PALS in Pakistan Part Five – Additional Nuclear Advantages

Another advantage of providing Pakistan with PALS is avoiding a situation that might force the United States to take military action within or against Pakistan. The U.S. has reportedly begun training several groups of marines for a contingency plan to invade Pakistan and remove its nuclear weapons should any Islamic regime appear to be taking power (Barry). This situation would be extremely detrimental to U.S. interests and should be avoided if at all possible. First, a military incursion into Pakistan would make any new regime immediately hostile to the United States, depriving us of a useful strategic staging point for military actions in the region. The hostility from this kind of action would endure for years, even if a friendlier regime should come to power. Second, the risk of U.S. casualties would be extremely high. This also would have the potential to seriously undermine support for the U.S. "War on Terrorism", hamstringing the ability of the U.S. to respond to future threats against our interests. Third, a military action that failed might increase the probability of the new regime actually using the weapons that remained. It is unlikely that any U.S. military action could actually secure all 30-50 Pakistani nuclear weapons. At least a few would be left in the hands of the incoming regime, which would feel threatened by the chance of continued U.S. military actions and might adopt a "use ‘em or lose ‘em" mindset toward their nuclear weapons. This danger would be increased with a radical Islamic regime that considered strikes against the West to be divinely ordained. PALS would allow the outgoing regime to maintain control over the weapons as they would control the codes, and would mean that the U.S. only had to provide a means of escape to the leaders who had them instead of trying to attack literally dozens of secure installations.

While PALS may not be a foolproof solution to the problem of Pakistan’s nuclear security, they are a step in the right direction. They are also a far better idea than our current policy of preparing to take military action instead of dealing with the problem before it occurs.