• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Al Qaeda says would use Pakistani nuclear weapons

Laila said:
I doubt it, UK has pledged millions to them already

But in Swat valley where alot of the fighting occured, those fleeing now seem to be suffering from shortages of basics like water and food.
Click to expand...
Then why do we need to send any?
 
President Bush was never worried about the safety of the Pakistan nukes and neither was Pakistan. I assume we have some kind of round the clock closed circuit surveillance on them and a few non-nuclear ballistic missiles targeted on them.
 
angrycarpenter said:
President Bush was never worried about the safety of the Pakistan nukes and neither was Pakistan. I assume we have some kind of round the clock closed circuit surveillance on them and a few non-nuclear ballistic missiles targeted on them.
Click to expand...

Things must have changed alot from 01. They moved their Nukes in secret 8 years ago, what changed so that we know their locations?
 
American said:
I thought you said send them medicine.
Click to expand...

Yes, by sending medicine and water/food will mean that those displaced from the fighting will be less inclined to rebel against the Pakistan Authority and will sweeten them up so that it gives Pakistan a stronger hand to go after the Taliban.

It was unwilling a few years ago to go after Taliban because the public was so against it, if giving millions means that Pakistani civilians are in a better condition and less likely to complain .... then it is in our interest.
 
If it were in a position to do so, Al Qaeda would use Pakistan's nuclear weapons in its fight against the United States, a top leader of the group said in remarks aired on Sunday.
Click to expand...

This is news how exactly? Did we not know this already? Was it just me?
 
Al Qaeda won't use Nukes.

They are not that retarded. They know it'll result in mutual destruction ...
And besides, i doubt Pakistan's nukes are powerful enough to take out all of US ... Maybe just half
 
Laila said:
Al Qaeda won't use Nukes.

They are not that retarded. They know it'll result in mutual destruction ...
And besides, i doubt Pakistan's nukes are powerful enough to take out all of US ... Maybe just half
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't they use Pakistan's nuclear weapons? Pakistan's arsenal is probably perfectly sized for Al Qaeda's purposes. A few nuke warheads, placed on ships (or yachts even), or in small easily obtained aircraft, and sailed/flown into major cities in the US and Europe is something well within their ambit.

As for mutual destruction....where would the US retaliate?
 
celticlord said:
Why wouldn't they use Pakistan's nuclear weapons? Pakistan's arsenal is probably perfectly sized for Al Qaeda's purposes. A few nuke warheads, placed on ships (or yachts even), or in small easily obtained aircraft, and sailed/flown into major cities in the US and Europe is something well within their ambit.
Click to expand...

A aircraft going near US without permission after 9/11? It'll be shot down before it gets anywhere near a state.
And for sea, they need permission to enter any countries waters and there are patrols and navies to deal with such things.

As for mutual destruction....where would the US retaliate?
Click to expand...

Well .... call me crazy but i would aim for where it came from.
 
Laila said:
A aircraft going near US without permission after 9/11? It'll be shot down before it gets anywhere near a state.
And for sea, they need permission to enter any countries waters and there are patrols and navies to deal with such things.
Click to expand...
All it would take is a flight plan. Hopscotch through a couple different airports around the world and you wouldn't even know where the nuke was loaded. As for shipping....same thing. A registered vessel, perhaps hijacked and still flying its usual colors, could likely sail right into a harbor.

Laila said:
Well .... call me crazy but i would aim for where it came from.
Click to expand...

And how would we know that? Seriously....how would you know where the nuke came from?
 
celticlord said:
All it would take is a flight plan. Hopscotch through a couple different airports around the world and you wouldn't even know where the nuke was loaded. As for shipping....same thing. A registered vessel, perhaps hijacked and still flying its usual colors, could likely sail right into a harbor.
Click to expand...

True ...
Erm, call me ignorant but isn't Nukes slightly .... big? Don't they need special equipment to transport it?

And how would we know that? Seriously....how would you know where the nuke came from?
Click to expand...

I may be watching too many sci fi movies which depict Armies as some form of invincible beings but is there not systems and inventions which can trace missiles? If a missile or bomb is coming towards US, are you telling me using satellite and other modern technology we cannot pin point the location of where it came from? o_O
 
Laila said:
True ...
Erm, call me ignorant but isn't Nukes slightly .... big? Don't they need special equipment to transport it?
Click to expand...

