Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 20 Feb 2004

Anindya · Post by **Anindya** » 23 Feb 2004 00:00

Wasn't Mr. Rajput telling us a few weeks ago, about an apparent deal between India and the US to create a "Christian state" in the North East, in return for supporting India's position on Kashmir...

Ananda · Post by **Ananda** » 23 Feb 2004 00:08

So, the question remains: Where did we get the clandestine billions to make the bomb from? http://www.dawn.com/2004/02/22/fea.htm#1

Answer: Saudi Arabia

Which leads to the next question:

What was the quid pro quo?

Answer: Most likely a few fully assembled nukes. None of this do-it-yourself with used centrifuges and dubious bomb plans for the generous sheikhs of saudi. That would be too insulting to such a great benefactor. Besides, the saudis are too stupid and too lazy to do it themselves anyway...

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 23 Feb 2004 01:44

I've heard that the hex was flown to Libya in 2000 for the test run of the pilot cascade.

A hex production facility was to have been built in Libya in the next phase, along with the cascade halls, and centrifuge assembly and component fabrication workshops.

There are strong similarities between many aspects of AQ Khan's and Wouter Basson's operations.

I wouldnt be surprised if the feedstock for the test run was free or heavily discounted, a write-off for the product demonstration that would secure the big order. I wouldnt be surprised either if some of that feedstock was more enriched than the Libyans realised.

jrjrao · Post by **jrjrao** » 23 Feb 2004 03:16

Tehran sings, sends nuclear boss to Delhi

New Delhi, Feb. 22: Hours after Tehran admitted today that it bought nuclear components from the black market, it emerged that the head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council is arriving in Delhi on Wednesday.

The timing of the expected touchdown in India has fuelled speculation that Hassan Rohani is on a mission to lobby India for help to cushion a possible indictment by the UN nuclear watchdog.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1040223/asp/foreign/story_2926881.asp

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Feb 2004 05:52

Originally posted by Ananda:

So, the question remains: Where did we get the clandestine billions to make the bomb from? http://www.dawn.com/2004/02/22/fea.htm#1
Answer: Saudi Arabia

Don't forget what B Raman has been saying and what Sunil reminded us of:

http://www.saag.org/papers3/paper288.html

The use of the heroin dollars for such purposes started after the withdrawal of the Soviet troops from Afghanistan in 1988. In the 1980s, at the instance of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the US, the Internal Political Division of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), headed by Brig (retd). Imtiaz, who worked directly under Lt.Gen.Hamid Gul, the DG of the ISI during the later years of Zia-ul-Haq and during the first few months of Mrs.Benazir Bhutto's first tenure as the Prime Minister (1988-90), started a special cell for the use of heroin for covert actions.

This cell promoted the cultivation of opium and the extraction of heroin in Pakistani territory as well as in the Afghan territory under Mujahideen control for being smuggled into the Soviet controlled areas in order to make the Soviet troops heroin addicts. After the withdrawal of the Soviet troops, the ISI's heroin cell started using its network of refineries and smugglers for smuggling heroin to the Western countries and using the money as a supplement to its legitimate economy. But for these heroin dollars, Pakistan's legitimate economy must have collapsed many years ago.

Kumar · Post by **Kumar** » 23 Feb 2004 10:00

BBC discovers 'Indian Subcontinent' and 'South Asia' in Nuke Proliferation by Pakis!

A foreign ministry spokesman said certain items were bought from international dealers, including some from the Indian subcontinent.

"It happened that some of the dealers were from some subcontinent countries."

In this article all the reference regarding proliferation is to Pakis and as is typical of Pakis (whether in Pakland or at BBC), they bring in 'Indian subcontinent' to hide behind good name of India. Oh, where is the 'Middle Eastern' wannabe's pride! Intellectual dishonesty is sure giveaway of a Paki wherever he/she/it be.

kgoan · Post by **kgoan** » 23 Feb 2004 10:34

Posting in full, because it will be necessary when this thread is saved and the Dawn link is dead.

http://www.dawn.com/2004/02/23/fea.htm#3

Story of the clandestine billions: The cost of our N-deterrence-II

By M. Ziauddin

During the 1980s, Pakistan received about $25 billion (a conservative estimate) from various sources and most of these resources were totally unencumbered.

