| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| We won't let foreigners investigate suspects: PM |
| 2008-12-16 |
| Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani told the National Assembly on Monday that he had turned down a request that Britain be allowed to investigate those detained after the Mumbai attacks. There would be entirely too many distasteful revelations. The prime minister's comments came in his policy statement before the start of a debate on national security in the wake of the Mumbai terror attacks. He said the British request came at a meeting with Prime Minister Gordon Brown on Sunday, but he told his British counterpart that if there was evidence against those arrested after the attacks, they would be prosecuted under Pakistani law. He made it clear that Jamaatud Dawa's 'welfare activities' would not be blocked, as "thousands of people are benefitting from them". Gilani, however, said the government would now monitor these activities. Gilani said that Pakistan was committed to peace in the region, but if war is thrust on the country, "we will give [a] befitting response ... the nation, the army and the political leadership is united, and we can defend our national sovereignty". "We condemn terrorism wherever it is ... terrorists have no principles, religion, faith, boundaries or scruples," he said. Prime Minister Gilani thanked the opposition and treasury for being united on issues related to national security. Gilani said he had also called several world leaders in the wake of the Mumbai terror attacks, and they in turn spoke with Indian leaders to tell the neighbour they "fully support Pakistan". The opposition criticised India for 'trying to destabilise Pakistan' after the attacks, and said Pakistan's response should be 'stern'. Makhdoom Javed Hashmi of the PML-N assured the government that the nation would support it on issues related to national security. Makhdoom Faisal Saleh Hayat of the PML-Q said it was because of the government's 'foreign policy failure' that India was threatening Pakistan. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #15 Terrorists always win points when they achieve terror, regardless of secondary aims. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-12-16 18:47 |
| #14 As for where such a weapon would be used, I think the Suez would be an excellent choice. It would be near enough to Israel that some of the fallout would reach. Permanently shutting down the Suez Canal would more than double shipping costs from Europe to or from Asia (think petroleum, manufactured goods, and warships), having a tremendous negative impact on the world's economy. Personally, I have no idea why Islamabad would want to piss off India at the moment, other than it would provide an excuse for ending its "attack" against the NWFP and the terrorists lodged there. I do have to agree, the Mumbai attack was either a "practice run" or a distraction. I can see no major gain from it. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2008-12-16 18:10 |
| #13 Charles, As someone who trained to evaluate the blast effects of nuclear weapons and assess the damage, I'll have to say that the equation HAS to begin with the size of the blast. A 30Kt weapon will do so much damage, while a 300Kt weapon would do considerably more than 10 times the damage. Other factors include the altitude of the blast, the landscape where the blast took place, the type of weapon used (PU weapons are more volatile than U238 blasts, etc.), wind direction and velocity, humidity, outside temperature, and about a dozen other things. Rule of thumb: look at the effects of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts. Hiroshima was a flat area, the wind was calm, and the weapon was a uranium weapon delivering a 38Kt blast. The blast created total destruction of 80% of the city, in a radius of about eight miles. MOST OF THAT WAS DONE BY FIRES CAUSED BY THE EXPLOSION, not by the blast itself. At the same time, people less than a half-mile from the blast survived. Most survived because they were walking by a concrete or brick wall, or were inside a concrete or brick building. Nagasaki was a city built among hills around a port. Most of the port and the city center were destroyed, while small towns four to ten miles away were less affected, or unaffected, especially those behind the ridges that ran down toward the harbor. The Nagasaki weapon was a plutonium weapon of about 35Kt. Most people have the misguided notion that a nuclear explosion kills everything within x number of miles. There are about 30 different factors that would either mitigate or facilitate injury or destruction - too technical to get into here. To totally destroy a country, you'd have to have overlapping zones of destruction. Most nuclear war would be waged against major control centers, rather than the entire nation. Killing Karachi, Rawalpindi/Islamabad, Quetta, Mussarafibad, Peshawar, Lahore, and two or three other cities in the Punjab or Sindh areas would be sufficient to destroy Pakistan's ability (and probable will) to resist or continue a fight. A dozen 50Kt weapons would probably be sufficient. I doubt Pakistan has many more WORKING weapons than that. I have no idea how many India may have. Our total is somewhere around 10,000, ranging from 5Kt to 1+Mt. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2008-12-16 18:02 |
| #12 Another possibility is the Mumbai attack allowing the 20+ to move elsewhere unimpeded within India and establish cells, training camps, etc. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2008-12-16 17:11 |
| #11 Spot - I'm missing it, I guess. If they had a nuke on a ship near Mumbai, I'd think it would be used, immediately. Transferring it to land seems to cause potentially more headaches than benefits. Just IMHO. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-12-16 16:40 |
| #10 In the back of my mind I haven't forgotten the Iranian ship w/ nuclear materials which was intercepted before it could transit to the Med and be used in an attack on Israel. It won't be the last such effort there or here or elsewhere around civilization. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-12-16 13:30 |
| #9 Because it's on a ship and the ship ain't where it's goin' yet ... |
| Posted by: Steve White 2008-12-16 11:40 |
| #8 So why wait? If you've got a nuke, why not pop it as soon as you get it where you want it? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-12-16 10:50 |
| #7 |
| Posted by: john frum 2008-12-16 10:08 |
| #6 Frank, I think his point was that they wanted to get it on a ship and send it elsewhere - like here. No need for a ship if India were the target. |
| Posted by: Spot 2008-12-16 08:50 |
| #5 well, cuz Mumbai is in India and Karachi isn't? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-12-16 08:34 |
| #4 There may be something more going on, JC, but if their main intent was to get a device on a ship, why go to Mumbai at all? I would think Karachi would be easier. |
| Posted by: Spot 2008-12-16 08:11 |
| #3 If a Nuke goes off in India, Pakistan won't be around long enough to offer a half-hearted apology. A quick question for the math nerds, how many nukes/megatons would it take in order to incinerate every PAkistani city with a population of over 20k + the entire agriculture area of the Tribal area's? If I were to make a bet on any exchange it would be on India. |
| Posted by: Charles 2008-12-16 05:35 |
| #2 Well, JC, I hope you're wrong, but you do pose a reasonably simple, possible, and internally consistent scenario. And I agree with you that the existing public information and explanations violate my first rule: "If it doesn't make sense you don't know the whole story." |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2008-12-16 01:34 |
| #1 There is something very odd about the Mumbai raids that has bothered me deeply. Why was the assault made from the water? There are plenty of ways to get armed men into Mumbai without having to resort to water borne assault, an assault that all of you Marines out there will verify is a very complicated process involving careful planning and coordination. Secondly, the little intell that is coming out says there were 30 LeT's in the assault and yet everyone agrees that only ten were involved in the assault on the Taj hotel and the nearby Jewish center. I certainly hope I am wrong but in my feable little brain, there are only two explanations for this complex raid and the missing 20 LeT's. One: They came by boat because they were bringing something HEAVY ashore, something that could not be smuggled into India by rail, air or truck transport without detection. The raid at the Taj was a DIVERSION intended to draw law enforcement, army and security forces away from the docks. My black belt in conspiracy theories says they were bringing a nuke ashore. Not to use on India but to get to the port and into a container and on to a ship while the battle raged at the Taj. Two: The raiders at the Taj had ample opportunities to wreak more havoc and create more casualties than they did. Their use of drugs to stay alert was used to keep the Indian authorities busy as long as possible. Once the TERRORISTS in the Taj passed a certain time they essentially committed suicide by police. Three: the alternative is that the Mumbai Terrorist raid is a dress rehersal for a larger and more violent terrorist raid against either the US or Great Britain. I personally believe that the Mumbai raids were intended to get a nuke ashore, on a boat and on its way with the Taj massacre as a diversion. I certainly hope I am wrong but something with that raid does not smell right and even for the psychotic nature of Islamic Terrorism, to assume that it was an end in itself, is not logical. |
| Posted by: James Carville 2008-12-16 00:43 |