Daily Mail posits terrifying new European war

[Winner]

Despite the risk any sane state which does not want to be destroyed by USA & friends have to have nukes.

Hahahahaha, no, it's the other way round.

When will you people understand that the mere possession of a few nukes doesn't make a country invulnerable, but rather invites an attack that will most likely be nuclear?

Consider the following scenario: Pakistan is plunging into chaos, islamist groups threaten to take over the government, parts of the army defect, and there is a real danger nukes might end up in the hands of Al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups.

What will the US do? Why, move in and try to neutralize Pakistani nukes before this happens - by any means necessary, including pre-emptive nuclear strikes against Pakistani missiles, air bases, nuclear storage facilities, etc.

If Pakistan didn't have nukes, the US would probably leave it alone, afraid of getting involved in this mess. The existence of Pakistani nukes constitutes a potential threat so grave than any sensible US government will be compelled to strike if there is a threat this arsenal might end up in the wrong(er) hands.

 

[Ajidica]

I was talking to the faculty advisor for my school's Model UN group and she has some specialization in the India-Pakistan issue (yay CIA!). Pakistani nukes are in separate components put all across the country. This is done to ensure the generals responsible actualy want to end the world and to make them safer both to domestic and foreign attacks.

 

[Winner]

They surely have a few that are operational and ready for use in a very short time.

 

[red_elk]

Consider the following scenario: Pakistan is plunging into chaos, islamist groups threaten to take over the government, parts of the army defect, and there is a real danger nukes might end up in the hands of Al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups.

Pakistan's nukes are needed for deterrence of India, not the US. And they serve their purpose perfectly. AFAIK, Pakistan doesn't even have capability to hit US territory with ballistic missiles.

 

[Ajidica]

They surely have a few that are operational and ready for use in a very short time.

Not likely. Pakistan and India still use liqued fuel rockets, not solid fuel. The liqued fuel is caustic enough that it can't be stored in the rocket tanks long term and takes six hours minimum to set up.

 

[timtofly]

Pakistan's nukes are needed for deterrence of India, not the US. And they serve their purpose perfectly. AFAIK, Pakistan doesn't even have capability to hit US territory with ballistic missiles.

That is not the point. The point is if al-quaeda or the taliban can access them.

 

[red_elk]

That is not the point. The point is if al-quaeda or the taliban can access them.

Well, the original point made by Snorrius was that many countries need nuclear weapons for self-defence against possible aggression of other countries, and nuclear deterrence. He said explicitly against USA, which is perfectly valid point, but in case of Pakistan it's not fully correct since their nuclear forces have main purpose to deter India.

There can be some purely hypothetical scenarios where possession of nuclear weapon can be bad for national security of the country, but for the last 60 years there were no examples of large scale military conflicts involving two or more such countries. Also no one member of nuclear club had become a victim of large scale conventional aggression. But there are lots of examples when non-nuclear countries were invaded.