# Muslim states with Nuclear Weapons encourage not deter American Imperialism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 9, 2009, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/muslim-states-with-nuclear-weapons-encourage-not-deter-american-imperialism/495861 "2009-05-09T16:56:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/muslim-states-with-nuclear-weapons-encourage-not-deter-american-imperialism/495861/41 "2009-05-10T03:35:50Z")
> [@Bruce\_Wayne](#): > > Just because you have a nuke you still need a missile to deliver it. AFAIK, Iran has no missile technology capable of reaching the continental U.S. Any nuclear attack would be on an invading U.S. force. Yeah, or put into a shipping container and detonated in New York harbour. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/muslim-states-with-nuclear-weapons-encourage-not-deter-american-imperialism/495861/42 "2009-05-10T03:52:47Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Yeah, or put into a shipping container and detonated in New York harbour. Yeah, but then you’d have to get your container ship past the Somali pirates. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/muslim-states-with-nuclear-weapons-encourage-not-deter-american-imperialism/495861/43 "2009-05-10T03:54:33Z")
Touché. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/muslim-states-with-nuclear-weapons-encourage-not-deter-american-imperialism/495861/44 "2009-05-10T03:57:58Z")
I’d say the OP is crossing two different issues together. Domestic stability is one and safety from invasion is another. Say what you will about the evils of Saddam’s regime, I don’t think anyone’s arguing that it was on the verge of collapse due to internal opposition - it was clearly stable (at least for as long as Saddam lived). The same thing can be said about North Korea, Libya, China, Cuba, and Iran - none of the regimes that run these countries seem to be on the verge of a popular revolution or factional civil war. And some of them have nukes and some do not - so possessing nuclear weapons seems to be a moot issue as far as domestic stability is concerned. So the issue seems to be whether possessing nuclear weapons makes a country safer from being invaded by another country. The empirical evidence seems to say yes - no country with nuclear weapons has ever been occupied by another country. The only nuclear owning regimes that were overthrown were the Soviet Union and South Africa and both were overthrown by internal opposition. (Which serves as additonal evidence to my observation above that nuclear weapons are a non-factor on domestic stability issues.) ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/muslim-states-with-nuclear-weapons-encourage-not-deter-american-imperialism/495861/45 "2009-05-10T05:14:08Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Troops does not equal logistics support. We are strapped to maintain what we have now. Even shifting to Afghanistan is not going to free up the support needed to go into Pakistan. This is similar to the ‘we are about to invade Iran’ assertions…simply put we don’t have the capacity, either logistically, economically or politically. It’s not just a matter of pushing the troops across the border to the north…not unless you want something like what happened to the Chinese during the Korean War. Well, we who live in New York hope that you are wrong and that the US Gov won’t simply abandon us to Al Qaeda suitcase nukes. I don’t think we would anyway. We still have industrial capacity that can be turned toward wartime use. I am not saying we will invade Pakistan, but under the right conditions we would, as Barack Obama has promised as well. > [@](#): > > Time will tell…but I doubt it. If the Taliban start to gain control and Pakistan looks to go tits up my guess is that Obama will negotiate with the Pakistani’s for additional support and aid, perhaps offer US air support. But if Pakistan goes down and the Taliban gain control the most I see is US (and other countries) air strikes on Pakistani nuclear sites…MAYBE something like a surgical special forces type operation. Invasion though? I doubt it, even if we could…which I don’t think we can. We have to invade, we need eyes-on confirmation of the nuclear material. I certainly hope for the third most populous city in the world’s sake that you are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/muslim-states-with-nuclear-weapons-encourage-not-deter-american-imperialism/495861/46 "2009-05-10T05:15:30Z")
> [@mutantmoose](#): > > Can’t see Pakistan falling to the Taliban. The Pakistani army are large, ruthless, very well equipped and secular. They just haven’t been unleashed on the Taliban until the last few days. Now that they have, it will all be over very quickly. That’s assuming that the Taliban doesn’t have sympathy amongst Islamist generals who run Tank battalions. Your western notion of ‘secularism’ might not be as powerful a draw over there as you think. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/muslim-states-with-nuclear-weapons-encourage-not-deter-american-imperialism/495861/47 "2009-05-10T05:21:53Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’d say the OP is crossing two different issues together. Domestic stability is one and safety from invasion is another. Say what you will about the evils of Saddam’s regime, I don’t think anyone’s arguing that it was on the verge of collapse due to internal opposition - it was clearly stable (at least for as long as Saddam lived). The same thing can be said about North Korea, Libya, China, Cuba, and Iran - none of the regimes that run these countries seem to be on the verge of a popular revolution or factional civil war. And some of them have nukes and some do not - so possessing nuclear weapons seems to be a moot issue as far as domestic stability is concerned. We shouldn’t have invaded Iraq because of this stability. > [@](#): > > So the issue seems to be whether possessing nuclear weapons makes a country safer from being invaded by another country. The empirical evidence seems to say yes - no country with nuclear weapons has ever been occupied by another country. The only nuclear owning regimes that were overthrown were the Soviet Union and South Africa and both were overthrown by internal opposition. (Which serves as additonal evidence to my observation above that nuclear weapons are a non-factor on domestic stability issues.) Well the problem with that assessment is that past events do not indicate future performance. No nuclear armed nation has ever been as unstable as Pakistan either. The Soviet Union collapsed for economic reasons, and people were quite freaked out about the loose nuclear material. Some of it is now stored in New Mexico. I don’t know the story with South Africa’s nuclear weapons. Pakistan is highly unstable one of the most unstable countries in the world. ---
