Pakistan - America's Greatest Threat

Question:

What Middle Eastern dictatorship is armed with nuclear weapons; has an intelligence agency filled with Islamists at the highest levels; most likely harbors Osama bin Laden in its borders; knowingly harbors A.Q. Khan, a nuclear scientist who proliferated nuke technology to North Korea (and God knows who else...); refuses to hand over said scientist to the United States - even for mere questioning - and, is yet cited as staunch ally of America in the War on Terror?

Answer:

PAKISTAN!!

One supposes that an American president could have presented the above facts and built a far more persuasive case for invading Pakistan rather than Iraq, at least insofar as the "iminent threat" factor is concerned (not to mention that the "War for Oil" conspiracy believed by a majority of the world's citizens would have also been taken out of the equation). But alas, there are some complicating factors at play.

The root of the problem lies in the fact that the quasi-secular dictator that rules Pakistan is an American puppet. Peres Musharraf walks a fine line every day between trying to please two opposing sides: Islamofascists who could run him out of power if he bends too much to the will of the American government, and America herself who could apply both financial and military pressure if he doesn't "crack down" enough on terrorists in his own backyard.

The nuclear component is of course a major factor in all this. Any talk of pressuring Musharraf into disarming is soon met with the realization such pressure would bring about a coup which would soon put Pakistan's nuclear arsenal into the hands of Islamists and/or their sympathizers. That would be objectively worse for America's security than Pakistan's status quo. Carry on, Peres! (Quick side question to anyone more knowledgeable about the situation: assuming that the Islamists would overthrow Musharraf if they could, why don't they just do it, already? In other words, what cards does Musharraf hold? He must hold some, right?)

My questions are as follows:

Can Objectivist principles be applied to offer any guidance as to how America should properly shape its policies towards Pakistan? If so, in what way? Or is America's only viable option to tolerate the contradictions and simply wish the problem disappears? The war hawks seems more concerned about non-nuclear states gaining nuclear capability - a viable concern indeed - but is this a tacit acknoweldement on the part of the U.S. that entrance to the nuclear club equals a free pass from Uncle Sam? If the latter, I will not sleep well, as it creates in me the feeling that America could do everthing the hawks have in mind (take out Iran, Syria, etc), and still have a mushroom cloud erupt on its soil. Agree? Disagree? Please discuss....

Post 1

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 11:11am

Can Objectivist principles be applied to offer any guidance as to how America should properly shape its policies towards Pakistan?

Not getting involved at all would be one way.

Nuclear weapons -- like all cheap weapons of mass destruction -- are targeted on cities. We have a huge continent -- huger still with Canada -- and we do not all have to crowd together into kill zones.

Govern-mentality resisted the logical consequences of telegaphs, telephones, airships, and television. Before the Great Depression, 90% of Americans lived on farms. Most of those farms were basically self-sufficient. After the New Deal and World War II, fewer than 10% of Americans lived on farms and "farms" today are corporate monocultures run by political monopolists. If we decentralize, then we defuse nuclear weapons. We can all still be in touch -- after all, here we are!

Aside from chasing Osama bin-Laden, the USA woos Pakistan as a counterbalance to India which faces off against China which produces consumer goods for us but which is abutted by Japan, which holds trillions of dollars of US debt. This is a world in which Metternich and Tallyrand would be wholly comfortable.

The government of the USA getting involved in this nonsense in the first place is what made the World Trade Center targets for suicide bombers. This all goes back to the (ahem) "fact" that God told Abraham to leave Ur. The skein is so tangled there is no place to start. Assuming that the government of the United States did place itself in the middle of an old, multi-sided conflict between other governments, why would that involve the innocent clerks and salespeople at the many diverse businesses who happened to be renting office space at the WTC? Well, the errors are legion in metaphyics, epistemology, and ethics. Where would you like to begin?

How to get out of it? Just quit.

(Long out of print, Basement Nukes: Social Consequences of Cheap Weapons of Mass Destruction by Erwin S. Strauss is a book you will be happy to find.)

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 8/09, 11:12am)

Post 2

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 6:25pm

Mr. Marotta,

Nuclear weapons could still wreak terrible havoc even if most people lived on farms. Your whole line of argument on that one seems a little flaky.

As for withdrawal from the region as a solution to our problems, I too am open to that idea. If we would have strategically disengaged from the region shortly after the Cold War, I guarantee you that we would not be in the mess we're in now. However, al Quaeda has been set in motion. American withdrawal from the region runs the risk of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan falling to Islamic hardiners, paving the way for a potentially united Islamic superstate armed with massive oil wealth and nuclear weapons. The question then becomes: would such a state go on an imperial quest to rule the world? Perhaps they'd try - but it's reasonable to assume that provided the entity was a bona fide nation state and not a shadowy terrorist group, the threat of mutually assured destruction would deter them from nuclear terrorism.

