We've lost our puppet in Pakistan - DFWstangs Forums
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-18-2008, 05:09 AM Thread Starter
ebay pimp
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 4,360
We've lost our puppet in Pakistan

Embattled Musharraf says he's stepping down

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf announced his resignation Monday, ending an eight-year tenure that opponents said was hampering the country's labored return to democracy.

An emotional Musharraf said he wanted to spare the nation from a perilous impeachment battle and that he was satisfied that all he had done "was for the people and for the country."

"I hope the nation and the people will forgive my mistakes," Musharraf said in a televised address, much of which was devoted to defending his record and refuting criticisms.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26260573
White trash wagon is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-18-2008, 06:26 AM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,944
It was just a matter of time. No worries, though, he was nutless anyway. It'll just go to hell faster now.
Denny is offline  
post #3 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-18-2008, 11:26 AM
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny
It was just a matter of time. No worries, though, he was nutless anyway. It'll just go to hell faster now.
I agree, we've been stuck on high-center with him in charge. Hopefully the next guy will either have some balls and will actually help us, or will be so anti-US that we'll have no issue with doing whatever the heck we want to over there.
mikeb is offline  
 
post #4 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-18-2008, 11:28 AM
Lifer
 
89gt-stanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Keller
Posts: 2,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
I agree, we've been stuck on high-center with him in charge. Hopefully the next guy will either have some balls and will actually help us, or will be so anti-US that we'll have no issue with doing whatever the heck we want to over there.

Pretty much.

NO NO NO, it should be DFWLS1's, CUMMINS, C6 VETTES.net
89gt-stanger is offline  
post #5 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-18-2008, 12:20 PM Thread Starter
ebay pimp
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 4,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
I agree, we've been stuck on high-center with him in charge. Hopefully the next guy will either have some balls and will actually help us, or will be so anti-US that we'll have no issue with doing whatever the heck we want to over there.
No, some Islamic nutball will take over. Mushariff was hated in Pakistan because he favored the US, and many of the Pakistanis hate the US.
White trash wagon is offline  
post #6 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-18-2008, 12:31 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: South of the Red River
Posts: 3,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by White trash wagon
No, some Islamic nutball will take over. Mushariff was hated in Pakistan because he favored the US, and many of the Pakistanis hate the US.
Maybe we can stop sending em borrowed billion$ now.

Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand!
black01gt is offline  
post #7 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-18-2008, 01:44 PM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Thank God.

Maybe now some islamic fruitcake will take charge and we can start bombing the fuck out of the terrorists hiding out there.
AL P is offline  
post #8 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-18-2008, 02:38 PM
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
or will be so anti-US that we'll have no issue with doing whatever the heck we want to over there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by white trash wagon
No, some Islamic nutball will take over. Mushariff was hated in Pakistan because he favored the US, and many of the Pakistanis hate the US.
I think we are in agreement. Personally, i'd like to see the islamic nutball take over, it will make the job a lot easier than trying to appease a leader that claims to be on our side but is really straddling the fence. IMO pakistan is a powder keg that is about to go off in a big way.
mikeb is offline  
post #9 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-18-2008, 03:38 PM
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 600
Don't push the red button so fast guys, keep in mind that Pakistan does have nuclear weapons. If their next leader is anti us nutjob I'm sure he'd love nothing more than to rally people in Pakistan against "the great satan" if we started dropping bombs.
ayzo is offline  
post #10 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-18-2008, 03:47 PM
Money Made All Good
 
gip99drop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 2,447
To many death treats in one week, that's why he left.
gip99drop is offline  
post #11 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-18-2008, 04:24 PM
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by ayzo
Don't push the red button so fast guys, keep in mind that Pakistan does have nuclear weapons. If their next leader is anti us nutjob I'm sure he'd love nothing more than to rally people in Pakistan against "the great satan" if we started dropping bombs.
The problem with the outgoing guy is we cared every time he protested about us taking out people with predators, and he wouldn't let us put boots on the ground. If we get a nutjob in there then we really don't give a shit what he thinks, and we can shoot off as many hellfires as we want. Pakistan taking it to the nuclear level would be a grave mistake.
mikeb is offline  
post #12 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-18-2008, 04:25 PM
Censored
 
