view he is very, very brave.
                I never did get a chance to thank you for that and also for bringing to our notice the articles by Farhat Taj. Very welcome and eye-opening. A new movement in its early stages. There is one thing for sure here and that is they will get a very open ear outside their country.

                Originally posted by S-2 View Post
                Worse, the Pakistanis appear to have little appreciation for the blowback awaiting them should the afghan taliban be fully unleashed, as is their current bent. What they're now experiencing is but a small harbinger concerning the shape of things to come. In turn, such a reversal of fortune in Pakistan will likely provide America with the rationale for a more overt and onerous intervention.
                They will certainly try to influence events in their favour. It's an imperative for them but the way virtually everyone seems against it will limit how much damage happens in Afghanistan. So long as supplies can get to Afghanistan without having to be too reliant on Pakistan all is not lost and this applies more so when you decide to leave than right now so that the ANA can continue the good fight.

                Originally posted by vsdoc View Post
                I am referring to the very real possibility of a future Shahzad with a dirty bomb that has either been smuggled in from the sea or else built/assembled partially or wholly on mainland US, for detonation on mainland US. That's what I meant when I said that the US dodged a bullet this time around.
                Already been tried, they picked up some dude with a trunk full of smoke detectors with just this in mind. The posibility is there but its not going to be supported by Pakistan even covertly because it would be suicidal. That is why we see these amateurish efforts to date.

                No likely repeats of 26/11 either, certainly not to the level we experienced. Who's going to do all the hand holding when the op is in progress ? Copy cat attempts, sure, but thats not going to have the same impact by a long shot.

                Originally posted by vsdoc View Post
                I don't think they can. They could not in this case. And historically the US has not had a very good track record of detecting and dealing with lone wolves on time. Afterwards really is too little too late. The damage is done. One man versus the lives of hundreds, maybe thousands, maybe more, is never going to be good barter.
                Pakistan won't do it.

                Originally posted by vsdoc View Post
                I do not agree. Neither I suspect does the US state and those that are calling the shots on homeland security. I suppose on this time will tell which one of us was right.
                Of course they won't because admitting would make them redudant. They cannot let their guard down at all. But its never going to be at the attrocity level you're talking about. Just amateur efforts.


                Originally posted by vsdoc View Post
                The Pakistani state did not know about or control Shahzad.
                Because what Shahzad had in mind would not change anything between the two countries even if it had succeeded.

                Originally posted by vsdoc View Post
                Neither have they controlled terror acts that have a sickening habit of now leading back to pakistan through not very forked linkages.
                Number of successful terrorst acts since 9/11 in the US = ZERO ! and by that i mean of the coordinated simultaneous kind not the one off lone wolf. Why ? Because securing their borders and profiling likely suspects is an order of magnitude easier to pull off than it is for us.

                Originally posted by vsdoc View Post
                I fail to see how the weight of this evidence in the collective perception and stance of the western powers towards pakistan can be helping Pakistan.
                They handled the Soviets, they are handling the Chinese, Saudi's & the US. They sure as hell done a fine job with us. Gen Zia said the water must be maintained at the 'right' temperature and they've been successful vis-avis us in this regard.

                How is it helping them ? Because they have managed to wring out as much as they can out of these interactions without any negative effects. The regime is still in place and secure.

                A few headlines asserting alarmist scenarios is nothing for them. Its rather cliched by now


                Originally posted by vsdoc View Post
                The tide is shifting and pakistan will increasingly be isolated and called to book. No longer do they have a blank cheque to encash, often to the detriment of India.
                I hope so but they've not made any wrong moves so far.


                Originally posted by vsdoc View Post
                All that stops the minute the US feels directly threatened.
                And i maintained all along that this line will not be crossed if ever.

                Originally posted by vsdoc View Post
                Its not possible for a superpower to continue labouring under the delusion that the entity creating the mess is the one that will magically finally hold the key to the broom closet that will help clean it up.
                No, but at the same time they do just enough not to provoke. This is what i meant by hearing more about what they do not do as opposed to what they do.

                Originally posted by vsdoc View Post
                Please see above.
                Thx, i rest my case then. There are no actions that have slipped through that could affect Pakistan adversely. They are therefore very much in control.


                Originally posted by vsdoc View Post
                I feel they have exhausted all possible goodwill and have tried the patience of one and all to the breaking point. Retribution is not far away, and I can only pray that we get a crack at them while there still some life left in thm as a nation state capable of hitting back.
                Wishful thinking and is exactly what i want to see less of. We should think of Pakistan as not going to lose its curent regime and be around for a long time. Now, what do we do about this. Rather than hope for things to collapse.


                Originally posted by vsdoc View Post
                We are not talking about a negotiated permission here. But S-2 has already answered this.
                He said let them rot, that the US withold all sorts of support, financial & military. I would be in favour of this. It stands a good chance of change in behaviour. But they are not wholly reliant on the US, there is China & the Saudi's. If all three do the same then chances increase.

                Now as to why the US will actually intiate this needs further discussion.