Post 3

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 7:59pm

Pete wrote: "... paving the way for a potentially united Islamic superstate armed with massive oil wealth and nuclear weapons. The question then becomes: would such a state go on an imperial quest to rule the world? "

So, you grant the efficacy of evil? Unlike Ayn Rand, you believe that large nations can master terrific resources when following powerful leaders. You deny the psycho-epistemology of horror and assert that religious fanatics can create and control advanced technology. Do you also agree, then, that creators are not necessary to maintaining a level of technological complexity, but that once created for them, second-raters can keep it going indefinitely? In other words, there is no "social cost" in having children memorize Marx and Lenin or the Quran or the Bible instead of learning the multiplication table or the periodic table of elements. This is a commonly accepted theory.

Post 4

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 8:32pm

I believe that a religious nation has the capability to succefully utilize any technology they can afford and gain access to. This seems like a no-brainer. For example, I can drive a car, but I would be totally incapably of building one all by myself. But because someone has done all the engineering legwork and manufacturing, I can sucessfully own and operate a vehicle. And although the Soviet Union was not a religious society, it was certainly "unfree" yet still made significant advances in science and technology.

Post 5

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 8:59pm

Where? - the only reason things held together there was that they had titanium...

Post 6

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 11:53pm

    Maybe they'll just...accidentally...blow themselves up?
    -Just kidding.
    But, maybe someone might help them have the 'accident?
    -Not kidding.

LLAP
J-D

Post 7

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 3:51am

Here is an article on the problems of Pakistan:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/01/wislam01.xml

I first posted it on another thread on Pakistan.

http://solohq.org/Forum/Quotes/0747.shtml

Post 8

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 1:56pm

Would it not be equally correct to say "America - Pakistan's Greatest Threat"?

What border transcending rights does the US hold to demand foreign govenments hand over non-american citizens to america, except the rights given by military superiority?

Despite the agreements in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty the United States has indicated that it may use nuclear weapons in response to an attack with non-nuclear weapons such as biological or chemical weapons, and the definition of these types of weapons seems to change according to needs. What makes the US arsenal of 9,150 nuclear weapons non-threatening compared to Pakistans estimated 40?

India, Pakistan and Israel have all declined to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, North Korea ratified the treaty, but revoked its signature. If they should choose to develop nuclear weapons, they are free to do so, if we dislike it we are free to impose diplomatic and/or economic sanctions, though honey may catch more flies.

It is estimated that India may have built up enough weapons-grade plutonium for a hundred nuclear warheads.
Pakistan is assumed to now have enough highly-enriched uranium for up to forty nuclear warheads.
Israel is also thought to possess an arsenal of potentially up to several hundred nuclear warheads and associated delivery systems.
The U.S. has some 9,150 nuclear weapons in its operational arsenal. This includes approximately 8,000 strategic warheads of nine different types (deployed on nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, ICBMs, and bombers), and 1,150 non-strategic warheads of five types. Another 1,100 strategic and non- strategic nuclear warheads are thought to be held in reserve.

I hate the idea of these countries developing nuclear weapons, just as i hate the idea of Russia, France, England, China and the US developing these weapons. If it will be proven that Pakistanian leadership was in on 9/11, then it's a declaration of war and they can be treated accordingly, but imposing military sanctions, attacking them, simply for doing what we do... would it be unfair to say: poor SODS (Sense of Death Subjectivists)?

Post 9

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 8:17pm

Soren asks:

What border transcending rights does the US hold to demand foreign govenments hand over non-american citizens to america, except the rights given by military superiority?

The right of self-defense.

Speaking of Pakistan, the following may in fact be a positive development:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/08/10/pakistan.deportees.ap/

Post 10

Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 1:38am

Pete,

Would that right to self-defense, also apply to Pakistan? would it be any different if they were to demand that the US hands over its leading nuclear scientists to Pakistan ?

Post 11

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 9:45am

Soren,

The United States was viciously attacked on 9-11 by an underground group of Islamic extremists. America had two basic options available to her after that:

1. to either withdraw from the Middle East entirely, or

2. to mount an aggressive counter-attack using military force

The U.S. has obviously chosen the latter approach. And since the Islamofascist enemy hides in the shadows and can disperse in an instant under pressure, a military strategy that consists of only trying to kill or capture individual terrorists is futile. Therfore, the American military plan has to incorporate aggressive policies towards nation states that could potentially assist and harbor terrorists. The decision by Islamic militants to use terrorism has forced America to confront Islamic governments.

As to the question of by what "right" does America have the right to make such demands on Pakistan, the answer to that question has to do with whether you think that Pakistan and the United States are moral equivalents. Does a military dictatorship with Islamist sympathizers holding high leve government positions have moral equivalence with a Western democracy? The answer is no. Therefore, the United States may in principle ignore sovereignty issues in pursuing her self-defense.

Post 12

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 12:11pm