Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's been reported before that Pakistan was also a supplier of their arms. A lot of governments seem to be involved in ISIS, may of them previously involved in Al Qaeda.
Not buying that report that quote a bunch of unnamed official and assumption reports. They have been saying for years that ISIS is being supported by countless insert your favorite government and it always come back to unnamed official. I also think India wouldn't allow Pakistan to give ISIS a nuclear weapon
This is not good. Time for the West to step up and deal with this threat and stop ignoring it. Thank god Britain & Australia both have a PM that take a stance against radical Islam. France, the US, and Canada not so much...
I'm sure ISIS would love to buy a nuclear weapon.
But why anyone takes them at face value when they claim they will do so is beyond me.
Then one has to ponder Pakistan's motivation to sell one. Which is what, precisely? Any rational assessment of the scenario leads to the obvious conclusion that this would be, to put it mildly, to Pakistan's detriment. Maybe a rogue Pakistani general? Sure - because Pakistan just leaves nuclear weapons lying around unsecured where any officer with a star can just check them out, no questions asked.
Then - how would ISIS deliver a nuclear weapon? They don't have ballistic missiles. If they managed to capture a SCUD, it's highly doubtful they could properly deploy it. Even if they could, it would take some serious engineering to marry a nuclear weapon to such a delivery vehicle, much less properly target and trigger it. Ditto for aircraft - what, is ISIS just going to steal an F-16 without anyone noticing, find a capable pilot, find a way to configure it to carry some Pakistani nuclear weapon, and then successfully deliver it?
And those hypotheticals are just for theater attacks. As far as using it against a target somewhere in Europe or North America? Good luck.
Due diligence is warranted, of course. But thinking that there's any remote likelihood that ISIS could...
*buy/steal a nuclear weapon, and
*buy/steal the means to deliver it, and
*clear all the technological hurdles of then using the bought/stolen hardware to successfully deliver it, and
*not get found out and stopped
The US gives Pakistans military several billion $$$ every year, not because we think there a great bunch of friends, but to pay them to keep there nukes safe. The pakistani's are not going to risk losing there cash cow.
bill
In what world is that? If all it took was money we could end all of this tomorrow. Money has very little to do with it. You're confusing the few in Pakistan who benefit from that money and the rest of the population that does not.
If all it takes in money, please explain North Korea. Why don't we just buy off the Iranians then too? Heck, we have enough money to make all the people in ISIS millionaires.
People who have the goal to take everything you have away from you can't be bought. Why accept a few billion when in the end you have it all?
RE: cruise missiles. Hello? Cruise missiles to do just what? Bomb Pakistan into the stone age? They have nukes and not just one or two. We're going to wipe out that entire country eh?
But why anyone takes them at face value when they claim they will do so is beyond me.
Then one has to ponder Pakistan's motivation to sell one. Which is what, precisely? Any rational assessment of the scenario leads to the obvious conclusion that this would be, to put it mildly, to Pakistan's detriment. Maybe a rogue Pakistani general? Sure - because Pakistan just leaves nuclear weapons lying around unsecured where any officer with a star can just check them out, no questions asked.
Then - how would ISIS deliver a nuclear weapon? They don't have ballistic missiles. If they managed to capture a SCUD, it's highly doubtful they could properly deploy it. Even if they could, it would take some serious engineering to marry a nuclear weapon to such a delivery vehicle, much less properly target and trigger it. Ditto for aircraft - what, is ISIS just going to steal an F-16 without anyone noticing, find a capable pilot, find a way to configure it to carry some Pakistani nuclear weapon, and then successfully deliver it?
And those hypotheticals are just for theater attacks. As far as using it against a target somewhere in Europe or North America? Good luck.
Due diligence is warranted, of course. But thinking that there's any remote likelihood that ISIS could...
...is simply ignoring reality.
Why anyone takes ISIS at face value? How about this? So far they've done everything they said they'd do. Want to compare track records?
