« Disappointing | Main | DOD's Biodefense Disaster (cont) »

31 January 2011

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b39369e20148c83002de970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Nuclear Mondays:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

For what its worth, this logical development also shows that there is no case for delusional concepts of US-led efforts to safeguard the PAK-nuke arsenal in case of some sort of internal collapse, whatever the probability of the latter.

Elemination of Taliban-forces in Afghanistan is a rather unrelated matter anyways, however feasible. The troubles for Pakistans current and recent regimes have always come out of the tribal areas. These areas could not be "controlled" in any conventional manner for well over a hundred years and I dont see that changing, even assuming some kind of miracle in AFGH.

One way or another, the Pakistani military needs to get over their outright obsession with deterring India. From a historical point of view this is absolutely ludicrous (all conflicts instigated by Pakistan in more or less amateurish manners).

Massive amounts of ressources are being wasted on the mirage of an enemy, while on the other side radicals such as the TTP can use the tribal areas to make inroads into Swat and right towards Islamabad, even taking out high-ranking military officials. All this wile the PAK military is essentially turning a blind eye on them, even playing a dangerous game of not taking serious action to extort more US-payed for equipment, that will never be employed in a "war on terror", a concept, that itself exists only in certain offices in Washington.

But I'm ranting...suffice to say, China is the winner, while PAK and the US are playing "who wears the best blindfold".

The comments to this entry are closed.

May 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        

Daily Thoughts


What I'm Reading

Countering WMDs

National Security

General Military Links

National Security Thinktanks

My Photo

Sigger's Law

  • Sigger's Law: "As any discussion on terrorism grows longer, the probability of attributing terrorists with nuclear weapons (or similar destructive capabilities) approaches 1." Corollary to Sigger's Law: "Once such an observation is made, the discussion is finished and whoever mentioned terrorist possession of nuclear weapons has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress."

CBRND Wiki Project

  • CBRND/CWMD in the Wikipedia
    This post is dedicated as a reference site for Wikipedia entries relating to CBRN defense or WMD issues. Some of them badly need improvements and/or references.

Google Search

  • Google

    WWW
    armchairgeneralist.typepad.com

Armed Forces Press Service

Political and Social Commentary Blogs

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Blog Directories

Notable

Blog powered by TypePad
Member since 12/2004