4 ms·

>but i hope they get more funding for safety Here’s a wild idea: don’t try and fill the hole with money; if you can’t afford to safely move your nukes, you can

>but i hope they get more funding for safety Here’s a wild idea: don’t try and fill the hole with money; if you can’t afford to safely move your nukes, you can’t afford your nukes, ergo you shouldn’t have nukes.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>Here’s a wild idea: don’t try and fill the hole with money; if you can’t afford to safely move your nukes, you can’t afford your nukes, ergo you shouldn’t have nukes. Pakistan is playing in a geopolitical game that also involves the US, China, India and other nations much stronger than it. Large countries have a track record of being willing to throw small regional powers under the bus for their own gain. Pakistan, rightfully in my opinion sees having nukes as their only way to be dangerous enough that nobody will try to screw them out of their sovereignty. It's no surprise that they'd rather have nukes unsafely than not have them at all.
- thenewwazoo 6y ago
  Ukraine is an excellent example of this. They voluntarily relinquished their nuclear weapons, and now Russian troops have invaded the eastern part of the country.
  - dragandj 6y ago
    I’m not so sure that nuclear weapons would help in these kinds of regional conflicts against Russia. It’s not that Russia officially invaded Ukraine (although in practice it did), but it stirred up local population (of largely Russian ethnicity) and then gave them logistical support and protection. So, if Ukraine had nuclear weapons, what would it do with it? Strike Russia, who has many more nuclear warheads, and stronger anti-nuclear protection? Nuclear weapons are for USA, China, Russia, and maybe France/Europe, because they are not going to use it. Maybe Israel, whic is so tiny and surrounded by rrivals, that it has no choice but to have something to scare the neighbors with. Maybe India, because it’s big enough. For everyone else, nuclear weapons are a liability, because if they ever use it, they are going to be wiped out by the big boys for not obeying...
    - seppin 6y ago
      Good points. It maybe would have deterred Russia from invading at all, but that's debatable.
      - dragandj 6y ago
        On the opposite note, Russia (USSR) was "invaded" (sort of, from the point of view of many Russians) by the "West" 30 years ago, and USSR was butchered out, despite USSR having thousands of warheads. Which were completely useless...
        seppin 6y ago
        That's a funny way of saying the Soviet Union could no longer imprison have of Europe, and their subjects were set free.
        dragandj 6y ago
        I agree with your statement, but I am not sure official Russia shares that view.
    - iguy 6y ago
      I agree that Ukraine couldn't have usefully threatened Russia over Crimea. Likewise nukes are no use for minor conflict in Kashmir. But the game the Pakistanis imagine is different. Their concern (as I understand it) has always been that an existential war for them could be a small, regional, thing for India. Nuclear weapons are a way to change that. I believe the same fear explains a lot of their meddling in Afghanistan. Having some chaos on their border is one thing, but having a serious independent country which could one day choose to ally with India is regarded as a mortal risk.
    - baybal2 6y ago
      > Strike Russia, who has many more nuclear warheads, and stronger anti-nuclear protection? Yes, what's use of a superweapon if you can't make use of it? From my childhood experience, some times you need to commit without reservations to completely hopeless, no chance fights, as the only hope for a way out. Strong adversaries often don't expect the weak to even attempt to fight back.
- catalogia 6y ago
  Owning nuclear weapons may deter foreign threats, but it may also empower domestic threats if those nukes aren't controlled properly. If a general announces one day that he's the king because men loyal to him have control of the nukes [or even just one], what could the government of Pakistan do but surrender?
newyankee 6y ago
The politics is complicated. They do not call it a nuclear bomb only for Pakistan, but they call it one for the entire Islamic Ummah (it would be better for you to Google it). Primary target has always been India though, although the point is that constant state of disarray is what the army wants.
renewiltord 6y ago
Well, sure, you can believe that, but you can't make it happen. If you try to, they're more likely to molon labe you than anything else.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

>Here’s a wild idea: don’t try and fill the hole with money; if you can’t afford to safely move your nukes, you can’t afford your nukes, ergo you shouldn’t have nukes. Pakistan is playing in a geopolitical game that also involves the US, China, India and other nations much stronger than it. Large countries have a track record of being willing to throw small regional powers under the bus for their own gain. Pakistan, rightfully in my opinion sees having nukes as their only way to be dangerous enough that nobody will try to screw them out of their sovereignty. It's no surprise that they'd rather have nukes unsafely than not have them at all.

thenewwazoo 6y ago
Ukraine is an excellent example of this. They voluntarily relinquished their nuclear weapons, and now Russian troops have invaded the eastern part of the country.
- dragandj 6y ago
  I’m not so sure that nuclear weapons would help in these kinds of regional conflicts against Russia. It’s not that Russia officially invaded Ukraine (although in practice it did), but it stirred up local population (of largely Russian ethnicity) and then gave them logistical support and protection. So, if Ukraine had nuclear weapons, what would it do with it? Strike Russia, who has many more nuclear warheads, and stronger anti-nuclear protection? Nuclear weapons are for USA, China, Russia, and maybe France/Europe, because they are not going to use it. Maybe Israel, whic is so tiny and surrounded by rrivals, that it has no choice but to have something to scare the neighbors with. Maybe India, because it’s big enough. For everyone else, nuclear weapons are a liability, because if they ever use it, they are going to be wiped out by the big boys for not obeying...
  - seppin 6y ago
    Good points. It maybe would have deterred Russia from invading at all, but that's debatable.
    - dragandj 6y ago
      On the opposite note, Russia (USSR) was "invaded" (sort of, from the point of view of many Russians) by the "West" 30 years ago, and USSR was butchered out, despite USSR having thousands of warheads. Which were completely useless...
      - seppin 6y ago
        That's a funny way of saying the Soviet Union could no longer imprison have of Europe, and their subjects were set free.
        dragandj 6y ago
        I agree with your statement, but I am not sure official Russia shares that view.
  - iguy 6y ago
    I agree that Ukraine couldn't have usefully threatened Russia over Crimea. Likewise nukes are no use for minor conflict in Kashmir. But the game the Pakistanis imagine is different. Their concern (as I understand it) has always been that an existential war for them could be a small, regional, thing for India. Nuclear weapons are a way to change that. I believe the same fear explains a lot of their meddling in Afghanistan. Having some chaos on their border is one thing, but having a serious independent country which could one day choose to ally with India is regarded as a mortal risk.
  - baybal2 6y ago
    > Strike Russia, who has many more nuclear warheads, and stronger anti-nuclear protection? Yes, what's use of a superweapon if you can't make use of it? From my childhood experience, some times you need to commit without reservations to completely hopeless, no chance fights, as the only hope for a way out. Strong adversaries often don't expect the weak to even attempt to fight back.
catalogia 6y ago
Owning nuclear weapons may deter foreign threats, but it may also empower domestic threats if those nukes aren't controlled properly. If a general announces one day that he's the king because men loyal to him have control of the nukes [or even just one], what could the government of Pakistan do but surrender?

newyankee 6y ago

The politics is complicated. They do not call it a nuclear bomb only for Pakistan, but they call it one for the entire Islamic Ummah (it would be better for you to Google it). Primary target has always been India though, although the point is that constant state of disarray is what the army wants.

renewiltord 6y ago

Well, sure, you can believe that, but you can't make it happen. If you try to, they're more likely to molon labe you than anything else.