                Originally posted by vsdoc View Post
                A lot of US blood and dollars have flowed under the bridge since then, with the very real threat of the madness now crossing the seven seas and hitting home. The US will act. Of that I have no doubt.
                Precisely and is why they will not provoke the US. I've been trying to hammer this point now for some time but unsuccessfully
                Last edited by Double Edge; 07 Oct 10,, 16:46.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Pakistan has strengthened its air defense with a view to preventing NATO forces from intruding into its territory from Afghanistan.
                  The strong US ally has installed anti-aircraft missiles in its tribal regions bordering Afghanistan, well-placed sources told Arab News here on Monday.
                  “Now no helicopter will be able to escape after entering into Pakistani territory,” the official sources said.
                  Pakistan deploys air defense missiles in Afghan border? - Threat Matrix

                  They will fire on US and NATO? To save a bunch of people who deserve to die.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Double Edge Reply

                    "He said let them rot, that the US withold all sorts of support, financial & military. I would be in favour of this. It stands a good chance of change in behaviour."

                    Possibly. Meanwhile doing the same likely means losing Afghanistan to the taliban. I'm simply recommending recognition of this probability regardless of our aid thus cutting losses.

                    "But they are not wholly reliant on the US, there is China & the Saudi's. If all three do the same then chances increase."

                    How the PRC and S.A. react to an American/NATO withdrawal from both Pakistan and Afghanistan will be interesting. It's enough to know that Pakistan largely managed to survive between 1989 and 2001 without our assistance. Whether that would repeat itself isn't necessarily fore-ordained.

                    "Now as to why the US will actually intiate this needs further discussion..."

                    My position constitutes a radical departure from prevailing views now possessed by American policy-makers. The huge, though failed, effort to construct an aid program in Pakistan is, alone, a major impediment to any ground-shift in our policy views. There are significantly entrenched forces within Congress, DoD and State that are invested in Pakistan's development. Kerry-Lugar remains a tangible manifestation of our commitment and wholly counter to my decidedly minority perspective.

                    I won't hold my breath. I believe my views are largely vindicated in the behind-the-scenes chatter now about sanctuary but getting there from here is a long, long way from happening.
                    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by S-2 View Post
                      How the PRC and S.A. react to an American/NATO withdrawal from both Pakistan and Afghanistan will be interesting. It's enough to know that Pakistan largely managed to survive between 1989 and 2001 without our assistance. Whether that would repeat itself isn't necessarily fore-ordained.
                      OOE thinks China is not going to support the Taliban. It would be difficult for the Saudi's to do so when everyone is against it.

                      The nineties had increased militancy in Kashmir despite a lack of US support. So witholding military support did not have any positive effect wrt to India. I don't know if that will be the same elsewhere tho.

                      Originally posted by S-2 View Post
                      I won't hold my breath. I believe my views are largely vindicated in the behind-the-scenes chatter now about sanctuary but getting there from here is a long, long way from happening.
                      Right, and considering India will be modernising its armed forces for the next decade its hard to see Pakistan not suceeding in making the case that it has to keep up.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Double Edge Reply

                        "OOE thinks China is not going to support the Taliban."

                        He's very likely correct. China faces it's own uighar issues in their west. How uighar ambitions intersect with the taliban I'm still uncertain. The afghan taliban haven't actively promoted a trans-national islamic agenda. OTOH, they passively acceded to the use of their lands by Al Qaeda. Further, Pakistani taliban and/or Al Qaeda elements there have provided rest and respite to uighar elements.

                        China, however, to date has not been a strong and consistent supporter of the present Afghan government nor an active enemy of the taliban. Instead, they've held their cards close while pursuing very narrow self-interests. How that might change should N.A.T.O. and America depart I would find interesting.

                        "It would be difficult for the Saudi's to do so when everyone is against it."

                        Maybe. Maybe not. Saudi Arabia and the taliban find common ground amidst their religion. When the rest of the world found it impossible to treat with the previous afghan taliban government, KSA, the UAE and Pakistan did not. Their shared enmity towards shias creates natural bedfellows. So too the fertile ground in the Afghan pashtun south which Saudi theologians have found for exporting their wahabbist/salafi brand of islam.

                        Relationships will likely re-order themselves in the absence of NATO/America. How so and to what extent is the lingering question.
                        "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                        "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by S-2 View Post
                          Further, Pakistani taliban and/or Al Qaeda elements there have provided rest and respite to uighar elements.
                          Originally posted by S-2 View Post
                          Relationships will likely re-order themselves in the absence of NATO/America. How so and to what extent is the lingering question.
                          So it's back to the 90's again ?

                          With hindsight and time that's passed there should be strong support for the Afghan's by all except Pakistan in the area. I'm sure you'll not leave until that is in place. That should be enough, hopefully, along with the aid that will be flowing through to keep things stable or as close as can relatively be expected for the region. That is the positive scenario, the negative one is it reverts back to what it was pre-2001 but that seems less likely.

                          Those are the only two scenarios possible here or are there any more ?

                          I've read your earlier posts where you think the job is not finished and expect to be back, to complete it, kinda like with Saddam in 2004. But the very purpose of that action will not be lost on Pakistan. So i do not think you will be back.
                          Last edited by Double Edge; 08 Oct 10,, 20:57.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I don't think their wasting their time with ballistics or cruise missiles. Are those the only "delivery" options? I also doubt if it would be a dirty nuke. Besides non-state actors and guidance, i doubt if my neighbour would play a greater role than that. And what happens when you trace it back to 4-5 states and it's all a case of non-state actors? Most pre-determined targets scramble to safety within 45min from the incident. Carpet bomb what mega cities? It appears that the enemy calls you out and makes you fight on a ground of their choosing. Now isn't that what happened in afg? The enemy brought you to the battlefield and ware you out?

                            So i ask... what is the next bait that america is certain to take? And there lies your answer of whether it is a possibility.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Well said, mate. America's approach to dealing with non-state actors and even certain state actors remains realist in a pluralist world.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X