big_tiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 3,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by ayzo
Don't push the red button so fast guys, keep in mind that Pakistan does have nuclear weapons. If their next leader is anti us nutjob I'm sure he'd love nothing more than to rally people in Pakistan against "the great satan" if we started dropping bombs.
Sell half of them to Iran then we will have no choice put to completly clean out the region. Think Osama will come out of hiding if the new leader will be radical friendly?

Doors Done Rite
big_tiger is offline  
post #13 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-18-2008, 05:56 PM
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 600
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
The problem with the outgoing guy is we cared every time he protested about us taking out people with predators, and he wouldn't let us put boots on the ground. If we get a nutjob in there then we really don't give a shit what he thinks, and we can shoot off as many hellfires as we want. Pakistan taking it to the nuclear level would be a grave mistake.
The problem is that nutjobs think they are invincible and can survive if they team up with other smaller and less powerful nations. A quick sit down with Russia, a photo op with Iran, and some anti-Israel rhetoric is all it takes to cause an international crisis that spins out of control.
ayzo is offline  
post #14 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-18-2008, 06:07 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: South of the Red River
Posts: 3,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by gip99drop
To many death treats in one week, that's why he left.
I'm really surprised that they didn't blow him up.

Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand!
black01gt is offline  
post #15 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-18-2008, 06:10 PM
Lifer
 
black90gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,921
now maybe we can stop building their airforce
black90gt is offline  
post #16 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-18-2008, 06:20 PM
Num say'n? (tm)
 
JP135's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by black01gt
I'm really surprised that they didn't blow him up.
Nobody's saying they won't now.

DFWMustangs.net
JP135 is offline  
post #17 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-18-2008, 08:27 PM
Lifer
 
Mustangman_2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: D/FW
Posts: 8,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by White trash wagon
No, some Islamic nutball will take over. Mushariff was hated in Pakistan because he favored the US, and many of the Pakistanis hate the US.
My thoughts as well. It may ultimately work to our advantage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MR EDD View Post
it was not a problem to bring money to his house at 10pm.so why is it a problem to call and bitch.it wasnt a problem when we were all sitting around smoking pot together.yes i said it we all were smoking pot together.what now stupid.
Mustangman_2000 is offline  
post #18 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-18-2008, 10:35 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,944
Keep in mind that the proper name for it is "The Islamic Republic of Pakistan," not just Pakistan. There's a lot to be said there. Yes, they have Nukes, but what are their capabilities?

Here's a quick Wikiquote:
Quote:
The U.S.-based Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) estimates that Pakistan has built 24-48 HEU-based nuclear warheads with HEU reserves for 30-52 additional warheads.[9][10] The US Navy Center for Contemporary Conflict estimates that Pakistan possesses between a low of 35 and a high of 95 nuclear warheads, with a median of 60.[11].But these are outdated sources.

The NRDC's and the Carnegie Foundation's estimates of approximately 50 weapons are from 2002-3 estimations. In 2000, US Military intelligence estimated that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal may be as large as 100 warheads.[12]. The actual size is hard for experts to gauge owing to the secrecy which surrounds the program in Pakistan. In recent developments, retired Brig. General Feroz Khan, previously second in command at the Strategic Arms Division of Pakistans' Military told a Pakistani newspaper the nation has "about 80 to 120 genuine warheads"-and also revealed that Pakistan has decoy or dummy warheads to complicate any designs by aggressors. [13][14]

Pakistan already tested plutonium capability in the sixth nuclear test of May 30, 1998 at Kharan. In this test, the latest and most sophisticated bomb design made to be carried by missiles was tested. And it was a very compact, yet powerful device. Secondly, compactness is also an issue with F-16s and other fighter-bomber aircraft of the same class, unless the platform happens to be a dedicated strategic bomber. F-16s have limits to the size and weight of the bombs they can carry.

