Bhutto assassinated in gun and bomb attack

[thegodfather]

Please post the thread in which I stated that it was a good idea for Pakistan or any other 3rd world country to own nukes........

Ignoring my own proclivities about national sovreignty for a second. It is probably not a good idea for nations that cannot even feed or provide adequate infrastructure for the majority of their population, to own devices which can kill millions of people at one time.

[Logan13]

Ignoring my own preclivities about national sovreignty for a second. It is probably not a good idea for nations that cannot even feed or provide adequate infrastructure for the majority of their population, to own devices which can kill millions of people at one time.

proclivities. I have always liked that word, but no one uses it anymore.

[Prada]

Ignoring my own proclivities about national sovreignty for a second. It is probably not a good idea for nations that cannot even feed or provide adequate infrastructure for the majority of their population, to own devices which can kill millions of people at one time.

Yes even though I agree with you and would even state that no state whatsoever should have nuclear arms. I say this indiscriminately, some nations are obliged to obtain them from whatever means necessary when their own sovereignty is threatened. Pakistan in 1998 did so after India tested their own missile few years earlier. India did so to thwart off any threat from China and Russia. Those two states did so for quite evident reasons. Even though Sharif(I believe) was strongly urged by the US, on the basis of sanctions, to not embark on the same trajectoy as India, the nations very existence was in jeopardy and really had no choice. Millions were and are still being siphoned off for armament. Then again whether there is an abundance of poverty and feeble infrastructure one could argue that goverment spending in general is questionable regardless of what reason it is for.

Not good for a nation that could not feed or provide adequate infrastructure but ask any Pakistani their thoughts of the nuclear testing and surely a vast majority would support it and in hindsight have no regrets over it.. Where AQ Khan irrespective to his clandestine activities and blackmarket network is regarded as a national hero and surely Musharraf would be assassinated had be bowed down to US pressure to have Khan questioned and handed over.

Its global strategic positioning and one can say that Iran is possibly trying to achieve the same objective because nuclear arms, in pretty much all cases, can restore the balance of power.

[Flagg]

Yes even though I agree with you and would even state that no state whatsoever should have nuclear arms. I say this indiscriminately, some nations are obliged to obtain them from whatever means necessary when their own sovereignty is threatened. Pakistan in 1998 did so after India tested their own missile few years earlier. India did so to thwart off any threat from China and Russia. Those two states did so for quite evident reasons. Even though Sharif(I believe) was strongly urged by the US, on the basis of sanctions, to not embark on the same trajectoy as India, the nations very existence was in jeopardy and really had no choice. Millions were and are still being siphoned off for armament. Then again whether there is an abundance of poverty and feeble infrastructure one could argue that goverment spending in general is questionable regardless of what reason it is for.

Not good for a nation that could not feed or provide adequate infrastructure but ask any Pakistani their thoughts of the nuclear testing and surely a vast majority would support it and in hindsight have no regrets over it.. Where AQ Khan irrespective to his clandestine activities and blackmarket network is regarded as a national hero and surely Musharraf would be assassinated had be bowed down to US pressure to have Khan questioned and handed over.

Its global strategic positioning and one can say that Iran is possibly trying to achieve the same objective because nuclear arms, in pretty much all cases, can restore the balance of power.

I'm all for progression, and I truly believe that Nuclear Power is the worlds near future, but I still feel uneasy about countries like Pakistan and N.Korea having nuclear arms. To deny them access to power is to leave them further and further behind in the dark ages, half the problem that unstable countries are unstable, but to allow them access is to give a potential nutcase the ability to "eliminate the infidels". So what do you do?

[Prada]

I'm all for progression, and I truly believe that Nuclear Power is the worlds near future, but I still feel uneasy about countries like Pakistan and N.Korea having nuclear arms. To deny them access to power is to leave them further and further behind in the dark ages, half the problem that unstable countries are unstable, but to allow them access is to give a potential nutcase the ability to "eliminate the infidels". So what do you do?

Well nuclear energy, research, development and what is derived from it has to be for the right reasons. Unfortunately many of these underdeveloped, non-democratic nations want it to have a strategic advantage, militarily speaking. History has shown that these nations are willing to pay a very hefty price to obtain them. In hindsight were these countries really deterred, regardless of the sanctions? No, hence the price to pay for being discovered is minute in comparison to what benefits that could be drawn.