**Author:** ![mutantmoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a87d85/32.png) [@mutantmoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mutantmoose)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/muslim-states-with-nuclear-weapons-encourage-not-deter-american-imperialism/495861/48 "2009-05-10T05:41:11Z")
> [@](#): > > That’s assuming that the Taliban doesn’t have sympathy amongst Islamist generals who run Tank battalions. Your western notion of ‘secularism’ might not be as powerful a draw over there as you think. They don’t have sympathy amongst the tank battalions. Pakistan is a major military power. The Pakistani army is a meat grinder (similar to US army). They just roll over opposition. They are massive. They could probably do Iran (a whole country) in about two weeks. The Taliban are a minority group in one valley. They are like a gnat fighting an elephant. In a few days they will all be dead. And I’m not talking about my “western notion of secularism”. I’m saying they are secular relative to general society - most armies are. They don’t worry so much about God just about following orders. They’d be more likely to stage a coup and impose their own law than take orders from the Taliban. Seriously, there is zero danger of the Taliban overpowering the Pakistani army. It’s a laughable suggestion. The main problem is from the other direction - how many innocent civilians in Swat will get killed by the Pakistani army rollercoaster. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/muslim-states-with-nuclear-weapons-encourage-not-deter-american-imperialism/495861/49 "2009-05-10T06:48:06Z")
> [@](#): > > Well the problem with that assessment is that past events do not indicate future performance. No nuclear armed nation has ever been as unstable as Pakistan either. The Soviet Union collapsed for economic reasons, and people were quite freaked out about the loose nuclear material. Some of it is now stored in New Mexico. I don’t know the story with South Africa’s nuclear weapons. Pakistan is highly unstable one of the most unstable countries in the world. I would dispute that Pakistan is the worst-case scenario. The Soviet Union is simply gone. The government completely collapsed and the country broke up into pieces. That’s about as unstable as you can get. And the Soviet nuclear arsenal was a **lot** more dangerous than Pakistan’s. So I’d say that we’ve already survived a much more serious collapse of a nuclear power than any collapse that is possible in Pakistan. A possible Pakistani collapse would be a very serious issue but not an unprecedented one. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/muslim-states-with-nuclear-weapons-encourage-not-deter-american-imperialism/495861/50 "2009-05-10T07:36:41Z")
> [@mutantmoose](#): > > They don’t have sympathy amongst the tank battalions. Pakistan is a major military power. What do you base this opinion on? > [@](#): > > The Pakistani army is a meat grinder (similar to US army). They just roll over opposition. They are massive. They could probably do Iran (a whole country) in about two weeks. The Taliban are a minority group in one valley. They are like a gnat fighting an elephant. In a few days they will all be dead. Then why are the Taliban winning? > [@](#): > > And I’m not talking about my “western notion of secularism”. I’m saying they are secular relative to general society - most armies are. They don’t worry so much about God just about following orders. They’d be more likely to stage a coup and impose their own law than take orders from the Taliban. So you say, but this is simply an assertion on your part. Back it up with some support. Why do you believe that the military is as secular as you say? > [@](#): > > Seriously, there is zero danger of the Taliban overpowering the Pakistani army. It’s a laughable suggestion. The main problem is from the other direction - how many innocent civilians in Swat will get killed by the Pakistani army rollercoaster. And yet the Taliban IS making inroads. ---
**Author:** ![mutantmoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a87d85/32.png) [@mutantmoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mutantmoose)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/muslim-states-with-nuclear-weapons-encourage-not-deter-american-imperialism/495861/51 "2009-05-10T14:19:03Z")
What inroads? The Taliban have only just come up against the army. They only took Swat and started to expand because the army weren’t trying to stop them. That’s all changed now. The army briefly lifted the curfew yesterday to allow people to escape but they’ve put the curfew back in place now. That means that in the next few days they are going to intensify the military action. Let’s see where we are in a few days. > **[BBC NEWS | South Asia | Flight from Swat as curfew lifted](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8042281.stm)** > > A curfew is briefly lifted in Pakistan's Swat district, allowing trapped residents to flee fighting between troops and militants. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/muslim-states-with-nuclear-weapons-encourage-not-deter-american-imperialism/495861/52 "2009-05-11T19:03:31Z")
[This](http://www.creators.com/opinion/steve-chapman/the-other-dangers-in-pakistan.html) may be relevent to this thead: > [@Steve Chapman](#): > > The danger of nukes falling into the wrong hands, fortunately, is also less than commonly assumed. The bombs are kept disassembled, with the components stored in separate places to prevent unauthorized use. If the parts could be put together, you will be relieved to know, they probably still would not be usable. > > Stephen Younger, former head of nuclear weapons research and development at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, notes in his recent book, “The Bomb: A New History,” that because of technical safeguards (which Pakistan says it has installed), even weapons designers and technicians can’t set off a device on their own. “Only a few people in the world have the knowledge to cause an unauthorized detonation of a nuclear weapon,” he says. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/muslim-states-with-nuclear-weapons-encourage-not-deter-american-imperialism/495861/53 "2009-05-11T20:14:26Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > [This](http://www.creators.com/opinion/steve-chapman/the-other-dangers-in-pakistan.html) may be relevent to this thead: That’s reassuring at least. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/muslim-states-with-nuclear-weapons-encourage-not-deter-american-imperialism/495861.md?page=2)