Every country in the so-called free world as well as China was giving us generous assistance in cash and kind throughout this period in return for the 'services' we were rendering to the US in its war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

During this period, Pakistan was getting at least $3 billion on an average annually in remittances from overseas workers, who would send another $3 billion in kind as well every year.

One recalls a State Bank of Pakistan circular in those days which had asked NCBs not to make public the amount of remittances they were receiving from overseas Pakistanis.

When enquiries were made to find out why this circular was issued, it was explained in hushed tones that the government did not want the multilateral agencies to know how much we were getting from this source. The reasons for this secrecy were obvious.

Meanwhile, in those days Pakistan was one of the major producers of poppy and was siphoning off weapons from supplies going through Pakistan to the Afghan 'jihadis' and selling them in the open market. The Ojhri camp incident is quoted as evidence of the post-Afghan war cover-up of this trade.

However, when Ziaul Haq died in August 1988, there was nothing on the ground to show where all these resources had gone. The then caretaker finance minister, Dr. Mehbubul Haq, had to rush to the IMF for emergency assistance to save the country from certain default.

The assumption, therefore, is that most of the resources, legitimate as well as illegitimate, that we received during the period of the 'free lunch' were siphoned off and were spent on our nuclear programme.

The total amount spent on the bomb, the missiles and the two-low intensity conflicts would certainly be more than $10 billion - more likely about $15 billion. The rest (from the $25 billion) was perhaps pocketed by the people who ran the first Afghan war from Pakistan on behalf of the US and the CIA.

It is likely that after the Pressler Amendment was invoked and other avenues of incomes dried up in the 1990s, a large part of the $11 billion of FCAs (confiscated after the nuclear tests) were also diverted to the two clandestine programmes and the two low-intensity wars.

And who was in charge of these clandestine funds for the programme during the 1980s and early 1990s? Well, we all know that Mr. Bhutto, when he launched the programme, had constituted a three-man committee, comprising the then defence secretary, Ghulam Ishaq Khan, the then finance secretary, A.G.N. Kazi, and the then foreign secretary, Agha Shahi.

Mr Agha Shahi was sidelined after General Zia's take-over and in his place came General Arif, one of Zia's close confidantes. At some later stage, Sahibzada Yakub Khan was also associated with this committee.

All these names make it very clear that no one, not even the resourceful Dr. A.Q. Khan, could have fooled them, at least in the matter of finances. So, the money in private bank accounts and privately owned properties which is now being cited as evidence of the involvement of Dr A.Q. Khan and other scientists in proliferation had actually been accumulated by following the dictum of 'everything is fair in love and war'. The underground that the CIA claims to have uncovered did not come up to help Pakistan proliferate, but to assist us in making the bomb.

Many in the world and even inside the country wonder why, after having established that Dr A.Q. Khan was the main source of proliferation over the last so many years, the international community led by the US is not blaming this country or its government.

The reason is simple. The US in its present war against terrorism needs us as badly as it did in the 1980s when it was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. It was during this period that we were trying to acquire nuclear capability. The US knew about it. And like now, then too the US media would frequently run stories about our covert nuclear activities.

In fact in 1985, we told the world ourselves that we had perfected a basement bomb. Dr. A.Q. Khan had claimed in a secretly arranged interview to an Indian journalist (of all persons) that he had cold tested a device.

On November 1, 1986, The Washington Post ran a banner headline saying Pakistan had hot tested its device. This story was filed by Bob Woodword of Watergate fame, whose connection with the then CIA chief William Casey was revealed by Woodword himself in his book The Veil.

Meanwhile, successive US presidents were giving us certificates (under the Pressler amendment) that we were not making the bomb. Like now, then too the US administration had ostensibly disagreed with its own media because it needed our help in Afghanistan.

But, intriguingly, at the same time, as today, the CIA was also leaking to its media in the 1980s stories about Pakistan's nuclear programme. Why? Perhaps to keep India from threatening Pakistan's security at a time when its army is engaged in Afghanistan.

The Sikh crisis of the 1980s in India also seems, in retrospect, to have been handiwork of the CIA to keep India engaged in a bloody, divisive crisis on the domestic front.

