These CNN political pundits seem to think the world should have to fear a nuclear 'tipped' nation in turmoil.
I think they forget how sobering the shrouded argument for MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) really means. NO government would knowingly contemplate the unthinkable for 'nuclear first strike' and/or 'nuclear in retaliation strike' the devastation would be far too great and in effect render the nation(s) ungovernable-chaos. It would spin the 'geo-poli' region into political oblivion.
Political assassinations are an affliction in any country.
Pakistanis can best deal with their domestic political issues. The U.S. should adopt non-intervention in Pakistani domestic affairs only help in reconciliation to bring consensus among parties and this should be transparent.
I don't think anyone is concerned that they nation of pakistan will attack the U.S. with nuclear weapons. The issue is that if Pakistan were to go into a state of chaos it is possible that a nuclear weapons or components would be transfered to stateless terrorist organizations who then might smuggle a bomb into the U.S.
I will agree that the policy of trying to put Bhutto in power that the state department was working on is stupid from the outset. Did they think that it would have any other outcome? Our stupid meddling has only increased the chance of the anarchy the state department types feared. The problem with Bush is that he is an idealist rather than a pragmatist. Consider his insistance that the Palestinian Authority hold election only to get the radical Hamas elected. Or the stupid Bremmer policies in Iraq that basically caused the insurgency.
I think that Musharif has things under control in Pakistan than Paul thinks. He is hardly a puppet of the U.S. either. He has tilted toward our policy when we were presenting a strong front but now that we are divided again his is being more responsive to certain internal forces. I really doubt there will really be a civil war. One could have made the same comment about our situation in the late 1960s but it didn't happen but there were lots of riots.
The issue is that if Pakistan were to go into a state of chaos it is possible that a nuclear weapons or components would be transfered to stateless terrorist organizations who then might smuggle a bomb into the U.S.
I think there are already 'prevention contingencies' (agreements) in place if that were to happen. 'A state of chaos' in Pakistan is more in the realm of script writing for a Bond movie. I agree...I really doubt if Pakistan were left alone to deal with their internal squabbles there would be chaos; some riots-not chaos.
A bad habit by corporate media to write on the basis no one knows anything about about nuclear weapons or the nations that have nuclear weapons capability. It astounds me how some stories are written as if these countries know nothing about safeguarding their N-weapons and how irresponsible they are at having them unguarded. That idea is so false. All N-weapons capable countries know exactly the limits of their programs and form security protocol around them.
This article is another of a long list of silly articles about the issue.
It's no wonder what drives U.S. interventionist policy when it comes to chasing WMD's under every rock and the need for big oil.