Musharraf had a choice â€“ let al Qaeda and its allies in the judiciary evict him and gain control of the nuclear weapons they long have hoped to gain access to â€“ or maintain control by whatever means necessary. (saw your correction). What is the evidence that the Pakistani judiciary is allied with the Taliban? i.e. why do people believe that there is no democratic/non-theocratic domestic Pakistani political opposition? I welcome pointers to non-polemic reading material.Comment Posted By Bill Arnold On 5.11.2007 @ 11:06
What if, as happened during the Clinton Administration, a high ranking foreigner was with Osama and killing him might have caused trouble in other areas of American diplomacy?
Part of the news value here is the political context. The Clinton administration was slammed (recently, not at the time) from the right for missing such opportunities. (We know somewhat more about the reasons Clinton didn't pull the trigger, but not all the facts are publicly available about those decisions, either.)
Surfacing this issue increases the credibility of FNC's "Fair and Balanced" motto.
This is one of the few cases where Clinton could reasonably be blamed (even by partisan lefties :-), for turning an annual blind eye to the obvious-at-the-time Pakistani (& not so obvious Indian) nuclear ambitions for 6 or 7 years. Some blame also goes to the GHWBush & Reagan administrations. We would have much more freedom of action if Pakistan wasn't nuclear-armed.Comment Posted By Bill Arnold On 27.10.2007 @ 17:17
Have they? Do you have a cite for that fact?Comment Posted By Bill Arnold On 18.09.2007 @ 17:02
I can't address the levels-of-enrichment question, but armscontrolwonk.com is a good, intellectually honest source of information, and is often raw and challenging reading for the non-specialist. Read the comments as well - there are some commenters who are apparently rather knowledgeable. It's the must-read blog whenever articles about (nuclear) arms control issues appear in the popular press.
To build a bomb, you have to test it (as the NKs found in their recent fizzle) and if the Iranians ever tested a bomb they would be obliterated.Comment Posted By Bill Arnold On 18.09.2007 @ 12:51
A simple (non-implosion) U235 device doesn't need testing. We (US) tested ours over Hiroshima. (various source - the Wikipedia article is quite readable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design)
This type of device requires more uranium and is probably too big for a IRBM. But the potential ability of a proliferator to build a no-testing-needed device is always part of the calculation.
"I am so glad these traitors were not around in the fall of 1942, when the Japanese were running wild in the Pacific."
I won't defend MoveOn's headline language (it's stupid and counterproductive), but... there is some history with sloppy accusations of treason by the American-right against the American-left-of-the-American-right.Comment Posted By Bill Arnold On 11.09.2007 @ 12:14
I have difficulty understanding the outcry of those who disagree with surviellance techniques.Comment Posted By Bill Arnold On 17.08.2007 @ 10:20
WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO HIDE??
LOL. Perhaps you're trolling but it's hard to tell.
My experience is that most people have something to hide, something they don't want local politicians or police to hold as leverage against them. Information is power. (Power corrupts. etc. :-)
Speech transcript.Comment Posted By Bill Arnold On 1.08.2007 @ 17:16
Is this really the best of the best in our country?
This is in the running for top rhetorical question of the year. :-)
It's probably worth arguing that the odds of an Obama administration actually giving the final green-light for something like this are near zero. Reports about the possible (and uncomfortably likely) very negative consequences would surface on Barak's desk early in the planning process.
This speculation leads me to believe that this is simply a continuation of the foreign policy spat with Hillary Clinton. His clarification is likely to be that by "actionable intelligence" he means actions that won't significantly add to the destabilization of Pakistan.Comment Posted By Bill Arnold On 1.08.2007 @ 16:38
For this reason, the irresponsibility of the New York Times and other publications that continue to leak classified information should be condemned.
I've seen few real details about this hive of "programs" leaked. (Sure, there has been plenty, and probably too much IMO, of public speculation.) The main leakage by the NY Times re the NSA 1/2-domestic wiretapping program was that the program was listening to calls without probable cause, but with "reasonable basis". And it was the administration itself that made this distinction clear (e.g. Michael Hayden).
Curiously, as Rick is perhaps suggesting, it's descriptions by Bamford in his two books (Puzzle Palace and the more recent Body of Secrets) of the post-60s&70s culture at the NSA (and by others) that are far assuring than GWBush administration assurances - I believe (perhaps naively) that this organization really does not institutionally want to be involved in domestic politics. A leak of politically-motivated domestic spying would probably cause a painful level of defunding of the agency if it was directed against the party in control of congress.Comment Posted By Bill Arnold On 1.08.2007 @ 16:20
Thatâ€™s a giggle for a start. It should be obvious to anyone that if a nuke goes off in NY, a nuke goes off in Tehran before anyoneâ€™s even started putting out the fires. Deniability will be a hypothetical issue. It is inconceivable that it would happen any other way.Comment Posted By Bill Arnold On 17.07.2007 @ 18:18
Or the AQinWhereEver(TM) franchisees decides the Iranian nuke is better used against heretics (less of a chance that there will be a subsequent World War on Islam, for starters), and smuggles it into Tehran.