SHOULD WE REMOVE PAKISTAN’S NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND STOP SENDING FUNDS?

Posted on May 17, 2011 by Jeffrey Newman

I don’t usually write about politics or geopolitical issues. It doesn’t generally fit within the context of this blog which is to track trends that are molding the global future. My attentions turned to Pakistan today when Pakistani forces fired on NATO helicopters carrying American forces. Obviously things are tense in the region since our incursion to take out Ben Laden. But what did the Pakistani’s expect us to do? Ask their permission? Here’s a scenario that concerns me: the Pakistani’s become more aggressive against our forces egging us on to retaliate in order to cause America to look the aggressor. Meanwhile, the Pakistani’s are holding 54 nuclear weapons, built with American funds and pointed at India. If the tensions escalate more quickly than expected and if we don’t have a plan, the Pakistani’s could play the nuclear wild card. I know this sounds extreme, but wouldn’t it diffuse the situation if we commandeered their nuclear arsenal and stopped funding their stupidity? The very reason for our funding–stabilizing the region, seems to have failed. Then there are those who will say it is impossible to grab the nuclear weapons. That is a separate question. Why is it so outlandish for us to consider defanging the risk? OK so perhaps it is extreme, but in comparison to what? Doesn’t it depend on how bad things become? I have read where the CIA creates scenarios to predict probable flashpoints to allow us to consider actions to prevent world catastrophies. Should not the agency consider this possibility?