# Which is the best way to disarm Pakistan **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 2, 2011, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-best-way-to-disarm-pakistan/604893 "2011-12-02T22:56:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2011, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-best-way-to-disarm-pakistan/604893/41 "2011-12-03T18:44:50Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > [Actually](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babur_(cruise_missile)) [yes they could](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%27ad) You know, typically when people put up wikipedia cites, they do it because it’s strengthening their case, not weakening it. Both missiles in your cites are meant to attack fixed land based installations. > [@](#): > > There are hundreds of thousands of US troops in the immdiet region. Carrier Groups in the Arabian Sea. Thousands on Diego Garcia. All target able. And that not counting Submarine Bourne Cruise Missiles which the Pakistan Navy has and whose range is essentially limited only by platform endurance. > > Any attempt to take it out is not going to be conventional. Its going to be nuclear. You are going to have Trident and MM-III strikes on strategic sites. You are going to have B-2 hunting for mobile launchers (which incidentally was one of the design requirements). Although the USAF destroyed precisely nil launchers in its 2 Gulf Adventures, so this is as much a game of guessing as hitting. Are you frikkin kidding me? You think the Pakistani navy could actually do anything against the U.S navy? Anything at all? Look. Lets leave questions of military capability aside for a second. Think of it this way. The U.S threatens all out war, or nuclear disarmament, leaving conventional capabilities intact. You really think Pakistan would go for the war? Knowing that you have no hope of doing the US anything other than minimal damage, except if you use nuclear weapons, in which case it’s slightly more than minimal damage AND Pakistan gets wiped off the map. > [@](#): > > So Indias nuclear weapons are pointed where. Turkey? Australia? Northern Ireland? They’re not pointed anywhere at all. India’s a responsible nuclear nation. It has a self imposed no-first use policy, a spotless proliferation record and now recognition of this as international nuclear agreements start including it. India’s gotten what it wanted out of its nuclear weapons(although probably not because of the nuclear weapons mind you), a recognition as a legitimate world power in the future if not today. I think all Pakistan’s gotten out of their nukes is recognition as a legitimate world headache for the foreseeable future. I repeat. There really is no threat to Pakistan’s existence bigger than it’s own deluded psychopaths. Look up the thread I started on Pakistan’s history and how it’s been distorted by your propaganda machine. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2011, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-best-way-to-disarm-pakistan/604893/42 "2011-12-03T18:55:25Z")
> [@Erdosain](#): > > Not without nukes. And that would kind of ruin our moral high ground. “You can’t be trusted not to use nukes. Therefore, we will use nukes. Oh, shit…” My view is their military capability could be finished off without resorting to nukes. Tanks, planes, ships all of that. And I think since their ‘security’ paradigm is basically built around their military having more money and toys to play with (although I suppose this is true in most places, except that the military doesn’t run most places), they would surrender the nukes before letting that happen. It’s a game of chicken in which you’re driving the dump truck. The other guy’ll fold. ---
**Author:** ![Erdosain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/erdosain/32/7284_2.png) [@Erdosain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Erdosain)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2011, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-best-way-to-disarm-pakistan/604893/43 "2011-12-03T18:55:27Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > Think of it this way. The U.S threatens all out war, or nuclear disarmament, leaving conventional capabilities intact. You really think Pakistan would go for the war? The U.S. doesn’t have the stomach to go to war again over WMDs when the last one was such an unmitigated disaster. The only way this would ever, EVER, happen is if the Pakistanis let a terrorist network get a nuke and they successfully detonate it on U.S. soil. Period. If a Pakistani nuke goes off in America, then yes, Americans will accept the huge number of casualties to ensure it doesn’t happen again. Otherwise, no. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2011, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-best-way-to-disarm-pakistan/604893/44 "2011-12-03T19:42:10Z")
> [@Erdosain](#): > > The U.S. doesn’t have the stomach to go to war again over WMDs when the last one was such an unmitigated disaster. The only way this would ever, EVER, happen is if the Pakistanis let a terrorist network get a nuke and they successfully detonate it on U.S. soil. Period. > > If a Pakistani nuke goes off in America, then yes, Americans will accept the huge number of casualties to ensure it doesn’t happen again. Otherwise, no. I agree with this, but then this thread is about a hypothetical ‘best’ way of disarming Pakistan’s nukes. I was addressing that. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2011, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-best-way-to-disarm-pakistan/604893/45 "2011-12-03T20:06:39Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > My view is their military capability could be finished off without resorting to nukes. Tanks, planes, ships all of that. And I think since their ‘security’ paradigm is basically built around their military having more money and toys to play with (although I suppose this is true in most places, except that the military doesn’t run most places), they would surrender the nukes before letting that happen. It’s a game of chicken in which you’re driving the dump truck. The other guy’ll fold. I think it much more likely that they’d either flatly refuse to believe we’d do it, or go berserk; probably anticipating something like a US led or backed invasion in the future. We do have forces and allies in their range; they might respond by using nukes on those. Or they might decide that we wouldn’t be making such demands unless we intended to conquer them and that they might as well go out in a blaze of glory, then launch everything they have at India and at whatever we have in range. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2011, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-best-way-to-disarm-pakistan/604893/46 "2011-12-03T20:34:08Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > I think it much more likely that they’d either flatly refuse to believe we’d do it, or go berserk; probably anticipating something like a US led or backed invasion in the future. We do have forces and allies in their range; they might respond by using nukes on those. Or they might decide that we wouldn’t be making such demands unless we intended to conquer them and that they might as well go out in a blaze of glory, then launch everything they have at India and at whatever we have in range. Again I don’t think they’re crazy. Their military and civilian leadership probably knows to trust in what the US says, even though they pretend otherwise to the rabidly fundamentalist populace they’ve created. (Note that there STILL isn’t a no-fly zone over Pakistan for American and Nato planes) Americans are relatively more transparent in their dealings with the world than practically any other nation. If they give the option to Pakistan of committing to say a nuclear disarmament led by IAEA and backed by US intel, which would stop once Pakistan doesn’t have the capability to make or transfer nukes, with the other option being war, Pakistan would believe it’ll stop there. Does the US have the stomach to do it? Probably not. Would it work? My opinion is it would. Especially if you sweeten option 1. Preferential trade agreements, non-agression treaties with India on board, stuff like that. ETA: Of course this would work best if it can be kept quiet. Which is a stretch, I agree. ---
**Author:** ![Namkcalb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c89c15/32.png) [@Namkcalb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Namkcalb)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2011, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-best-way-to-disarm-pakistan/604893/47 "2011-12-03T20:59:12Z")
> [@Erdosain](#): > > There is no way to involuntarily nuclear disarm a country with a sizable number of nukes. There’s just not. It would have to be voluntary, and with nuclear-armed India sitting right there, it’s not going to happen. Maybe Pakistan would trade their arsenal for Kashmir and a Chinese nuclear umbrella. Probably not. It’s a point of national pride. China wouldn’t risk its growing prosperity for Pakistan, right now, they are at best a convenient counterweight to China’s rival India > [@IMfez](#): > > What about economic sanctions? I thought that’s how the powerful nations tend to exert pressure nowadays When one of poorest nations in the world saw it as a priority to spend many billions acquiring nuclear weapons, it would seem sanctions wouldn’t factor in the Pakistani government’s decision > [@AK84](#): > > I have several times begun a reply to your various assertion/harebrained ideas, but decided that it’s not really worth the headache since well you are obviously getting your information from comic books and are thus an expert, False flag ops and marriages of convienience do exist outside of comic books you know. Also, when someone calls their very own plan outlandish, it lends little to the debate for you to call it hairbrained. > [@](#): > > but I will tell you this, there have been since the late 1980s many agreements with India on nuclear issues including hotlines between political leaders, military commanders, an exchange of lists of nuclear sites, notifications of tests, as well as agreement that neither country will ordinarily mate warheads with launchers or keep nuclear capable aircraft on near border airbases. Could any of these lead to full disarment? They are certainly a step in the right direction. > [@AK84](#): > > > [@Lemur866](#): > > > > I know Pakistan is supposed to have somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 warheads, but how many of those are actually weaponized such that they could be delivered to a regional target within a week or so? > > As part of various CBMs with India, neither side actually keeps it’s warheads and launcher mated during normal peacetime operations. From report given to parliament after the 2002 standoff, the Strategic Forces Command can move to full alert within hours. I don’t see how this makes any difference in practice, both sides already have enough warheads for second-strike capacity, I can’t see how a small delay would make a difference. > [@Erdosain](#): > > No offense, but you don’t understand modern warfare. You can’t conquer a country of 180 million by bombing them. You can’t destroy a military of that size with aerial bombardment. You can’t fly that many missions without having assets in nuke range. I don’t know what else to say. You might as well fly to the moon in a hot air balloon. > [@bldysabba](#): > > Nobody wants to conquer or hold Pakistani territory. The idea is only to threaten or cause enough damage to their conventional assets that they surrender their nuclear ones. > [@Erdosain](#): > > Okay. But it’s still not even remotely possible. Where do you imagine these planes taking off from? The U.S. has some long-range bombers, but nothing like enough to take on a conflict of this magnitude. This isn’t a realistic option. It would be suicide to strike Pakistan from airbases within range of their rockets. A nuclear response against belicose units actively attacking Pakistan would be more internationally acceptable. You are right, America only has a limited number of long range bombers, so they wouldn’t be able to keep much pressure on Pakistan, in fact, they may actually strengthen the regime, by proving their fantasies true. > [@AK84](#): > > They would try to save conventional assets by surrendering nuclear ones? Tell me what the hell are you smoking and do you have any left? > > An attack on the strategic assets of a nuclear power by whatever means is going to invite massive retaliation, and is going to be construed as a threat to the very existence of said power. Degredation of conventional assets is no biggie compared to a loss of strategic assets. This/\ > [@AK84](#): > > So Indias nuclear weapons are pointed where. Turkey? Australia? Northern Ireland? I thought you said they were disassembled… > [@AK84](#): > > Any attempt to take it out is not going to be conventional. Its going to be nuclear. You are going to have Trident and MM-III strikes on strategic sites. You are going to have B-2 hunting for mobile launchers (which incidentally was one of the design requirements). Although the USAF destroyed precisely nil launchers in its 2 Gulf Adventures, so this is as much a game of guessing as hitting. You are right, airpower is grossly insufficient against a competant military. We’ve all seen how Serbia went down. > [@bldysabba](#): > > Are you frikkin kidding me? You think the Pakistani navy could actually do anything against the U.S navy? Anything at all? Look. Lets leave questions of military capability aside for a second. Think of it this way. The U.S threatens all out war, or nuclear disarmament, leaving conventional capabilities intact. You really think Pakistan would go for the war? Knowing that you have no hope of doing the US anything other than minimal damage, except if you use nuclear weapons, in which case it’s slightly more than minimal damage AND Pakistan gets wiped off the map. They’ll be responding to a military attack by a foreign aggressor, at most, a Pakistani strike on Diego Garcia would only justify the Americans using nuclear assets against Pakistani forces. > [@bldysabba](#): > > They’re not pointed anywhere at all. India’s a responsible nuclear nation. It has a self imposed no-first use policy, a spotless proliferation record and now recognition of this as international nuclear agreements start including it. India’s gotten what it wanted out of its nuclear weapons(although probably not because of the nuclear weapons mind you), a recognition as a legitimate world power in the future if not today. I think all Pakistan’s gotten out of their nukes is recognition as a legitimate world headache for the foreseeable future. I repeat. There really is no threat to Pakistan’s existence bigger than it’s own deluded psychopaths. Look up the thread I started on Pakistan’s history and how it’s been distorted by your propaganda machine. /\ This > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > I think it much more likely that they’d either flatly refuse to believe we’d do it, or go berserk; probably anticipating something like a US led or backed invasion in the future. We do have forces and allies in their range; they might respond by using nukes on those. Or they might decide that we wouldn’t be making such demands unless we intended to conquer them and that they might as well go out in a blaze of glory, then launch everything they have at India and at whatever we have in range. It’s even more volatile than that, it just takes one general to decide to launch nuclear weapons, there are no central-control safeguards. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2011, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-best-way-to-disarm-pakistan/604893/48 "2011-12-03T21:30:54Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > Again I don’t think they’re crazy. Doesn’t matter, you are talking about threatening their national survival and the personal survival of the leadership. If the USSR had demanded that we give up our nukes on pain of them nuking us, do you think we would have complied? Do you think we would have acted calmly and rationally? The Pakistani leadership may not be crazy, but they aren’t Vulcans either; they aren’t going to react well under that kind of threat. Nor would it be “crazy” of them to presume that such a demand is the prelude to an invasion. > [@bldysabba](#): > > Their military and civilian leadership probably knows to trust in what the US says, even though they pretend otherwise to the rabidly fundamentalist populace they’ve created. Uh, _why_? America is highly untrustworthy. > [@bldysabba](#): > > If they give the option to Pakistan of committing to say a nuclear disarmament led by IAEA and backed by US intel, which would stop once Pakistan doesn’t have the capability to make or transfer nukes, with the other option being war, Pakistan would believe it’ll stop there. No they won’t; they’ll make the much more reasonable assumption that we intend to follow it up with an invasion, by us or someone backed by us. Probably culminating in the execution of the leadership, as happened in Iraq. At best they could disarmament to be followed up by something like large scale conventional bombing, or the American backing of internal [del]terrorists[/del] “freedom fighters” against the regime. You are making the common error that just because America regards itself as the good guys that the rest of the world is going to agree with us that we are the good guys. We aren’t, and they won’t. > [@bldysabba](#): > > Does the US have the stomach to do it? Probably not. Would it work? My opinion is it would. Especially if you sweeten option 1. Preferential trade agreements, non-agression treaties with India on board, stuff like that. Why would they believe we’d keep our word about any of that? > [@Namkcalb](#): > > It’s even more volatile than that, it just takes one general to decide to launch nuclear weapons, there are no central-control safeguards. In that case, it’s virtually guaranteed that at least one would launch something at someone in this scenario. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2011, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-best-way-to-disarm-pakistan/604893/49 "2011-12-03T22:39:45Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Doesn’t matter, you are talking about threatening their national survival and the personal survival of the leadership. If the USSR had demanded that we give up our nukes on pain of them nuking us, do you think we would have complied? Do you think we would have acted calmly and rationally? The Pakistani leadership may not be crazy, but they aren’t Vulcans either; they aren’t going to react well under that kind of threat. Nor would it be “crazy” of them to presume that such a demand is the prelude to an invasion. > > Uh, _why_? America is highly untrustworthy. > > No they won’t; they’ll make the much more reasonable assumption that we intend to follow it up with an invasion, by us or someone backed by us. Probably culminating in the execution of the leadership, as happened in Iraq. At best they could disarmament to be followed up by something like large scale conventional bombing, or the American backing of internal [del]terrorists[/del] “freedom fighters” against the regime. > > You are making the common error that just because America regards itself as the good guys that the rest of the world is going to agree with us that we are the good guys. We aren’t, and they won’t. > > Why would they believe we’d keep our word about any of that? > In that case, it’s virtually guaranteed that at least one would launch something at someone in this scenario. There’s so much in your post that I’m just going to take it at one go, if you don’t mind. The USSR and USA are not a good analogy here. They were comparable nation states with contrasting _fundamental ideologies_, each painting the other as the enemy. The only thing that the US wants Pakistan to do is give up support for terrorism (and, for the purposes of this OP, nuclear weapons). Nobody’s threatening their national survival. Only removing the one component of their armoury that threatens others. As for Iraq, that’s probably the best example of how the US isn’t threatening their national survival. The US fought that war, and is now, 6-7 years later, getting out. Which is a very short period of time as these things go. I’m not making the error of assuming that the US is a good guy at all. I’m not from the USA, and was brought up in an atmosphere that had a fairly strong anti-US slant, because of their support for Pakistan. I can still recognise that, relatively speaking, the US is more transparent in their dealings with the world, and operates with better values at its core than most other nation-states. The world probably would be in much worse condition if a country other than the US was the sole superpower. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2011, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-best-way-to-disarm-pakistan/604893/50 "2011-12-04T00:46:29Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > The only thing that the US wants Pakistan to do is give up support for terrorism (and, for the purposes of this OP, nuclear weapons). Nobody’s threatening their national survival. Only removing the one component of their armoury that threatens others. It is highly unlikely that they’d believe that we wanted them to get rid of their weapons for any other reason than to make them vulnerable to attack. > [@bldysabba](#): > > As for Iraq, that’s probably the best example of how the US isn’t threatening their national survival. The US fought that war, and is now, 6-7 years later, getting out. Which is a very short period of time as these things go. Saddam is dead, the old government destroyed, Iraq is so unstable it barely exists and may well fall apart, and it is a devastated ruin. Iraq is a good argument for fighting to the last against America, and definitely for acquiring nuclear weapons and pointing them at us. It is also an example of how untrustworthy and aggressive we are. If Iraq had had nukes it would be a far better off place today. > [@bldysabba](#): > > I can still recognise that, relatively speaking, the US is more transparent in their dealings with the world, and operates with better values at its core than most other nation-states. It isn’t “transparent” or honest at all, and has a foreign policy basically indistinguishable from that of the USSR. Its “core values” are “We are the Americans, chosen by God as masters and owners of the Earth. Americans are the only true humans; you are our cattle, you own nothing, you have no rights, you exist for us to use. Or you are vermin, and deserve torture and death.” That’s what America stands for. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2011, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-best-way-to-disarm-pakistan/604893/51 "2011-12-04T02:07:46Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > It is highly unlikely that they’d believe that we wanted them to get rid of their weapons for any other reason than to make them vulnerable to attack. > > Saddam is dead, the old government destroyed, Iraq is so unstable it barely exists and may well fall apart, and it is a devastated ruin. Iraq is a good argument for fighting to the last against America, and definitely for acquiring nuclear weapons and pointing them at us. It is also an example of how untrustworthy and aggressive we are. If Iraq had had nukes it would be a far better off place today. > > It isn’t “transparent” or honest at all, and has a foreign policy basically indistinguishable from that of the USSR. Its “core values” are “We are the Americans, chosen by God as masters and owners of the Earth. Americans are the only true humans; you are our cattle, you own nothing, you have no rights, you exist for us to use. Or you are vermin, and deserve torture and death.” That’s what America stands for. Heh. Sure, ok. Whatever you say. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2011, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-best-way-to-disarm-pakistan/604893/52 "2011-12-04T05:20:37Z")
I say we just wait for whatever small nation decides it wants to use a nuke to use it, and then turn it into a piece of molten slag, or if it’s an ally, turn a blind eye while China or Russia turns it into molten slag. Then it will be “lesson learned” for the small nations of the Earth. I really don’t think any nation will take any such risk however rabid its leadership, leaders are always very careful of their own lives and their families’ lives even if they’re willing to sacrifice their countrymen wholesale. ---
**Author:** ![BeaMyra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/2bfe46/32.png) [@BeaMyra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeaMyra)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2011, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-best-way-to-disarm-pakistan/604893/53 "2011-12-04T11:49:53Z")
One thing you have to consider if you are directing action toward a Mulslim nation, you are in effect, directing it against all Muslims. At least that is the way it will seem to most Muslims. There are great divisions in Islam and even Pakistan’s nuke while it’s the “Islamic bomb,” is not the same as an “Arab Bomb” or a “Shi’ite Bomb” or some other label. Point being that if you say Pakistan has to give up nukes, the Muslim response will be, “Why pick on us?” Disarm everyone or forget it. South Africa was a different kettle of fish. Basically the white government, knew they couldn’t keep power and they couldn’t use the nukes, but they had no intention of giving it to anyone else. They disarmed themselves not through force or coercion ---
**Author:** ![Capitaine\_Zombie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@Capitaine\_Zombie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capitaine_Zombie)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2011, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-best-way-to-disarm-pakistan/604893/54 "2011-12-04T12:13:42Z")
> [@BeaMyra](#): > > South Africa was a different kettle of fish. Basically the white government, knew they couldn’t keep power and they couldn’t use the nukes, but they had no intention of giving it to anyone else. > > They disarmed themselves not through force or coercion If SA had the science, the materials and the people to do it. Why did they not resume their nuclear program after the end of Apartheid ? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2011, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-best-way-to-disarm-pakistan/604893/55 "2011-12-04T15:54:10Z")
The South African nuclear program was a creation of the white minority regime. They dismantled the nuclear program rather than hand it over intact to the ANC. As for why the current South African government doesn’t have a nuclear weapons program, why would they want one? At least with India and Pakistan each can point to the other as a deadly threat. South Africa under majority rule doesn’t have any deadly enemies. Note that Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus also gave up the Soviet era nuclear weapons that were based there and handed them over to Russia. There are dozens and dozens of countries that have the infrastructure to build nuclear weapons if they wanted to. Yes, it’s not so easy you can build one in a basement. But any first world country could do so without difficulty if they didn’t mind the expense and the reaction of their neighbors. So it seems to me that Pakistan isn’t going to give up nuclear weapons until the conflict between India and Pakistan is resolved and long over and a new generation grows up that finds the idea of war between India and Pakistan absurd, just like people in America today would find the idea of a war with Japan and Germany absurd even though 70 years ago we were dropping nuclear bombs on Japan and reducing German cities to piles of burning rubble. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2011, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-best-way-to-disarm-pakistan/604893/56 "2011-12-04T15:59:46Z")
I would welcome a nuclear free South Asia. If the strategic situation improved to such an extent that it allowed it. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2011, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-best-way-to-disarm-pakistan/604893/57 "2011-12-04T17:02:44Z")
This whole concept is insane. Why we would take a country that poses no credible threat to us and make them into one? Especially one that is nuclear? FWIW, Pakistan doesn’t give a flying fig about Israel. In reality, not many people in power really believe the “kill the Zionists” stuff. It’s just a useful way of engaging the masses and keeping their zeal high. Pakistan doesn’t need that since they have India to hate. In other words, Pakistan is not just a generic Muslim country, and it’s not useful to treat it like one. > [@Capitaine\_Zombie](#): > > If SA had the science, the materials and the people to do it. Why did they not resume their nuclear program after the end of Apartheid ? A rogue regime in the Cold War world, surrounded by revolutionary hotbeds and whose few allies detest it has a very strong motivation to maintain nuclear weapons. The apartheid regime was barely hanging on, and the only reason it got any support was as an ally against Communism. and a nuke was strong motivation for us to support them rather than letting all of southern Africa become dominated by Russia. A new democracy, eagerly embraced by the post-cold war world is a different story. With the massive social problems they inherited and no credible enemies, why would they spend any resources on nukes, especially considering the wreck of a country they were charged with bringing into modernity? ---
**Author:** ![Namkcalb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c89c15/32.png) [@Namkcalb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Namkcalb)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2011, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-best-way-to-disarm-pakistan/604893/58 "2011-12-05T01:04:48Z")
> [@BeaMyra](#): > > One thing you have to consider if you are directing action toward a Mulslim nation, you are in effect, directing it against all Muslims. At least that is the way it will seem to most Muslims. > > There are great divisions in Islam and even Pakistan’s nuke while it’s the “Islamic bomb,” is not the same as an “Arab Bomb” or a “Shi’ite Bomb” or some other label. Point being that if you say Pakistan has to give up nukes, the Muslim response will be, “Why pick on us?” Disarm everyone or forget it. I know during development some Pakistanis saw it as getting Islam the bomb, but do other Muslims really see it as point of pride? I’m sure many of the Muslim-minority in India don’t feel too proud about it. > [@Lemur866](#): > > The South African nuclear program was a creation of the white minority regime. They dismantled the nuclear program rather than hand it over intact to the ANC. > > As for why the current South African government doesn’t have a nuclear weapons program, why would they want one? At least with India and Pakistan each can point to the other as a deadly threat. South Africa under majority rule doesn’t have any deadly enemies. Note that Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus also gave up the Soviet era nuclear weapons that were based there and handed them over to Russia. Thanks for the information > [@Lemur866](#): > > So it seems to me that Pakistan isn’t going to give up nuclear weapons until the conflict between India and Pakistan is resolved and long over and a new generation grows up that finds the idea of war between India and Pakistan absurd, just like people in America today would find the idea of a war with Japan and Germany absurd even though 70 years ago we were dropping nuclear bombs on Japan and reducing German cities to piles of burning rubble. Now this is opening up a whole new can of worms, but how could this be brought about. > [@AK84](#): > > I would welcome a nuclear free South Asia. If the strategic situation improved to such an extent that it allowed it. I doubt it would occur before the rest of the world does the same. Even without the Pakistan issue, India needs nuclear weapons at least as much as China does and far more than the UK or France. > [@even\_sven](#): > > This whole concept is insane. Why we would take a country that poses no credible threat to us and make them into one? Especially one that is nuclear? [ul] [li]Because it doesn’t have a “no first use” policy, and will use them to respond to a conventional invasion.[/li][li]Because it supports terrorism in India and Afghanistan.[/li][li]Because it has a long pattern of totalitarian government[/li][li]Because the state might collapse and already, much of the country is poorly controlled.[/li][li]Because their education system dehumanises its neighbours.[/li][li]Because the state was founded on religious grounds and is still has strong Islamist elements.[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![Erdosain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/erdosain/32/7284_2.png) [@Erdosain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Erdosain)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2011, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-best-way-to-disarm-pakistan/604893/59 "2011-12-05T03:56:58Z")
There is a great article in this month’s _Atlantic_ about Pakistan: [The Ally From Hell](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/12/the-ally-from-hell/8730/). Basically, it says that Pakistan’s growing concern (paranoia?) that the U.S. is going to try to take away their nukes is driving them to take chances with the weapons that makes them vulnerable to terrorists. Apparently, they move the nukes around between bases so we never know where they all are, and that they don’t move them in armored convoys, but rather in unmarked vans. So perhaps backing off Pakistan and their nuclear arsenal is the best way to keep them safe from terrorists. Hopefully the Pakistani army realizes that losing even one nuclear weapon to terrorists means their eventual doom. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2011, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-best-way-to-disarm-pakistan/604893/60 "2011-12-05T04:40:30Z")
[quote=“Namkcalb, post:58, topic:604893”] [ul] [li]Because it doesn’t have a “no first use” policy, and will use them to respond to a conventional invasion.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE] Anyone who thinks that any nuclear power wouldn’t use nukes against an invading army if they were in danger of losing is deluding themselves. And America is in no place to complain about someone not having a “no first use” policy; it wasn’t so long ago that Bush all but threatened Iran with nuclear attack by making a point of publicly refusing to take a nuclear attack off the table as a “solution” to Iran’s nuclear program. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-best-way-to-disarm-pakistan/604893.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-best-way-to-disarm-pakistan/604893.md?page=4)