India as everyone knows was at that time in the Soviet camp and had taken a position on Afghanistan which was not in consonance with that of the US. America perhaps suspected Indian intentions and therefore tried to neutralize it with Pakistan's basement bomb and the Sikh crisis.

Today the situation is different. India has become a good friend of the US. So, before implicating Pakistan publicly in the nuclear proliferation scandal, using the Khan angle, the US saw to it that tensions between India and Pakistan were replaced by a peace initiative.

Apparently, the US has managed to keep Pakistan free of worries on the southern borders while Washington keeps us engaged in the north. This time it seems the US will not walk away from this region in a hurry as it did in 1990.

Its forces are likely to remain in the region for another 10 to 15 years. During this period at least, Washington is not likely to see anything happen to Pakistan. But let us keep our fingers crossed at least for the next couple of years.

Now that our programme has become 'overt' (in the words of President Musharraf), and the underground network is in the process of being smashed, it would be interesting to know what route our establishment will take to import the raw material and hardware requirements to sustain our deterrence capability.

We obviously cannot open an L/C with a bank to import these items. But even if we did try this route, which country would sell any material to us? And even if they did, would not the bilateral and multilateral donors cut off all flows of concessional assistance to Pakistan?

However, if we have acquired what is called a sustainable 'full fuel cycle' and are no longer dependent on supplies from outside to sustain it, then we are safe and through to the exclusive nuclear club. It may still turn out that all's well that ends well.

Prateek · Post by **Prateek** » 23 Feb 2004 18:42

web page

IAEA Experts Do Not Rule Out Possibility that International Terrorists May Get Hold of Nuclear Technologies

VIENNA (By Borislav Pechnikov, RIA Novosti ) - In the light of recent events which revealed sale of nuclear technologies and equipment from Pakistan to Iran, Libya and, possibly, North Korea, experts of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) do not rule out a possibility that these technologies and equipment may have landed in the hands of international terrorists, a high-ranking official of the IAEA Headquarters in Vienna told RIA Novosti on Saturday.

As has been revealed, the "nuclear web" woven by Abdul Kadyr Khan, the "Father of Islamic nuclear bomb", was impressively extensive." In 2001, "a certain amount" of enriched uranium was transported to Libya by a Pakistani aircraft. In mid 1990s, "an unidentified Iranian" left $3 million in a safe of one of the hotels in Dubai (UAE) as payment for a gas centrifuge required for uranium-enrichment production and manufacture of weapons-grade plutonium in Iran. The world public is now aware of other activities of this kind.

According to our source in IAEA, "evidence of international nuclear criminals' operations has been found in many parts of the world." Traces of their activities lead from Pakistan via Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates to North Korea, Libya and Iran. Another route leads by a roundabout way from Germany, the SAR and Taiwan to Islamabad. "All this seemingly Brownian movement in fact centers around on the person - Abdul Kadyr Khan, Pakistan's national hero, major landowner, multimillionaire and, at the same time, a radical Islamic fundamentalist," the IAEA expert said.

Therefore, he added, it cannot be ruled out that nuclear technologies - and not only those used in production of "dirty" atomic bombs - could have landed in the hands of terrorists, for example, from the notorious Al-Qaeda.

Sunil · Post by **Sunil** » 23 Feb 2004 22:14

Some useful links

http://www.azom.com/details.asp?Articleid=627
http://www.sandrelli.net/nukefuel1.htm

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/facility/k******.htm
http://www.antenna.nl/wise/539/5225.html

During the seventies Pakistan imported a pilot reprocessing plant, which is able to separate plutonium from spent nuclear fuel. This pilot reprocessing plant was built at Rawalpindi. It has presently a production capacity of 8-10 kg plutonium per year. In 1972 Pakistan's first nuclear power reactor went into commercial operation at Karachi, the Kanupp reactor with 137 MW. This reactor however was and is under safeguards inspections from the IAEA. Therefore it was not possible to extract plutonium from the spent fuel of Kanupp for military purposes and so the reprocessing plant was idle. In early 1998 the unsafeguarded plutonium reactor at Khushab, with about 50 MWth, came into operation, after eleven years of construction. This reactor is able to produce up to 15 kg of plutonium a year. Many reports state that China has supplied equipment or technical assistance for it.

