[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]
The US really doesn’t give care either way about any of these, with the exception that we would care about state collapse if it were a likely threat, which it isn’t.
We are not going to invade Pakistan, conventionally or otherwise, so it’s first use policy is not a US foreign policy concern. I’m not sure who would be foolhardy enough to invade Pakistan, but it’s nobody who we really care one way or another about.
We really don’t care about terrorism in India. India could be bombed every day for all we care (and they pretty much are), as long as they stay away from our embassy. India is not our ally. We are at best friends of convenience. We really don’t have a stake in this. We are on our way out of Afghanistan as well, and frankly the more shit gets blown up, the more contracts we get to rebuild it. Not a problem that concerns us- especially if they can stay away from Guegaon and Bangaloreg
The idea that the US would be against a totalitarian government simply for being totalitarian is laughable. Remember our good old buddies, Egypt? We don’t care. In some cases, we eve prefer totalitarianism. It makes it much easier to cut deals.
If Pakistan collapsed, that’d be a problem. But it’s not going to collapse.
We don’t care if they make fun of Indians. Having some regional power struggles keeps people busy on each other and gives us less work to do breaking up power blocks. There is a nice little balance of tension going on between China, India and Pakistan. They keep each other in check, and that makes us glad we don’t have to.
We don’t actually care about radical Islam, which isn’t really centered in Pakistan, anyway. Pakistan is like a vacation home for radical Islam, and it’s a nice far away vacation home that we have someone in check.
I don’t think we’re going to invade Pakistan either, but we do care that they’re killing American soldiers in Afghanistan, raining grenades down on the American embassy, etc. Also, it’s clear that the United States and India are destined to become allies at some point, if only because their two biggest enemies coincide with two of our biggest enemies.
And we sure as shit care if Pakistan loses nuclear material. Again, not to the point of invading, but still.
I recall reading when Pakistan first tested the bomb it was a very prideful moment for Pakistan. Before then, when Pakistan’s nuclear abilty was similar to Israel, thought to be true but untested, there was some pride.
I say this because I recall reading how Gaddafi tried to get Pakistan to give or sell him a bomb or at least technology. Pakistan told him to “go build his own bomb”
So this brought about the disunity and now it wasn’t a Muslim bomb but a Pakistani one and it wasn’t enough to have a Muslim bomb to counter Israel’s “Jewish bomb.” They needed an Arab bomb. This is why Iran wants one, as they aren’t Arab and Libya serves as a lesson to smaller nations.
If Gaddafi had gotten his “bomb” he would be in power not dead.
Nukes = untouchable.
Despite all their rhetoric, the Islamic world is very disunited. And this is one of the causes of anger in that world. Muslims are suppose to be brothers and stick together, yet there’s so much the Islamic world has yet to accomplish, not because of anything other than they are disunited. If they stuck together, they’d be much farther along.
So back to the OP question, the Islamic world is disunited, but if you were to say, “Pakistan is unstable, we must have them give up their nukes so they don’t fall to terrorists,” even if you agree, it seems to be a slam against the Muslims.
Or at least it will be taken that way. I’m sure Indian Muslims are worried about Pakistan, as our other states, but there’d still be a feeling of “this is directed against Muslims” if you tried to do what the OP asked.
Well when we discuss the conflict in Afghanistan/Pakistan, shouldn’t we recognize that a lot of the Pashtun people who live near the border treat it as a very fluid to the point of nonexistent border, fighting and hiding on either side as convenient? And that both nations’ governments have a lot of trouble controlling the region? Isn’t a large part of the problem in those areas that neither national government has much in the way of control outside of the fire zone controlled by whichever of their troops happen to be there?
Of course; he’d quite possibly be alive today (he wasn’t all that young) if he had actually had nukes. So would a great many other Iraqis, and their live would in general be better. We’d never have even tried to conquer Iraq if they had nukes. That’s one of the biggest lessons of Iraq; if America has an interest in your country get nukes, get them as soon as you can.
Pashtun people on the Afghan side maybe. Not the Pakistani side. My own family comes from a town on the border called Kaniguram. There is nobody who is related across the border.
Finally, the only people who call that a porus/fluid border are those who have never seen it.
Evil Captor is presumably referring to the northern portions of the Durand line, not South Waziristan. It’s extremely mountainous but there are many many passes. Are you claiming they are all monitored and patrolled?
There are two main passes , one the khyber Pass in the north and another the Bolan pass in the South. The areas in the North are exceptionally mountainous and pretty much impervious to passage by sizable groups or to the regular passage of persons, both of which are done exlcusivly through the two passes mentioned above.Which is the primary reason that the current border was demarcated as it was. On the other hand, the existence of these mountains make it easy for small groups of men to hide in them.
[li]Because it has a long pattern of totalitarian government[/li][/QUOTE]
Pakistan has never had a totalitarian government. It has had several authoritarian governments. Dictatorship and military rule is not the same as totalitarian government. Totalitarian governments are powerful enough to control every aspect of society. Pakistan’s military rulers didn’t control much beyond the army. Compare to real-life totalitarian governments like Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, Soviet Russia, or Communist China.
I’m referring to news reports that the Taliban which is well rooted in the Pashtun people used mountain passes to get small groups of raiders on either side of the border as was convenient. As I understand it, many Pashtun in rural areas consider themselves Pashtun first and Afghans or Pakistanis second.
I would imagine that it would be quite easy to physically denuclearise (a word I’ve just made up) a small nuclear power, without resorting to even average military force.
That seems highly implausible to me. You’d need to get them all, within a very short time or they’d probably be fired. And we probably couldn’t even find them all before attacking, much less get them within minutes of each other.