Now the critical mass a bare mass sphere of 90 % enriched Uranium-235 is 52 kg. Correspondingly, the critical mass of a bare mass sphere of Plutonium-239 is 8-10 kg. The bomb that destroyed Hiroshima used 60 kg of U-235 while the Nagasaki Pu bomb used only 6 kg of Pu-239. And that was in 1945! Since all Pakistani bomb designs are implosion-type weapons, they will typically use between 15-25 kg of U-235 for their cores. Reducing the amount of U-235 in cores from 60 kg in gun-type devices to 25 kg in implosion devices is only possible by using good neutron reflector/ tamper material such as beryllium metal, which increases the weight of the bomb. And the uranium like plutonium is only usable in the core of a bomb in metallic form. Add about 50 or so chemical high-explosive lenses, triggering circuits, and outer aluminum casing, all this adds to the overall weight of the device. Therefore if a bomb has to use only U-235, it will impose serious restrictions on the amount of U-235 that can be used, and the size of the bomb itself, thus restricting its explosive yield. True PAEC did develop bomb designs that could be carried by all PAF aircraft, but after years of effort and R & D, and then too, there were serious limitations on the further extent of miniaturization of the bombs. If Uranium is used as bomb fuel, it cannot be miniaturized beyond a certain point.

On the other hand, only 2-4 kg of plutonium is needed for the same device that would need 20-25 kg of U-235. Add a few grams of tritium (a by-product of plutonium production reactors and thermonuclear fuel) and you can increase the overall yield of the bombs by a factor of three to four.

A whole range and variety of weapons using Pu-239 can be easily built, both for aircraft delivery and especially for missiles (in which U-235 cannot be used). So if Pakistan wants to be a nuclear power with an operational deterrent capability, both first and second strike, based on assured strike platforms like ballistic and cruise missiles (unlike aircraft), the only solution is with plutonium, which has been the first choice of every country that built a nuclear arsenal.

As for Pakistan's plutonium capability, it has always been there, from the early 1980s onwards. There were only two problems. One was that Pakistan did not want to be an irresponsible state and so did not divert spent fuel from the safeguarded KANUPP for reprocessing at New Labs. This was enough to build a whole arsenal of nuclear weapons straight away. So PAEC built its own unsafeguarded plutonium and tritium production reactor at Khushab, beginning in 1985. The second one was allocation of resources.

Ultra-centrifugation for obtaining U-235 cannot be done simply by putting natural uranium through the centrifuges. It requires the complete mastery over the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle, which begins at uranium mining and refining, production of uranium ore or yellow cake, conversion of ore into uranium dioxide UO2 ( which is used to make nuclear fuel for natural uranium reactors like Khushab and KANUPP), conversion of UO2 into Uranium tetrafluoride UF4 and then into the feedstock for enrichment (UF6).

All this also needs the complete mastery over fluorine chemistry and production of highly toxic and corrosive hydrofluoric acid and other fluorine compounds. Then this UF6 is pumped into the centrifuges for enrichment and afterwards it has to go through the same process, but in reverse till UF4 is produced which leads to the production of uranium metal, the form in which U-235 is used in a bomb.

It is estimated that there are about 10000 centrifuges in Kahuta. This means that with P2 machines, they would be producing between 75-100 kg of HEU since 1986, when full production of weapons-grade HEU began. Also the production of HEU was voluntarily capped by Pakistan between 1991 and 1997, and the five nuclear tests of May 28, 1998 also consumed HEU. So it is safe to assume that between 1986 and 2005 (prior to the 2005 earthquake) , KRL produced 1500 kg of HEU. Now accounting for losses in the production of weapons, it is safe to assume that each weapon would need 20 kg of HEU. This is sufficient for 75 bombs, produced in 20 years!.

