Quote:
Originally Posted by gem
Considering the fact that Pakistan already had nukes when they were still supporting the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and by extension bin Laden and al Qeada, I would think such a destabilizing threat to the world would have already materialized. As Speakeasy just implied, I think any world leader would refrain from supplying a terrorist organization with a nuke- much less actually using one- knowing full well that it would result in that nations total obliteration were it to be used. We also have to take into account the pressures from neighboring Middle Eastern States that would be applied to any nation or leader who would desire to give a terrorist organization a nuke to be used against either Israel or the USA.
Those are some other aspects to the situation that need to be considered here before we go off the deep end of hysteria like we did in March, 2003, you know.
|
Understand, I am not advocating war. I simply believe it unrealistic to assume a state such as Iran "would refrain from supplying a terrorist organization with a nuke- much less actually using one- knowing full well that it would result in that nations total obliteration were it to be used." One of the benefits of fighting by proxy is the difficulty in attribution of attacks. Consider the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Did you know what state was responsible? There was no invading army or navy bearing Afghanistan flags. The identity of the attackers was discovered through some good police work, but even today the culprit is the subject of frighteningly widespread belief in conspiracy theories.
It is reasonable to believe that conspirators who do a good job of covering their tracks would be reasonably well assured that attacks would not be linked back to them with sufficient clarity to result in counter-attacks.