U.S. Prepares To Limit Relationship With Pakistan

[BSB]

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/27/144306975/u-s-pakistan-relations-deteriorate-further

[BSB]

I had to cut that down to just the URL before it would post it.

Anyway, important story. I don't think we ever had a chance. The Pakistan/Afghanistan relationship is too complicated.

BSB

[BT]

U.S. officials may be giving up on their goal of strong relations with Pakistan. That's the suggestion, anyway, in the details of a report by The New York Times. The report describes the U.S. preparing for a much more limited relationship after U.S. forces in Afghanistan killed Pakistani troops across the border. Eric Schmitt, who authored the report, talks to Steve Inskeep about deteriorating relations between the U.S. and Pakistan.

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/27/144306975/u-s-pakistan-relations-deteriorate-further

test

[BSB]

thank you

[Christians4LessGvt]

Good....the hell with "Pock-Eeeee-Ston" as Obammy pronounces it
India will probably end up nuking Pakistan
I know I know Pock-Eeee-Stonn has nukes too.
But India will win that war.

[Plane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Saudi_Arabia#Saudi_Arabia-Pakistan_nuclear_deal

......However, over the years there have been media reports of Saudi Arabia's intent to purchase a nuclear weapon from an outside source. In 2003, a leaked strategy paper laid out three possible options for the Saudi government: to acquire a nuclear deterrent, to ally with and become protected by an existing nuclear nation, or to try to reach agreement on having a nuclear-free Middle East. UN officials and weapon specialists have suggested this review was prompted by a distancing of relations with the US, concerns over Iran's nuclear program, and the lack of international pressure on Israel to give up its nuclear weapons.......................
..............It is widely believed that Saudi Arabia has been a sole financier of Pakistan's own integrated atomic bomb project since 1974, a programme founded by former prime minister Zulfi Bhutto. In 1980s, President General Zia-ul-Haq paid a state visit to Saudi Arabia where he unofficially told the King that: "Our achievements are yours". In 1998, the conservative Prime minister Nawaz Sharif took Saudi Arabia in confidence before ordering the nuclear tests (see the codenames Chagai-I and Chagai-II) in Weapon-testing labs-III (WTL) in Chagai remote site in Balochistan Province of Pakistan. In June 1998, the Prime minister paid a farewell visit to King Fahd and publicly thanked Saudi government for supporting the country after conducting the tests. Soon, the Saudi Minister of Defense Prince Sultan traveled with the Prime minister Sharif where he toured a classified institute, the Kahuta Research Laboratories (KRL) where the leading scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan briefed the Prince and the Prime minister Sharif also, on nuclear physics and the sensitive issues involving the weapon-grade explosives.

In 2003 it was reported that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia had entered a secret agreement on "nuclear cooperation" providing Saudi Arabia with nuclear weapons technology in return for access to cheap oil for Pakistan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Saudi_Arabia#Saudi_Arabia-Pakistan_nuclear_deal


http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/columns/g-parthasarathy/article2735546.ece?homepage=true

....................................nuclear programme.

Pakistan's role
While explaining the rationale for Pakistan's nuclear programme, its then Prime Minister, Z. A. Bhutto, noted that while the “Christian, Jewish and Hindu” civilisations had nuclear weapons capability, it was the “Islamic Civilisation” alone that did not possess them. Mr Bhutto's views on Pakistan's nuclear weapons contributing to the capabilities of the “Islamic civilisation” were shared by Pakistan's nuclear scientist, Sultan Bashiruddin Mehmood. It is precisely such ideological leanings that prompted the commencement of Pakistani assistance to Iran's enrichment programme over two decades ago. Iraq and Libya sought similar Pakistani assistance. The nuclear ambitions of both these Arab States were thwarted by western pressures and invasions. The Iranians are, however, made of a different mettle.

Given the growing Shia-Sunni rivalries in the oil-rich Gulf region, how will Saudi Arabia respond in the event of Iran going nuclear? Saudi Arabia lacks the manpower and technological skills of Iran. The only Islamic country that can provide the Saudis with a nuclear deterrent is Pakistan, whose nuclear arsenal is exceeding what it needs for its own security. Pakistan could, therefore, deploy nuclear weapons and missiles on Saudi soil by asserting that such deployment was akin to the deployment of American nuclear weapons and missiles on the soil of its NATO allies. It did not, therefore, constitute a violation of the NPT. The only alternative for the Saudis would be an American nuclear umbrella, whose reliability would be questionable, especially given the growing American unpopularity in the Islamic world.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Indians and the Pakis are too smart to get involved in a nuclear war.

Have you seen the youtubes showing the opening and closing of the only border between Pakistan and India? It is a riot to watch!

They only pick their tallest soldiers, giants among the pygmies and the most outrageous of Hindi and Paki uniforms. There is a lot of belligerent goose stepping. It would be impossible to do a  parody of this.

[Plane]

I have seen that , and I agree it is spectacular.

The Packistanis and the Indians have a lot in common.

  They hold a lot of War records between them, like the worlds longest running battle at high altitude.

I disagree about them being too smart to be trapped in useless and destructive atomic war, it has not been a lack of brain power that caused the mayhem any of the many times that they have fought already.



          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_warfare

The most dangerous and volatile of all mountain conflicts involves the ongoing one between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir region. Since the partition in 1947, both countries have been constantly locked in skirmishes and wars mainly in this Himalayan region with the highest mountains in the world. The first hostilities between the two nations in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 showed that both were ill-equipped to fight in biting cold, let alone at the highest altitudes in the world.

...........................................

Later wars between India and Pakistan were mainly fought on the valleys rather than in the mountains, although several major mountain battles took place in all these conflicts. This changed in the Kargil War when Indian forces were faced with the huge task of flushing out intruders and disguised Pakistani soldiers who had captured high mountain posts. This proxy warfare became the only modern war that was fought exclusively on mountains. As a result of its experiences in mountain warfare in Kargil, the Indian Army now conducts courses on specialized artillery use in the mountains, where ballistic projectiles have different characteristics.

Hey perhaps we can be good for them by being the great Satan?
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/12/27/2563173/india-pakistan-renew-talks-to.html

ISLAMABAD -- South Asia's nuclear neighbors, India and Pakistan, tentatively agreed Tuesday to renew an agreement that aims to reduce the risk of an accidental nuclear war.
After two days of confidence-building talks in the Pakistani capital - the first such talks in four years - diplomats from both nations said they would recommend that their governments extend a pact that requires the countries to give prior notice of impending strategic weapon activity, such as ballistic missile tests, according to a statement by Pakistan's Foreign Affairs Ministry.
While there was no major agreement, the talks signaled an effort by the two neighbors and rivals to rebuild relations after a November 2008 attack by Pakistani terrorists on India's commercial capital of Mumbai. India had suspended peace talks with Pakistan after the three-day assault by the Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist group, which left 164 people dead.
Talks resumed after the prime ministers of the two nations - which have fought each other in three wars - held several exploratory meetings on the sidelines of international events.
In fact, the usually tense India-Pakistan rivalry appears to have warmed slightly in recent months, with an agreement in November to lift most restrictions on bilateral trade and Pakistani entertainers making inroads into India's huge film industry.
That has coincided with the emergence of a new main threat in the eyes of the Pakistani public: the United States, whose forces killed 25 Pakistani soldiers in a "friendly fire" incident in November along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan. Pakistanis are furious that the U.S. hasn't apologized for the incident, which a Pentagon investigation blamed last week on poor coordination between U.S. and Pakistani forces but concluded was initiated by Pakistani border troops.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/12/27/2563173/india-pakistan-renew-talks-to.html#storylink=cpy

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is India's Bollywood films that are the Islamic fundamentalists' greatest threat,  I have heard.

Indians and Pakistanis can understand each other. Urdu and Hindustani are mutually intelligible in spoken form.

[Plane]

Indians and Pakistanis can understand each other. Urdu and Hindustani are mutually intelligible in spoken form.

   I did not know that.
   But I did know that there is a lot of "in common" there.

     That can just make it worse , the war of 1864 was as brutal and wastefull as any we have ever fought. We understood each other well enough to know what hurts.

[kimba1]

The Indians and the Pakis are too smart to get involved in a nuclear war.

not really sure advertising you got nukes as a defense is a sign of intelligence. remember thier only as smart as the dude in charge of the weapons.

sadly the will of the people got nothing to do with nukes in the world

[Xavier_Onassis]

The main purpose of having nukes has always been that all potential enemies know you have them. I doubt that North Korea would still be independent if it did not have nukes.

[Plane]

The main purpose of having nukes has always been that all potential enemies know you have them. I doubt that North Korea would still be independent if it did not have nukes.

  Perhaps North Koreans do think this , but it lacks logic.

    If an enemy were truely fearfull of North Korean Atomic power , it would behove this enemy to attack in great force before the atomic power is practically useable.

     Imagine you and I are face to face in deadly fear of each other, I ask you to wait a moment while I load this here shotgun.

     I don't deny that North Koreans might genuinely think this way, but I can easily believe stupid stuff about North Korea.

[Xavier_Onassis]

North Korea has not been attacked since it got the bomb because it has a bomb. They clearly know just how far they can go without being attacked. They can sink a boat and shell a disputed island.

There is a lot of espionage from the South against the North, but we donlt hear about it, because it is secret. Trains blow up, planes crash, that sort of thing. These are described by the North as "accidents" and occasionally espionage, and the South simply does not comment.

The US did not attack North Korea before it got the bomb be3cause of the fact that Seoul is so close to the border, and could have been seriously damaged with just conventional weapons. Despite the fact that there is officially a state of war between the Koreas and between the US and the DPRK, the US does not seem to  consider that there is a state of war existing between the parties.

Nuclear weapons have served as deterrents for 65 years. They have not been used as weapons.

[Plane]

  North Korea was spending more than it needed to on "deterrance " before they started on the Atomic wepons program.

    North Korea still hasn't got a practical atomic attack capability, if they are deveoping one , this is a good motive for attack, ask Saddam about that.

     North Korea attacked South Korea when by American design South Korea was underarmed and innofensive.

    North Korea might constantly complain about agression, but they have never seen any.