Parallel to the opening of the Khushab reactor, the reprocessing plant was put into operation to reprocess the spent fuel. Most of the reprocessing plant was bought from Belgonucleaire, some technology from SGN in France. By now the reactor has produced enough plutonium for one plutonium fission core and the reprocessing plant has been operating at a rate to produce enough separated plutonium for an explosive device a year. Nuclear scientists and the military in Pakistan urge the government to allow them to do another nuclear test, with nuclear bombs made of plutonium

http://www.ceip.org/programs/npp/pdf/Ch10a.pdf

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/facility/rawalpindi.htm

http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/pakistan/pakistan%20nuclear%20update.nf.htm

"New Labs plutonium reprocessing plant (Rawalpindi): The PAEC is operating this pilot reprocessing facility in Rawalpindi to separate plutonium from spent fuel discharged from the unsafeguarded 50-70 megawatt heavy water-moderated Khushab reactor. U.S. officials have been cited as saying that the Khushab reactor is generating 8-10 kilograms of plutonium per year, enough for at least one nuclear weapon.

It was reported in February 2001 that China's Seventh Research and Design Institute, which is overseen by the CNNC, had supplied 50 ceramic capacitors to New Labs. The company was reportedly paid through a bank account maintained by an official at the Pakistani embassy in Beijing."

http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/nucwatch/nucwatch071798.html

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Pakistan/PakArsenal.html

http://www-mep.phy.anl.gov/atta/publication1/atom_trap_trace_analysis.htm

Sunil · Post by **Sunil** » 23 Feb 2004 22:35

The non proliferation community seems to be intent on softening the impact of the Khan arrest. Any allegations of PA involvement, of Khan's Islamist motivations, Musharraf's personal duplicity, plutonium tech. transfer, transfer of bomb designs, etc... are all being systematically doused by the Non-Proliferation mullahs.

kgoan · Post by **kgoan** » 23 Feb 2004 22:53

You know folks, reading these threads again, and Sunils last post, something struck me.

And I think we need a change. Because if there's one thing this thing has done, it's to bring out as clearly as possible the NP folk as state instruments of the west/US.

The esence of psy-war is to manage peoples perceptions and reality via via words. Words can hide as well as reveal. And I think we've been badly remiss in using terminology such as "Non-Prolif Mullahs" and variations on the theme.

See, as soon as we say "Non-Prolif", we've lost.

After all, who could debate the wonderful idea of stoping nukes? And when we add "mullah" or "non-prolif-theologist" etc, we put *ourselves* behind the eight ball because *we* are the ones who come across as abusing the would-be-saviours of the world.

So we need a new name. One that can A) Reflect the reality of these folks as instruments of western and specifically US policy and which

reflect them the way *we* would like them to be.

And to be effective, it has to be a name (or acronym) that can be used in public but which won't get you thought of as an ill-bred boor.

We really, *really* need to break the link these folk have built for themselves as the "good guys" of the nuclear world.

So coming up with a good acronym to counter their claim to righteousness embedded in the very words "non-proliferation", would certainly be a start. And no, this post isn't meant as a joke.

Any suggestions?

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 23 Feb 2004 23:02

I have two:

AMPA - Atomic Monopoly Preservation Agent

ASS - Atomic Status-quo Supporter

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 23 Feb 2004 23:10

Rangudu makes a couple of excellent suggestions. Its not about preventing proliferation; its about retaining monopoly over a potent instrument of deterrence. "Nuclear monopolists" sounds a hell of a lot more practical than "non-proliferation supporters" - the term monopoly has immediate negative 'big-guy' connotations attached to it. I vote for "nuclear monopolists, who cloak themselves as supporters of non proliferation..." as a nice description for these bozos.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 23 Feb 2004 23:16

Originally posted by kgoan:
The esence of psy-war is to manage peoples perceptions and reality via via words. Words can hide as well as reveal. And I think we've been badly remiss in using terminology such as "Non-Prolif Mullahs" and variations on the theme.

This is the most important statement. The entire process of proliferation from the 80s to 90s and then after 2002 de-proliferation initiative are part of state policies initiated for geo-strategic goals.

All the players such as Pakistan and AQK are mere tools in the grand scheme as these threads have revealed.

Sunil · Post by **Sunil** » 23 Feb 2004 23:21

> Non Proliferation community are exposed..

Time shall unfold what plaited cunning hides:
Who cover faults, at last shame them derides.

- Cordelia to Regan and Goneril in King Lear

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Feb 2004 23:30

Sunil, That quote from Shakespeare shows how well rounded the education system is in India and also reflects on how you used your time for self improvement. Also by extension how well acquainted the members here are.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Feb 2004 00:14

Calvin, There is a report in Friday Times about Mushy's visit to Karachi. The story appears mundane but could be deeper....
Musharraf averted crisis in Sindh

Advertise Here

Mazhar Abbas
The MQM wants Musharraf to dismiss the city government and call for early elections; that may not happen too soon

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

here are three governments in Karachi. There is one that’s run by the chief minister Ali Mohammad Mahar, there’s another that takes orders from the MQM governor Dr Ishratul Ibad and finally there is the city government led by Jama’at-e Islami’s city nazim Naimatullah Khan. All three work at cross purposes, but tension really runs high between the MQM and the city government. Recently, when they were on the verge on confrontation, the situation forced President Pervez Musharraf to rush to Karachi and stay in the city for almost four days. The sojourn itself resulted in one of the toughest security measures the city has ever seen. The four days were also hell for commuters.

Sources say while there are not too many problems between Mahar and the MQM since the latter mostly works through its governor, the state of war between the MQM and the city government continues.

During his stay Musharraf held a separate meeting with the MQM legislators at the Governor’s House. Other members of the coalition government were not invited to this meeting. At the meeting the MQM presented its case against the JI city government and asked for early elections in 2004 instead of waiting for the scheduled polls in 2005.

The MQM had decided to not participate in the local bodies elections. That mistake has now become an albatross around the party’s neck. In its absence, the JI scored big and got its man elected as nazim. The MQM has, since joining the government, wanted to prevail over Musharraf to get rid of the JI-led government and call new elections. That ahs not happened. The MQM says its ministers are not allowed to work because the JI wouldn’t let a rival party take control of resources and do development work.

Musharraf, say sources, wanted to know why the MQM had boycotted the local government elections. He did not agree with the MQM that the federal government should intervene and call for early elections. “He told them to prepared for elections in 2005,” says a source, but added: “Still, if the situation persists, there are chances the local government elections might be held before schedule.”

The JI is of course determined to not let that happen. “We will resist such a move with full force,” a JI leader told TFT. But he dismissed the possibility of the JI boycotting elections if early polls are called. “We will protest but will not boycott the polls if they are held before time,” said a JI leader.

Both the MQM and JI have high stakes in Karachi. And tension has been rising. Technically, the MQM is at fault since it wants to intervene in areas which are clearly the domain of the city government. Last week activists of both parties almost took out guns at the Civic Centre in KDA. The situation is not different at KMC and in the different towns of Karachi.

The JI ruled the Karachi metropolitan corporation until late eighties when the MQM, a rising political-ethnic force, upstaged it. Since then relations have remained tense. After the MQM boycotted the local government polls, the JI walked into the vacuum and now the MQM finds itself hamstrung.

Insiders say the situation has become so bad that at one stage the MQM was seriously considering quitting the government if Musharraf did not come out in its favour and dismiss the city government. But then better sense prevailed. “He could not have done something so blatant,” says an official, adding: “They climbed down only after a close aide of Musharraf intervened in the situation.”

The MQM leaders say they don’t face any problems with the Mahar government. “But yes the city nazim is another story,” as one of them put it to TFT.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 24 Feb 2004 00:54

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=41677&h eadline=Pakistani~nukes~may~end~up~in~jihadi~hands

A "senior fellow from ORF in New Delhi" who refuses to divulge his name. Seems to have been trained by the cohenistas.

Ever since Pakistan’s tit-for-tat nuclear explosions at Chagai in May 1998, there has been widespread apprehension that its nuclear warheads may fall into jihadi hands. Such anxieties are completely misplaced. Despite its roguish agenda, the Pakistan army is a very professional army. It would have established a foolproof storage system with adequate checks and balances for its nuclear assets.

And then the genius concludes:

Make no mistake: if ever the Pakistani jihadis come into possession of a nuclear warhead, it will have been handed over formally by the Pakistan army on the direct orders of its chief

I wonder which orifice in his body he pulled this conclusion out of.

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » 24 Feb 2004 01:31

Rye: What do you object to in the last para you quote?

Ramana: The meeting with MQM/JI was reported earlier. I find it interesting that Musharraf goes to to meet them, and not vice versa. Finally, why meet V Corps Commanders? On the day right after Tenet visits? Something is not quite adding up.

Sunil · Post by **Sunil** » 24 Feb 2004 01:36

Hi,

The writer from ORF seems to be saying that the Pak Army was complicit in A Q Khan's trade and that the US is willing to look the other way on that. What is wrong with that? - nothing Cohenist there.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 24 Feb 2004 01:51

Hi,

I was reading cohenist ideas from the following, specifically the army being a very professional army...but if I am reading this the wrong way, it won't be the first time.

Despite its roguish agenda, the Pakistan army is a very professional army. It would have established a foolproof storage system with adequate checks and balances for its nuclear assets.

Calvin,
Expecting nukes to be handed by the pakistani army to the jihadis is completely ridiculous at this time, as that assumes that the horse has not already bolted from the barn. There is a definite possibility of all the required technologies already made available to various entities that wanted nukes. For example, AXK could very well have provided the parts and the plans to some terrorist group, and the writer in the above article, deliberately or otherwise, seems to pretend that nothing bad has happened so far that can result in nukes in the hands of terrorists. (at least that is the way I read it, perhaps wrongly)

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 24 Feb 2004 02:01

Pretext Nuclear Terrorism: The US Disarmament Trap
February 21, 2004

http://www.forecastpakistan.com/story.asp?NewsID=55

Analysis

The US has begun to set an international disarmament trap under the pretext of the war against terrorism. Due to the change in international conditions she has also initiated actions in order to hide her extensive covert nuclear proliferation to countries she had considered vital to her strategic interests. Pakistan’s centrality to the disarmament trap has threatened her nuclear programme, vital security and fundamentally her survival. Forecast Pakistan has put forward an analysis of the US international trap and proposals by which Pakistan may be able to release herself from it.

The US disarmament trap was articulated by President George Bush in his key policy speech entitled “New Measures to Counter the threat of WMD”, delivered to the US National Defence University on February 11, 2004.

Forecast Pakistan had predicted in its article “US Hides Nuclear Proliferation” dated February 7, 2004, that the US was likely to implement recommendations as regards nuclear disarmament articulated by Graham Allison in his article “How To Stop Nuclear Terror”, published by the US foreign policy journal, Foreign Affairs in January 2004. Bush’s speech mirrored the recommendations put forward by him.

The trap aims to control and disarm the weapons of nuclear or potential nuclear states it considers a threat or potential threat to its global and regional plans. Her target is the source of nuclear weapons capability, namely the technology of enriching uranium and plutonium. For this reason she has proposed revoking the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as this instrument has ceased to provide cover for her covert proliferation and a loophole through which weapons grade fissile material can be acquired for peaceful purposes. In his speech Bush said;

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Feb 2004 02:03

The way I see it. AXK proliferation was enabling technology to axis of evil countries - Libya, Iran and North Korea. The trail not followed is the PAEC's Bashir Ahmed's proliferation to alq/oble. This is probably of the type that Jose Padilla was involved in.
THe RATs consider the jihadi/Army of Islam as an extension or irregular fighting branch of themselves. Its only the outsiders who see a distinction between the two due to the legacy of irregular armies in the Cold War. What the ORF writer is saying is that if an irregular outfit obtains a weapon it is by intent not by accident or theft or any palusible deniable scenario. IMO this is because the leaders of the irregular outfits are officers seconded from RATs as was often the case in Afghan War in the eighties. What ORF is saying by default is that the NFU would be considered breached.

Vivek_A · Post by **Vivek_A** » 24 Feb 2004 02:10

Why can't we be equal-equal..