Ignoring reality is thinking ISIS has to ( as you put it):
"*buy/steal a nuclear weapon, and
*buy/steal the means to deliver it, and
*clear all the technological hurdles of then using the bought/stolen hardware to successfully deliver it, and
*not get found out and stopped "
when the cold hard reality is that don't need to do any of those things to accomplish their goals including the detonation of a nuke.
Everything you said is almost exactly what we said about North Korea. Yet, that country, run by criminals, a country that can't keep the lights on has nukes.
Gee, just how did that happen?
As if Iran isn't going to make nukes either. Yeah, reality.
You do realize that ISIS doesn't plan to be a ragtag bunch of sand crawling lizards in the desert right?
So far, just what have they said that they haven't also done or tallied up success after success to accomplish?
But why anyone takes them at face value when they claim they will do so is beyond me.
Then one has to ponder Pakistan's motivation to sell one. Which is what, precisely? Any rational assessment of the scenario leads to the obvious conclusion that this would be, to put it mildly, to Pakistan's detriment. Maybe a rogue Pakistani general? Sure - because Pakistan just leaves nuclear weapons lying around unsecured where any officer with a star can just check them out, no questions asked.
Then - how would ISIS deliver a nuclear weapon? They don't have ballistic missiles. If they managed to capture a SCUD, it's highly doubtful they could properly deploy it. Even if they could, it would take some serious engineering to marry a nuclear weapon to such a delivery vehicle, much less properly target and trigger it. Ditto for aircraft - what, is ISIS just going to steal an F-16 without anyone noticing, find a capable pilot, find a way to configure it to carry some Pakistani nuclear weapon, and then successfully deliver it?
And those hypotheticals are just for theater attacks. As far as using it against a target somewhere in Europe or North America? Good luck.
Due diligence is warranted, of course. But thinking that there's any remote likelihood that ISIS could...
*buy/steal a nuclear weapon, and
*buy/steal the means to deliver it, and
*clear all the technological hurdles of then using the bought/stolen hardware to successfully deliver it, and
*not get found out and stopped
...is simply ignoring reality.
It wouldn't be very difficult to smuggle a nuclear weapon into the US ...let's just hope, if they do get one, that they set it off in DC.
In what world is that? If all it took was money we could end all of this tomorrow. Money has very little to do with it. You're confusing the few in Pakistan who benefit from that money and the rest of the population that does not.
If all it takes in money, please explain North Korea. Why don't we just buy off the Iranians then too? Heck, we have enough money to make all the people in ISIS millionaires.
People who have the goal to take everything you have away from you can't be bought. Why accept a few billion when in the end you have it all?
RE: cruise missiles. Hello? Cruise missiles to do just what? Bomb Pakistan into the stone age? They have nukes and not just one or two. We're going to wipe out that entire country eh?
Looked at a map lately?
I never said money was the end all problem solver, but it has worked in Pakistan,(so far). Pakistan's military rules the country although they allow the civilians to think they are in charge.
North Korea is China's problem, The Chinese leadership knows what the consequences of allowing NK nukes to wander. NKorea is also easily contained with China to the north and So.korea to the south, there shipping is monitored very closely by the whole world. Also as a side note both of NKorea's nuke test have be failures.2006 North Korean nuclear test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Iranian's have not developed a nuke yet. Why should we buy them off? when we can use sanctions to squeeze there economy into compliance.
Who are you going to bribe in ISIS? they have no central gov. or leader, and once again they don't have a nuke why should we bribe them?
ISIS is an embarrassing nuisance to the US, nothing more, we could annihilate them easily (but not cheaply), but the American people are not interested in fighting another middle east war.
I'm not sure what your talking about with the cruise missiles, my post made no mention of missiles
I call BS on this one. One does not just purchase the bomb. You also need the fairly sophisticated infrastructure to maintain these weapons as the radioactive bits decay and have to be replenished. It's this latter part that makes it extremely difficult to hide a nuclear bomb program.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
