Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Murphy's Law in Action Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: It Will Be The Nukes Next Time
SYSOP    11/16/2012 5:26:04 AM
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
WinsettZ       11/16/2012 9:50:07 AM
Though the most secure place for them is probably near the Indian border, on missiles in ready-to-launch, surrounded by Pakistani army troops. The more remote you make a nuclear weapons repository, the easier it will be for commando strikes...or heavy bombing. Or a TLAM strike.
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       11/16/2012 10:39:00 AM
Though the most secure place for them is probably near the Indian border, on missiles in ready-to-launch, surrounded by Pakistani army troops. The more remote you make a nuclear weapons repository, the easier it will be for commando strikes...or heavy bombing. Or a TLAM strike.
Actually that is one of the least secure arrangements, because even if the troops protecting them are selected for anti-terrorist attitudes the personnel who have launch control will also be rabidly anti-India and Pakistan does not have very good PAL (Permissive Action Link) systems. One ‘first use’ launch on India and it is all over for Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent, even if India doesn’t retaliate the world will not tolerate the existence of uncontrolled, or even poorly controlled, nuclear weapons.
So the warheads will be separate but close by, probably being moved between a number of highly protected bunkers in a nuclear game of 3-card-monty. If I were in charge there would be at least 3x as many ‘packages’ as warheads, and the troops protecting them would not know if their package was a real warhead or a dummy. Even the US could be deterred by the need to attack 400+ locations simultaneously.
Quote    Reply

American God       11/16/2012 12:08:32 PM
Don't underestimate the difficulty of an American operation to extract these weapons. This is not a couple of hours in and out to kill one terrorist. This would have to be a major assault, by many, many troops, to incapacitate the defenders, then secure the weapons. Moving over one hundred weapons out of country is not trivial.Also, if you do not extract the plutonium and enriched uranium stockpiled at the same time, you will face the same situation in several years. This kind of operation might well last for days. It would require a massive effort to suppress counter-attacks while it was in progress. Many, many Pakistanis would be killed. It is very much an unpleasant scenario for the US military - it could be done, but the political cost would be very high. I believe it would only be implemented as a last resort in the case of completely unacceptable regime change in Pakistan. Unfortunately, such change is no longer implausible.
Quote    Reply

TonoFonseca    Terrorists with nukes   11/16/2012 10:22:31 PM
The danger doesn't come from some Taliban goatherder getting control of the nukes.  The real danger comes from some commander within the Pakistani military, who goes rogue, and decides to work alongside Islamic terrorists.  He either smuggles them out into their hands somehow, and they take them to where they want to use it, or, he uses them immediately himself on India.  
Quote    Reply

Skylark    Same "O"ld, same "O"ld   11/17/2012 3:40:25 AM
"But the Pakistani government knows that, if Islamic terrorists got possession of a Pakistani nuke and used it in the West, that nuclear weapon could be traced back to Pakistan. That’s because all nuclear material has a unique chemical “signature” and the United States is known to have built up an extensive library of these signatures over the years. Once the source of the terrorist nuke was identified, retribution might well be nuclear."
Oh please, who are we kidding here?  If such a disaster were to occur to the United States or one of her allies, every effort would be taken by the current administration to cover-up the source of the device, and the compliant collaborators in the U.S. press corp would make every effort to help in the cover-up.   It has been two months since the massacre in Benghazi, and we still have no idea who ordered what when or why.  Anyone curious about the affair has been called every name in the book, from kook, to Ahab to Rascist zealot.  Add to that a hearty "ho-hum" from the media and you got yourself a cover-up, sir.  The sad truth is the current administration has no stomach for hard choices and no sense of who the real enemies are, beyond those in the political arena.  If a disaster with a nuke were to (god-forbid) occur, the administration, with the help of the lap-dog media, would simply blame it on yet another obscure anti-islam youtube video and on to their old stand-by scapegoat, George W Bush. 
Quote    Reply

RevDrDark    "Dirty Bomb   11/17/2012 11:40:48 AM
Dirty bombs don't really exist, outside of alarmist political speeches or science fiction.
Physics don't work that way:
" target="_blank">link
Quote    Reply

Sty0pa       11/17/2012 1:11:47 PM
Best way to store them?
Secure them and their launch systems in hardened bunkers.
Put INDIAN troops as guards.  They'll cheerfully shoot any Pakistani whose clearance is doubtful .
Quote    Reply

Antiusa    Saddavi   11/17/2012 3:13:17 PM
What a lame article. To be honest I really feel bad for the people in the west . Especially US. No offense but you guys are being fed with so much rubbish. Most of your media tells you only what they want you to think. Your minds re being controlled. I really don't intend to sound very negative but the truth is that you guys should start researching yourself instead of relying on this controlled media. Why do you think "Anonymous" group came into existence? Watching a film like V for Vendetta will really help you think clear. Sorry for being harsh, just saying what I think is needed. Cheers
Quote    Reply

American God       11/17/2012 9:01:04 PM
I vote we lock antiusa and Skylark in a small room and lose the key.
Quote    Reply

Antiusa       11/17/2012 11:43:26 PM
You are funny!
Quote    Reply
1 2