Pakistan's first nuclear tests were made in May 1998, when six warheads were tested. It is reported that the yields from these tests were 12 kT, 30 to 35 kT and four low-yield (below 1 kT) tests. From these tests Pakistan can be estimated to have developed operational warheads of 20 to 25 kT and 150 kT in the shape of low weight compact designs and may have 300-500kt large size warheads. The low-yield weapons are probably in nuclear bombs carried on F-16 Fighting Falcon aircraft and fitted to Pakistan's short-range ballistic missiles, while the higher-yield warheads are probably fitted to the Shaheen and Ghauri ballistic missiles
They're the 7th largest military force in the world.
Their government is a Parliamentary democracy.
They provided a military contingent to the Coalition during the first Gulf War.
They provided personnel to serve in Armed forces for other Arab countries that. were involved with conflicts against Israel.
Their budget is VERY limited.
Denny is offline  
post #19 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-18-2008, 10:37 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,944
Pros and cons, but overall, I do have worries. Just another player in "Denny's War" as Vertnut puts it. LOL!
Denny is offline  
post #20 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-19-2008, 06:22 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ellis County
Posts: 18,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny
Pros and cons, but overall, I do have worries. Just another player in "Denny's War" as Vertnut puts it. LOL!
Yes, and you're developing a pretty impressive "roster".

CHL holder and Conservative...AKA "Domestic Terrorist"
Vertnut is offline  
post #21 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-19-2008, 07:06 AM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertnut
Yes, and you're developing a pretty impressive "roster".
With all the possibilities, the odds do weigh in my favor, though.
Denny is offline  
post #22 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-19-2008, 12:53 PM Thread Starter
ebay pimp
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 4,360
Pakistan has an impressive military and has for decades. This is one we DON"T want to get into. If you think Iraq has weakened us, Pakistan would be 4 times worse.
White trash wagon is offline  
post #23 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-19-2008, 11:55 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by White trash wagon
Pakistan has an impressive military and has for decades. This is one we DON"T want to get into. If you think Iraq has weakened us, Pakistan would be 4 times worse.
What if you know Iraq hasn't weakened us?
Denny is offline  
post #24 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-20-2008, 06:45 AM Thread Starter
ebay pimp
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 4,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny
What if you know Iraq hasn't weakened us?
We've worn out many aircraft, expended hundreds of vehicles, none of which have been replaced ( at least none of the aircraft), spent half a trillion dollars, and our military is stretched so thin we could not handle another major engagement..

All that in a country that militarily wasn't even in the top 20? And some want to take on the 7th strongest, nuke armed military?
White trash wagon is offline  
post #25 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-20-2008, 11:45 AM
Censored
 
big_tiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 3,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by White trash wagon
We've worn out many aircraft, expended hundreds of vehicles, none of which have been replaced ( at least none of the aircraft), spent half a trillion dollars, and our military is stretched so thin we could not handle another major engagement..

All that in a country that militarily wasn't even in the top 20? And some want to take on the 7th strongest, nuke armed military?
Cleaning out all the shit, and making sure its clean, is different than blowing there world up and leaving.

Doors Done Rite
big_tiger is offline  
post #26 of 26 (permalink) Old 08-20-2008, 11:26 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by White trash wagon
We've worn out many aircraft, expended hundreds of vehicles, none of which have been replaced ( at least none of the aircraft), spent half a trillion dollars, and our military is stretched so thin we could not handle another major engagement..

All that in a country that militarily wasn't even in the top 20? And some want to take on the 7th strongest, nuke armed military?
Our approach to Iraq is different than our missions that will occur in Iran or possibly Pakistan. And our performance in Iraq had nothing to do with the military at all. It can all be credited to Washington's bureaucracy and all the bullshit of having 563870932487 opinions on how to fight a war without offending anyone. Do you honestly think we needed to even break a sweat here?!?! Please.
Denny is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome