I promise, this'll be the last one.

Okay, Afghanistan don't have nucleur weapons (that we know of). But what with all these people in Pakistan trying to join the Taliban, isn't a revolt quite likely (I refuse to use the term inement). And if the Taliban supporters in Pakistan DO overthrow the Pakistan government, won't they link up with Afghanistan? AND PAKISTAN HAVE NUKES!!!!!!! Wot will everyone do if Afghanistan (or, more specificly the Taliban) get hold of nukes?
Then again, this is propbably not likely to happen. Just a CURIOUS QUESTION http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...es/biggrin.gif

A revolt in Paistan has a very small chance of happening or if it did it would fail. Paistan current leader was put in place by the army and so has their full support. It also pays the police well (One of the best jobs you can get) and so has the support of them and with the current trouble from the protesters people are flocking to join both forces. 8000 for 100 postions in one report I heared.

Wrong, Pakistan's leader was in the army and he made a coup to restore order in Pakistan. MANY people in the army are pro-taliban. However, the self-declared president did remove most of the pro-Taliban senior officers putting his supporter in their place. This doesn't mean that he's got the support of the army. Quite to the contrary. It only means that at the top, he's got people he can thrust.

This is a very similar situation to what happened in an African country a few years back. A general with his friends were in power and they had secured the army (or so they thought). There was another coup lead by a First Lieutenant... he's now the head honcho of that country.

That's the beauty of dictatorship... If they don't like you, they do have a sorta election to throw you out of office... it's called a coup and usually, if all goes well, the exiting leader will not come back to power because he's dead!



------------------
I'm the Wanderer without a clan... I bring justice without favorism. Though you may not agree with it, my judgement is final... and inconsequential :)

I posted a similar thread on the nuclear terrorist threat.

Terrorist do not have a nuke, or they would have used it. They will eventually get one if they are not stopped. If this happens the world as will know it will be changed on a level none of us can even can even begin to imagine.

------------------
http://www.wizardrealm.com/images/rb.gif http://www.usflag.org/animate/flagwave1.gif

"Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

I'm not ruling out terrorists having nukes. Why use them now? Keep your biggest bomb for the biggest statement. You start by making a few blows here and there (WTC, possible anthrax...), when the occasion is bigger (let's say Salt Lake City) you detonate a nuke. You can, but don't have to detonate where the Olympics are (too much security). Personnally, if I was a terrorist, I would go for LA, Frisco, Chicago or Detroit where the security is more lax!


------------------
I'm the Wanderer without a clan... I bring justice without favorism. Though you may not agree with it, my judgement is final... and inconsequential http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...iles/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Ryanamur (edited 11-02-2001).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ryanamur:
[QB]


I'm not ruling out terrorists having nukes. Why use them now? Keep your biggest bomb for the biggest statement. You start by making a few blows here and there (WTC, possible anthrax...), when the occasion is bigger (let's say Salt Lake City) you detonate a nuke. You can, but don't have to detonate where the Olympics are (too much security). Personnally, if I was a terrorist, I would go for LA, Frisco, Chicago or Detroit where the security is more lax!

Great, give 'em MORE ideas(!) :D
No, I don't think they would do this. The Alliance have them cornered in Afghanistan (according to the news. But then, how much of this can you believe? They're hardly gonna say 'Oh, by the way, we're LOSING in Afghanistan!') It would be much less of a risk to launch a nuke first. But then, this is just my opinion.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Horatio:

Great, give 'em MORE ideas(!) :D
No, I don't think they would do this. The Alliance have them cornered in Afghanistan (according to the news. But then, how much of this can you believe? They're hardly gonna say 'Oh, by the way, we're LOSING in Afghanistan!') It would be much less of a risk to launch a nuke first. But then, this is just my opinion.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>

Horatio, I'm sorry to say but you're off a bit.

First. The Northen Alliance doesn't have anybody cornered. They hold about 15% of Afghanistan. That means that the Talibans hold 85% of it. Who's cornered? Mind you that Taliban stuff is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the fight at hand. The Talibans are not terrorists, they are nothing more than a totalitarian government. The NA can remove them all they want and it won't solve anything terrorism wise.

Now, to Bin Ladden. The guy is in the SW corner of the country close to the Pakistany boarder (according to the media). The NA is in the NE part of the country! No where close to him!

Finally, the nuke issue. I don't think I'm giving them ideas! :D Bin is intelligent enough to figure out that SLC is a very nice and fat target that will hurt all of the Western World. Don't kid yourself, he won't launch a nuke. We are not talking about ICBM here. We are talking about a guy who's walking with a small warhead in a packsack in the middle of downtown NY, LA, Frisco, Chicago ... and when the counter reaches 0, a nice mushroom cloud forms. If you want to find nukes in the hands of a terrorist, don't look to the sky hoping that Missile Defense can blast it. Look in harbors, at the Canadian and Mexico boarders. That's where it's coming from!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ryanamur:


Horatio, I'm sorry to say but you're off a bit.

First. The Northen Alliance doesn't have anybody cornered. They hold about 15% of Afghanistan. That means that the Talibans hold 85% of it. Who's cornered? Mind you that Taliban stuff is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the fight at hand. The Talibans are not terrorists, they are nothing more than a totalitarian government. The NA can remove them all they want and it won't solve anything terrorism wise.

Now, to Bin Ladden. The guy is in the SW corner of the country close to the Pakistany boarder (according to the media). The NA is in the NE part of the country! No where close to him!

Finally, the nuke issue. I don't think I'm giving them ideas! :D Bin is intelligent enough to figure out that SLC is a very nice and fat target that will hurt all of the Western World. Don't kid yourself, he won't launch a nuke. We are not talking about ICBM here. We are talking about a guy who's walking with a small warhead in a packsack in the middle of downtown NY, LA, Frisco, Chicago ... and when the counter reaches 0, a nice mushroom cloud forms. If you want to find nukes in the hands of a terrorist, don't look to the sky hoping that Missile Defense can blast it. Look in harbors, at the Canadian and Mexico boarders. That's where it's coming from!<hr></blockquote>

A very good reason why The Missile Defense Shield will be useless if our main opponents for the foreseeable future will probably World threatening terrorists! A better place for money that could go for that shield would be to work on intelligence measures so we can be prepared better.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by skywalker:


A very good reason why The Missile Defense Shield will be useless if our main opponents for the foreseeable future will probably World threatening terrorists! A better place for money that could go for that shield would be to work on intelligence measures so we can be prepared better.<hr></blockquote>

No reason not to do both. We sould also add to that that the CIA should become an offense- oriented organization rather than a defensive one. That way we can hammer the Osamas out there while they are little rather than waiting until they are big boy bombers.