Damages Caused by Atomic Bombs
The Hiroshima Bomb
Size: length - 3 meters, diameter - 0.7 meters. Weight: 4 tons. Nuclear material: Uranium 235. Energy released: equivalent to 12.5 kilotons of TNT.
Click to expand...

The only real concern during shipment would be radiation leakage. If you have a squad of suicide attackers, even that's not all that much of a concern.

Laila said:
I may be watching too many sci fi movies which depict Armies as some form of invincible beings but is there not systems and inventions which can trace missiles? If a missile or bomb is coming towards US, are you telling me using satellite and other modern technology we cannot pin point the location of where it came from? o_O
Click to expand...
If we were talking a ballistic missile launch, you would be right. But a ballistic missile is not required to deliver a nuclear device. There are plenty of civilian aircraft and cargo vessels capable of carrying a 4-ton payload.

One civilian craft, presenting itself as normal civilian traffic, carrying one nuclear device, is all that would be needed to wipe out London, or Paris, or New York, or Houston, or Los Angeles, or Mumbai, or Moscow.
 
celticlord said:
If we were talking a ballistic missile launch, you would be right. But a ballistic missile is not required to deliver a nuclear device. There are plenty of civilian aircraft and cargo vessels capable of carrying a 4-ton payload.
Click to expand...

Well ... we are screwed aren't we?

Trust us humans to mess things, create weapons that can destroy the world but not the technology that tracks it :doh
 
Last edited:
Laila said:
Well ... we are screwed aren't we?

Trust us humans to mess things, create weapons that can destroy the world but not the technology that tracks it :doh
Click to expand...
What do you expect from a government project? Efficiency?:mrgreen:
 
Laila said:
Helping another country with Aid is something we can do.

I said aid, not soldiers. We should stay out of sending our troops there but helping Pakistan with the civilians who have been displaced in the fighting between Taliban and Pakistan is something we can do as countries who help with humanitarian causes around the world.
Click to expand...

Yep, that sure worked in Somalia and Darfur. That aid always gets to those that need it, eh?

Might as well sing kumbaya.
 
celticlord said:
What do you expect from a government project? Efficiency?:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Even on the question of ballistic missiles, we have spent millions on the ballistic missile shield system, though from what I read it misses most targets.:shock:
 
tlmorg02 said:
Even on the question of ballistic missiles, we have spent millions on the ballistic missile shield system, though from what I read it misses most targets.:shock:
Click to expand...
You've read something wrong then.
 
Erod said:
Yep, that sure worked in Somalia and Darfur. That aid always gets to those that need it, eh?

Might as well sing kumbaya.
Click to expand...

Somalia is very different.
Tribal and clan loyalties are viewed as more important than National loyalties. That is not the case for Pakistan.
The circumstances are very different, Pakistan is being targeted by an outside force. Somalis have been trying to wipe each other out for decades.

Oh and the aid being given to Somalia is being taken by the warlords and sold to Somalis for inflated prices
 
Last edited:
celticlord said:
What do you expect from a government project? Efficiency?:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

:rofl

I guess that is too much to ask for. Slightly scary that these people can authorise Nukes being used.

Btw, does anyone know how it works?
I mean how a country goes about getting it targeted and fired? Does it need the head of Army/general and Leader of country to agree on its release?
 
tlmorg02 said:
Care to go further with that line of thought?
Click to expand...
You are welcomed to give your source for that statement.
I don't know much about American ABM and TMD systems, but I do know that the Israeli Arrow system has had only successful missile interceptions so far.
 
Apocalypse said:
You are welcomed to give your source for that statement.
I don't know much about American ABM and TMD systems, but I do know that the Israeli Arrow system has had only successful missile interceptions so far.
Click to expand...

Chalmers Johnson, "Nemesis." The book deals with America's economic dependence on defense spending and he sites several sources on a missile shield test performed in Alaska that only showed a 30% success rate.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Chalmers Johnson, "Nemesis." The book deals with America's economic dependence on defense spending and he sites several sources on a missile shield test performed in Alaska that only showed a 30% success rate.
Click to expand...
Were those ABM systems? (Anti-Ballistic missiles)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom