Bala Ambati at Daylight’s Mark wonders why India and the US can’t seize the moment to get Pakistan to turn over its menagerie of nasties. This would prove more than anything else, how really serious Islamabad is in cracking down on terrorism. Ambati writes:
So what do we do? Some would say India should behave as America did after 9/11 and go to war. At a gut level, I would probably concur. But at a cerebral level, realistically India should not risk nuclear war over this. But India can and should demand Pakistan extradite the known kingpins of terror in Pakistan … While India is at it, America should demand the hand-over of A.Q. Khan, the wheeler-and-dealer of nuclear technology to North Korea, Libya, and who knows who else. When Pakistan refuses all of these, India should pursue an escalating response set.
These are eminently logical and reasonable steps. In fact, India has already demanded that Pakistan show good faith by handing over some of the most wanted fugitives. The BBC reports that:
India has asked Pakistan to hand over 20 fugitives from Indian law who it believes are settled in Pakistan. Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee said the names were given on Monday as India protested to the high commissioner of Pakistan over the attacks in Mumbai. Pakistan said it would “frame a formal response” once it received the list. It was unclear what links the fugitives had to the Mumbai attacks.
Whoever added the phrase “it was unclear what links the fugitives had to the Mumbai attacks” doesn’t really get it. The Mumbai attacks were not some kind of ordinary crime; but to all intents and purposes an something akin to an act of war, which if Islamabad is to be believed, was waged entirely by private parties. So handing over these criminals is not the same as complying with a request for extradition; it is embarking on an act of military necessity to save peace on the subcontinent.
For the point of view of justice, these criminals have records longer than the arm of a gorilla and should be rounded up in any case. Whether or not they are specifically guilty of the Mumbai attacks is beside the point. If Pakistan wishes to dismantle the infrastructure of terror then it cannot do better than to start with turning people like Dawood Ibrahim over to the Indians.
But will the Pakistanis do it? There are discouraging hints that Islamabad will insist on handling the matter themselves, which is to say, not handle it at all, if the past is any indication of the future. The BBC article continues, “Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani, has said his country ‘would itself take action against the miscreants if there is any evidence against a Pakistani national’.” Once the word “evidence” is used to qualify what should be a straightforward and necessary act of state it suggests the Pakistanis are having second thoughts.
More worrisome are sounds from Washington that Pakistan’s tender sensibilities should be respected. An Associated Press article suggests that future Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may be tainted because she is too friendly with India. The AP quotes experts and saying that says “Secretary of State-nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton’s close ties with India forged during her years as a U.S. senator and presidential candidate could complicate diplomatic perceptions of her ability to serve as a neutral broker between India and its nuclear neighbor, Pakistan.” It recalled that during the recent Presidential campaign,
the Obama camp prepared, but then disavowed, a campaign memo that carried the headline “Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab),” a mocking play on the standard reference to a candidates’ party and constituency.
The memo, which created a furor in India and the Indian-American community, also referred to the Clintons’ investments in India, Sen. Clinton’s fundraising among Indian-Americans and the former president’s $300,000 in speech fees from Cisco, a company that has moved U.S. jobs to India.
Obama called the memo “a dumb mistake” and “not reflective of the long-standing relationship I have had with the Indian-American community.”
And then of course there are America’s logistical needs in Afghanistan, which will only increase if Obama’s plans to deploy 20,000 more men materialize. Ninety percent of US logistics go through the port of Karachi, where it said, Dawood Ibrahim lives.
Will India press ahead while the fires are hot? Will Barack Obama tighten the screws on Islamabad? Or are we going to see more “even handed honest brokering”? The next few weeks will tell.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
35 Comments
1. Lifeofthemind:This is how WW-I started; with the Austrians demanding the conspirators the Serbian Intelligence service was determined to protect.
Dec 2, 2008 - 4:54 am 2. RWE:Nearly as effective as an actual televised perp walk from Pakistan to India and far less “Moment in Sarajevo-like” would be a quiet agreement by the Pakistani Govt to look the other way when mysterious explosions and unexplained deaths begin to occur in certain unsavory neighborhoods, or even in some savory ones.
Dec 2, 2008 - 6:45 am 3. Mike Sylwester:The millstones of justice grind slow, but exceedingly fine.
It would be nice if we could wave a magic wand and all the world’s criminals were punished. If we could, then the belatedly punished would include also some Hindus who have participated in massacres of Moslems.
In the real world, we should press ahead persistently in our restricted circumstances.
The Indians and Pakistanis will have to improve their extradition agreements and cooperation. The Indians will have to assemble and provide evidence to Pakistan for extradition requests. When the evidence suffices, the Pakistani Government will have to approve the extraditions and arrest and extradite the individuals. The Indians will have to prosecute, convict and punish the extradited defendants properly.
Such cooperative legal procedures are difficult and slow, and they are not able to punish all criminals. Gradually, however, efforts to enforce such procedures do improve society and reduce crime.
Pakistan has a lot of problems. Much of the population is illiterate, ignorant and superstitious. During the last country-wide elections, the leading candidate, Benazir Bhutto, was assassinated by Moslem terrorists. In the past few years, hundreds of Pakistanis have been murdered by Moslem terrorists. Al Qaeda and other such Moslem terrorist organizations are located in Pakistan. It is extraordinarily difficult to live as a rational, decent, modern person in Pakistan, but millions of people there are striving to do so.
India is a better country (but not a whole lot better). In its relationship with Pakistan, India will have to continue to play the adult role as long as Pakistan plays a bratty adolescent role. Eventually, though, Pakistan will mature and become civilized. The USA should continue to advise both countries to improve their cooperation and law enforcement.
Dec 2, 2008 - 6:54 am 4. Ruby:Life of the Mind, why settle on that as the trigger? The refusal to hand over the men was the generating cause and not the bullet? I say it was the multi-threaded entangling alliances that started WW1. When one nation mobilized, their allies were obliged to mobilize with them, and their enemies were obliged to counter-mobilize. They thought it was going to be a short splendid little war that would be over before winter 1914. They didn’t count on the fact that mass-production had temporarily shifted the advantage over to the defending team with barbed wire, machine guns, chlorine gas, and telephone communications. The result was four years of hell where a successful campaign was measured in yards.
Dec 2, 2008 - 6:55 am 5. Limpet6:I mentioned the handover in the “Marine tactics” thread below.
It is really a great way for both sides to win…if Pakistan’s government has the strength and stability to pull it off.
Pakistan can’t keep playing “we can control the folks within our borders, but don’t you violate our borders to get at them” forever.
India and the US are going to lose patience.
Dec 2, 2008 - 7:17 am 6. Limpet6:Sorry, “we CAN”T control…”
Dec 2, 2008 - 7:18 am 7. exhelodrvr:RWE,
“Nearly as effective as an actual televised perp walk from Pakistan to India and far less “Moment in Sarajevo-like” would be a quiet agreement by the Pakistani Govt to look the other way when mysterious explosions and unexplained deaths begin to occur in certain unsavory neighborhoods, or even in some savory ones.”
Agreed. It is probably not politically possible domestically for the Pakistani government to turn over terrorists to India. But if a bomb-making factory were to explode … Of course, the ISI is so involved that that is probably not likely either.
I think that the U.S. will end up bribing India, things in Pakistan will stay as is for the time being.
Dec 2, 2008 - 7:35 am 8. dan:WWI? on another site i read an interesting application of World War 2’s opening years – the Phony War – culminating in the Blitz on London and the conquest of France. this gentleman predicted that world war would begin somewhere in south Asia, and that – like Britain after the conquest of Poland – we would initially stay out of it. then israel, somewhat like france, would be hit. still we would dither and fulminate and do nothing. our native socialists would hamstring all natural action. then, as on London, the bombs would begin to fall on the USA. but the this time the bombs would be H-Bombs.
Dec 2, 2008 - 7:46 am 9. dan:Ruby – no World War I was willed by the Kaiser’s General Staff and Bethman-Hollweg. You really must revise your mental library.
Dec 2, 2008 - 7:48 am 10. marymcl:Ruby has obviously absorbed the Cliff’s Notes on Major Cliches of the Two World Wars….
I wish India and her people the best. If there is to be all-out war, though, I hope the preamble doesn’t drag on as long as the run-up to our invasion of Iraq. I’ve never understood that.
Dec 2, 2008 - 8:11 am 11. RWE:I just hope things get settled down before a call center or two gets knocked out.
It’s hard enough to get Sears or Dell Computer on the phone as it is…
Dec 2, 2008 - 8:21 am 12. Ruby:then israel, somewhat like france, would be hit. still we would dither and fulminate and do nothing. our native socialists would hamstring all natural action.
Actually, you’re right, the socialists in the White House and Congress who are bailing out Wall Street to the tune of $3trillion are hamstringing our action now by letting the Army and USMC get beat to hell for five years in Iraq and Afghanistan with a cash burn rate of $12billion a month. We don’t have two ready battalions to fight another Grenada even right now.
then, as on London, the bombs would begin to fall on the USA. but the this time the bombs would be H-Bombs.
If you pick an H-bomb fight with a nation with thousands of H-bombs, don’t be surprised when you get some H-bombs right back.
Dec 2, 2008 - 8:51 am 13. Staring In Disbelief:The assassination of the Archduke was only the match that lit the tinder pile that was 1914 Europe. If Gavrilo Princep had missed, if the Archduke’s car hadn’t taken the wrong turn, etc. we would all be talking about some other insignificant event that triggered the massive bloodletting that had been building for years. Mobilization schedules driven by the military state of the art was only one contributor. While conditions on the subcontinent have many unstable aspects, it is geopolitically far more stable than pre-WWI Europe. It looks more like US-Soviet Cold War conditions as far as having a two nuclear-armed state dynamic.
This is a big moment for India to show some World Power moxie. Can they push it hard enough to get justice without pushing over the brink? Or will they settle for the legalistic BS Wretchard mentions, like some 3rd-rate power would?
Dec 2, 2008 - 10:00 am 14. Captain Ramen:I have a Paki friend. He tells me that the urban population were progressive, interested in material success, even supporters of Musharraf (he certainly was). The rednecks, hillbillies, FATA of Pakistan is the problem. That’s too bad, since the urban population is going to bear the brunt of India’s nuclear wrath.
If Pakistan wants to be saved it must have a civil war. I don’t know why they even pretend to exercise authority in the FATA. Yes there are resources there but as things stand now they are impossible to exploit.
They could get China to guarantee retaliation in case of a first strike by India. Since neither cultures have a particular death wish it should be stable enough for the short term. They then need to redeploy their nuclear weapons to areas where they have real authority. Then they could finally go to town against the tribal areas, with covert help from America.
Dec 2, 2008 - 10:09 am 15. Lifeofthemind:@Captain Ramen,
Dec 2, 2008 - 10:30 am 16. Michael Hoskins:If the Pakistani elites really did “go to town against the tribal areas” would they win? The problem is that the bad guys are not just up in the hills, they are in Karachi and every other city. The Pakistani army recruits from the same communities. If the Pak army and the urban core could reach an accommodation so they could unite against the barbarians and if they could cut off the hill country from all access to the outside and if they could then force through a supply route to US/NATO forces in Afghanistan, that would be A Good Thing. The problem is that I doubt that they can.
Mike S
Dec 2, 2008 - 10:44 am 17. Staring In Disbelief:Kumbaya.
Whoa Capt. Ramen! Where did the “They could get China to guarantee retaliation in case of a first strike by India.” comment come from? Does Pakistan have a mutual defense treaty with China that commits China to the defense of pakistan in the case of hostilities with India a la NATO? I was not aware of one, and assuming that the Chinese would undertake such a move without one is a BIG leap. they may perceive it in their interests to maintain some Indo-Paki tension, but a nuclear defense guarantee is another thing entirely. Besides, that’s step 213 in scenario B4. We are still waiting for India to make the next move in scenario A or forfeit the whole damn game.
Dec 2, 2008 - 11:40 am 18. wildernesscalling:Excuse me, MS (post #3) your spouting the standard apologetic lefty response, Please tell us when the last time the “Hindu’s” mass murdered the Muslims, every news article I have read when the Muslims are on the receiving end (which are extremely few and far between) they (the Hindus) are usually responding to a previous incident (mass murder) that was started by the Muslims, Please list when the last times anybody just out right attack a Muslim country or its population centers (Not counting Muslim on Muslim attacks) in the same fashion as the Homicide Bombers and Mass murder squads like at Mumbai, the list of Muslim attacking others will far out list anything done to them!
Dec 2, 2008 - 12:09 pm 19. Captain Ramen:Islam started by attacking innocent people from the beginning and built its heritage on the deaths of tens of millions throughout history! Muslim horror and savagery was only out done by Genghis Khan. It’s the “why can’t we just get along” wimps that always blame both parties instead of looking at the facts and stating what is right and what is wrong…GROW UP!
#17 SiD,
I am saying they should get such an agreement.
I am pretty sure any Pakistan Strategic Planning has nuclear weapons deployed in the mountainous regions, since it would make it that much harder for India to locate and destroy them all in a first strike.
For any Pakistani civil war to be effective, those nukes must be redeployed to areas that the government actually controls, otherwise any civil war could go nuclear. At the same time that would make Pakistan much more vulnerable to an Indian first strike, which would make Karachi unlikely to do so. The only way to make that infeasible is for China to guarantee a retaliatory strike. Once the civil war is over any such agreement could be rescinded.
I would much prefer a nuclear stalemate between India and China, since that makes it highly unlikely that either one would launch a first strike.
Dec 2, 2008 - 12:10 pm 20. Subotai Bahadur:re: #19 Captain Ramen:
Granting that conditions may have changed, but I was involved about a year and a half ago in a writing project that tracked amongst other things, the Pakistani nuclear arsenal, their delivery means, and deployments. What came out then was that their arsenal was deployed at major bases, NOT in the hills. For the sake of Positive Control, in the absence of sophisticated PAL’s; that is a benefit to the world. However, I do not doubt that there is a dispersal plan in case of crisis. Given that neither India or Pakistan have a survivable second strike capability; such dispersal would be indicative of possible/probable first strike intent and would be considered a strategic warning of the first order by the Indians. And no, I do not think that their nukes could be dispersed without the Indians finding out. Further, for what is pleased to call itself the Pakistani government outside of the Taliban and the ISI; the act of dispersal and the time spent dispersed increases the risk of losing possession some or all of their supply of “canned sunshine” to the ISI/Taliban. Not a good thing.
I do consider it possible for an increased runway alert for their nuclear strike aircraft; but once again that is sending a message that could be construed as a threat, and the ability to both quickly launch a large part of their arsenal and to maintain that level of alert for an extended period of time is limited.
As I said, things may have changed, but that was their doctrine a year and a half ago.
Subotai Bahadur
Dec 2, 2008 - 12:50 pm 21. Brock:If I wanted to speak to Pakistan, who do I call?
The problem here is that no one is in control of Pakistan. There are just factions. The elected government, the ISI, the Military, the terrorist organizations, the various tribes, the criminal networks – they’re all effectively autonomous. It’s a Failed State. The factions can “influence” each other but none can make any (keepable) promises to India or the USA as long as the others exist. And as long as that remains the case there cannot be meaningful diplomacy.
There are several course of action:
1. Maintain status quo. This is not politically acceptable in India.
2. Posturing and short-term war between India and Pakistan that harms our mission in Afghanistan but eventually burns itself out. Return to today’s status quo in 5-10 years. Sadly, I rate this the most likely course.
3. Full-bore war between India and Pakistan. The USA stays out of it or provides Naval & Air assistance to India on the theory that a quick death for Pakistan is preferable to war that drags out over years. There is a threat of nuclear war. This scenario is a tragedy for all sides, especially if nuclear weapons are used.
4. De-Partition. This isn’t likely, but it’s my hopeful dark horse because it’s the only scenario that leaves the world in a better place with minimal bloodshed. How it works is: India convinces Pakistan’s military and “government” that Scenario #3 is going to happen unless they turn over the keys to the nuclear weapons and surrender immediately. In return for that the military is allowed to integrate into India’s military (no loss of rank) and the ancient states that existed under the Raj are reconstituted under the federal government of India. If the military and politicians are allowed to keep their jobs (as state level actors or in the federal government) and war can be avoided, they may decide it’s better than course #3. Pakistan and India were one nation once and they’re still more or less one people with a shared history. I have no idea whether or not they would though.
The benefit to India with course #3 of course is that their anti-terror police would then have direct jurisdiction in the former nation of Pakistan. That’s what they really want.
Dec 2, 2008 - 1:27 pm 22. Brock:Er, I meant the benefit of Course #4 is direct jurisdiction. Course #3 would get that too, eventually, but not any time soon.
Oh, and Capt. Ramen, what could Pakistan ever offer China to get such a treaty? Mutual defense suggests that Pakistan would come to China’s defense (which it couldn’t even if it wanted to) and China would never seek war with India. China knows who’s side the USA, the UK and Japan would be on.
Dec 2, 2008 - 1:34 pm 23. Fausta’s Blog » Blog Archive » The horror of the Mumbai attacks, in photos:[...] Richard Fernandez has more on Decommissioning the human weapons [...]
Dec 2, 2008 - 2:13 pm 24. NahnCee:Subotair – any information on maintenance of those nukes and when was the last time anyone tested anything to see if they (it?) still works? How many are we talking about, any way? And how would they be delivered?
Dec 2, 2008 - 5:10 pm 25. Mike Sylwester:wildernesscalling (18):
“… your spouting the standard apologetic lefty response, Please tell us when the last time the “Hindu’s” mass murdered the Muslims …. It’s the “why can’t we just get along” wimps that always blame both parties instead of looking at the facts and stating what is right and what is wrong…GROW UP! ”
======
GROW UP? If that’s the kind of argument you favor, then maybe you should hang out at some teenage discussion sites instead of at Belmont Club.
Here’s a couple articles about a recent (2002) Hindu massacre of Moslems in India.
ashraf786.proboards15.com/index.cgi?board=terrorism&action=display&thread=8948
Dec 2, 2008 - 10:32 pm 26. Subotai Bahadur:NahnCee #24
As of a few years ago,here is what they had:
The majority of Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent is still carried in aircraft. #’s 16 and 25 Squadrons are equipped with Chinese
A-5 strike aircraft in the nuclear role. They are based at PAFB Peshawar.
#’s 5, 7,8, and 22 Squadrons are equipped with variants of Mirage which may be nuclear capable.
7, 8, and 22 are based at PAFB Masroor near Karachi.
5 is based at PAFB Rafiqui near Shorkot.
#’s 9 and 11 Squadrons are equipped with F-16’s, which can be used in a nuclear strike role. They are based at PAFB
Sargodha, near the city of Sargodha. The base is also home to the Central Ammunition Depot, which has a major role in
storage of Pakistani nuclear weapons and missiles. The missiles may be stored:
Indian intelligence agencies are reported to believe that the missiles are stored in a sub-depot near the Central Ammunition
Depot at Sargodha on Kirana Hills [at 31°57'N 72°43'E] near Lahore. The Pakistani military has constructed storage sheds
for the missiles and mobile launchers, as well as related maintenance facilities and housing for launch crews. Reportedly
soldiers have also been sighted practicing simulated launches with advice from visiting Chinese experts.
Similar dating on the missile data:
Shaheen missile derived from the PRC M-11 300 km range 500kg payload first launched 15 April 1999 IOC 1995? ~34-80? in inventory.
Shaheen-II derived from the PRC M-18 2,000 km range first launched 09 March 2004 in inventory unknown #
Ghauri derived from DPRK ND-1 1,350-1,500km range 700 kg payload first launched 06 April 1998 IOC 1998? in inventory unknown #
Ghauri-III derived from DPRK TD-1 2,500 km range may be operational soon
Tipu derived from DPRK TD-2 4,000 km range may be operational soon
PRC = Peoples Republic of China
DPRK = Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea.
Most new Pakistani missiles are modified North Korean No-Dong and Taepo-Dong missiles.
I believe the last test detonations were in 1998. At the turn of the century, it was estimated that Pakistan had up to 48 HEU implosion devices ranging from 9-12 KT. I assume that production has continued and based on production rates in the 1990’s they would have another 16 devices. However, it is possible that more centrifuges are now operational which would increase the production rate.
Not all the missiles are carrying nuclear warheads, and not all the aircraft are standing hot alert. They don’t have enough nuclear weapons for all of them.
Keep in mind, that these are based on open sources, and may not be totally accurate.
Subotai Bahadur
Dec 3, 2008 - 1:01 am 27. wildernesscalling:Like I said Mike Sylwester (#3,#25)is a anti American apologetic lefty, Mike Sylwester hyper link list one incident “communal violence in Gujarat” and from a completely slanted “Islamic” website and Like I predicted the Muslim Deaths were in response to Muslim murdering Hindus first! “The riots occurred at the Godhra train burning. The train had left Godhra Station and it was forcibly stopped and attacked by a 500 strong weapon carrying Muslim Mob that targeted one of the coaches containing the Hindu religious pilgrims and burnt them alive”
Dec 3, 2008 - 1:31 am 28. NahnCee:Mike GROW UP you’re the spoiled self righteous teenager! Please buy a ticket for a Muslim country and leave Permanently! Oh and research what your posting too! amateur!
Subotai – very interesting. I’d never seen it spelled out like that. I had been thinking they had maybe one or two. Strapped to a camel.
Good news is that they’re based on North Korea’s version, which as we’ve seen recently has a tendency to go pfffft at lift-off.
Bad news is there’s a lot more of them than I had realized.
I wonder if further good news might be that they haven’t been maintaining them, increasing likelihood of pfffft-edness.
so how many does India have?
Dec 3, 2008 - 12:20 pm 29. Subotai Bahadur:NahnCee #28
I was able to pull up the data above, and update it, from a project I worked on a while back. It did not cover the Indian arsenal, being focussed …. elsewhere. A quick scan, with data about 5 years old, indicates that India’s arsenal is plutonium rather than enriched uranium based. Based on plutonium production rates, estimates as of that time were about 50-90 weapons. There are claims of having achieved thermonuclear weapons, but that is subject to debate based on the seismic data from their last known underground tests [also in 1998 like the Paks.] It may be a boosted fission weapon instead of a true thermonuclear device. There is an outlier data point from JANE’s that claims an Indian arsenal of up to 150 weapons in 2002.
There is a lot less data on delivery means, but they have 147 MiG-27’s and 88 European JAGUAR strike aircraft which are all nuclear delivery capable.
Missile data is somewhat hard to find. Estimates are that India has between 105-140 PRITHVI-1 Army missiles with a range of 150 km. The Indian Air Force may have 25-75 air launched versions of the PRITHVI-1 with a range of 250 km. There is a PRITHVI-3 which is the basis for development of a submarine launched missle, but that is far from operational. All are nuclear capable, and optimized for dealing with Pakistan.
The AGNI missile family is the basis of the modern Indian Strategic forces. The AGNI-1 is 7-800 km range, road/rail mobile, 1000 kg. payload. AGNI-2 is reported to have longer range [2500 km]. It is hard to get numbers for these, but two specialized units have been created to operate them; the 444th and 555th Army Missile Groups. As of 2002 the Defense Minister reported to Parliament that AGNI-2 production was 18 missiles per year.
The AGNI-3 was recently operational, and has a range of about 1300 miles. Once again numbers deployed seem to be hard to come by, which is not surprising. And as I have noted the Indian Space Research Organization can convert the satellite boosters to strategic purposes.
It has to be noted that unlike Pakistan, India has developed a re-entry vehicle [AGNI RV Mk. 2]package that seems to be enhanced to near MIRV capability. Further, there are reports that the Indians have developed a new coating technology that may increase missile range by up to 1/3. It is new enough that it probably is not widely deployed, but that adds to their capabilities.
http://www.domainb.com/aero/space/launch_veh/20080514_technology.html
This is both open source, and is comprised of only what I could come up with in about an hour. Add whatever grains of salt that you find appropriate.
Re: pfffft-edness
I have no data on that, but I note that the numerical majority of the deployed Pakistani missiles are based on Chinese missiles, not North Korean. Further, the presence of Chinese support staff may indicate that they are involved in maintaining the lot of them.
Subotai Bahadur
Dec 3, 2008 - 2:55 pm 30. NahnCee:Wouldn’t you think if there was an on-going Chinese maintenance (or installation) presence in Pakistan, we’d be hearing about them being kidnapped and/or beheaded?
A year or two ago, America gave or sold some nifty-neat equipment to India which we then refused to sell or give the same thing(s) to Pakistan. And Pakistan was hollering racism and favoritism and generallly throwing a little terrorist hissy fit because they wanted the same nifty-neat stuff. What was that, do we know, and how would it enhance India’s performance vis-a-vis Pakistan’s performance?
(And why did we give it to them if we never intended to allow them to use it in the face of massacrees like Mumbai?)
Dec 3, 2008 - 4:25 pm 31. Subotai Bahadur:#30 NahnCee
I don’t know the equipment you are talking about. It is not uncommon, however for us to put restrictions on the use of military equipment we sell.
As for the safety of Chinese technicians:
1) They are serving the maintenance of an Islamic nuclear capacity and that is a holy cause recognized by the ISI, Taliban, etc.
2) Some countries [China, Russia, etc.] have a different reaction to such things. We whine, cry, beg, etc. If we are especially exercised, the occupant of our White House may even offer “talks without preconditions”.
China and Russia tend to hunt down the perps and as many of their families as they can and kill them in unpleasant ways. It tends to discourage repetitions of the attacks. Since they are involved in the support of such groups, they have the connections to find out.
Subotai Bahadur
Dec 3, 2008 - 4:50 pm 32. NahnCee:We used to whine, cry, beg, etc.
Then with Bush, it became “you take down two of our buildings, we’ll take down two of your countries”. And suddenly *they* were the ones whining, crying and begging. For a while, any way.
Now with B. Hussein it will flip-flop again, and I wonder what it will take for us to equalize the equation again.
Have the Somali pirates tried to take over a Chinese boat? They’ve attacked Russian ones, I seem to remember. Maybe Pakistani terrorists have a different boy scout code than Somali pirates when it comes to kidnapping.
Dec 3, 2008 - 5:41 pm 33. Dave:All hands: Check out COL Austin Bay at townhall.com. Good breakdown of purpose of Mumbai assault.
Dec 3, 2008 - 9:11 pm 34. Buck Smith:Subotai,
You are a cool dude with some interesting things to say. I like your point about the difference between Chinese and Russian tactics and the West’s. For something completely uncalled for:
North Korea’s missile is called No-Dong? If that is not part of a joke in Team America World Police it should be.
Dec 4, 2008 - 6:46 am 35. NahnCee:Subotai – following article refers to “nuclear power plants” as being what Pakistan wants that India now has. But I think I read somewhere else that whatever the agreement between India and America was, it involved airplanes so maybe there’s more to it than nuclear power plants:
“Now Pakistan also has the right to demand a civilian nuclear agreement with America,” Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani told reporters. “We want there to be no discrimination. Pakistan will also strive for a nuclear deal and we think they will have to accommodate us.”
The US-India pact enables nuclear-related exports from the West to a market forecast to exceed £15 billion by 2025. France has already emerged as a leading beneficiary after signing a separate agreement that paves the way for it to sell advanced electricity reactors to India. Once it relaxes its ban on exports to India, Australia is expected to emerge as a leading supplier of uranium to the country.
The fast growing Indian economy will immediately benefit from an overhaul of its existing nuclear power stations. Long term efforts to build new plants are expected to face significant hurdles from India’s arcane planning laws.
Pakistan wants access to similar facilities and has devised an “energy security plan” that increases its nuclear power generation from the current 425 megawatts to 8,800 megawatts by 2030.
While India’s status as de facto nuclear weapon state on par with the five permanent UN Security Council members and strategic weapon powers-Britain, China, France, Russia and the US has been recognised, politicians hailed the economic benefits of ratification.”
Telegraph, Oct 2, 2008.
Dec 4, 2008 - 10:48 amSorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.