MUSHAHID HUSSAIN(First Nawaz and now gola toady)

Had there been coordination among the Muslim countries, they could have better defended pressures on them and countered these by referring to these examples of India and Israel plus the sources of the nuclear bazaar, which happen to lie in Europe. Unfortunately, with Muslim countries singled out, they separately tried to defend themselves, ending up blaming each other as if they alone were the culprits while the Europeans, Indians and Israelis were not the targets of this investigation, although the international media has named Indians and Israelis, a fact Muslim states failed to exploit or push in their policy pronouncements. Or take the February 12, 2004, report released by the US Congressional watchdog, the General Accounting Office (GAO), listing the ‘countries of concern’ that the ‘United States believes may support terrorism or contribute to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.’ This list by an official US government body names the ‘countries of concern’: Azerbaijan, Belarus, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kazakhstan, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Syria, and the Ukraine.’ Why couldn’t Pakistan demand to be treated at par with India and Israel, both also cited as ‘countries of concern’?

Because TSP is a condom, that's why...

Prof Raghu · Post by **Prof Raghu** » 24 Feb 2004 02:13

In 1998, right after PoK-II, I wrote an op-ed for my local paper and got into a debate with a non-prolif person. I used the phrase "nuclear racists" for the non-prolif mullahs, and "nuclear apartheid" for the immoral NPT regime.

What did those who practiced apartheid get called?
That should be transferable here -- "Nuclear _____" (whatever term was used for the practitioners of apartheid).

I have long wondered why the GoI does not promote the disarmament crowd -- with a FIFO (first-in, first-out) or a "kumbaya" (everyone together) approach (and certainly not LIFO).

Sunil · Post by **Sunil** » 24 Feb 2004 02:18

Actually that is the phenomenally stupid part of all this. By agreeing to exchange Pak Army cooperation against alqaida for letting proliferators off the hook, the USG is creating the impression that such a trade is o.k.

Nobody seems to get that this effectively gives the Pakistanis plausible deniability on terroristic WMD attacks. That is asking for trouble.

To quote a very reputable source:

"We Indians know that the Pakistani Army will nuke us without blinking an eyelid - and we accept that - we know them for the homicidal psychopaths they are. But the Americans just can't seem to stomach the idea that the Pakistan Army will do the same to them also - so they keep trying to come up with ways of deluding themselves into believing that somehow magically this is never going to happen. The entire regime of American sponsorred nuclear controls on Pakistani nuclear bombs rests on dreamy notions of undying love for America professed by a bunch of Islamic zealots in armani suits."

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 24 Feb 2004 03:25

UN pursues atomic warhead trail

Roop · Post by **Roop** » 24 Feb 2004 04:54

Originally posted by sunil s:
> Time shall unfold what plaited cunning hides:
Who cover faults, at last shame them derides.

- Cordelia to Regan and Goneril in King Lear

Sunil bhai:

If you were going to quote from Shakespeare, could you not have done it from one of my three favourites (Macbeth, Hamlet or Julius Caesar)? No!! You had to go and pick King Lear. Now I have to hit the books and find that quote you cited.

Kyon khamkha hamen dukhi karte ho, bhai?

In all seriousness, I think that Shakespeare was a genius, whose works bear vivid relevance to us even today. I salute the Bard (and you too, I guess, by inference

).

Apne quote ka chapter and verse to batao na, bhai, taake mera 'search' kuch aasaan ho jaaye.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 24 Feb 2004 05:06

Originally posted by Rangudu:
I have two:

AMPA - Atomic Monopoly Preservation Agent

ASS - Atomic Status-quo Supporter

Nice...but perhaps a little too mild for our purposes?

"Monopolist" has a commercial ring to it, suggesting white-collar and relatively victimless crime. Only other businesspeople, and would-be consumers get upset about monopolists.

IMO we should find something that evokes moral repugnance, striking directly at the hypocrisy of these people. Something that puts us unequivocally in the right and these guys, especially in the context of Western Democracy and its alleged foundations of egalitarianism, damnably in the wrong.

Apartheid has more of the connotations we're looking for, and maybe 15-20 years ago would have been a dynamite term...but it's already fading from popular consciousness, and also its declensions are somewhat obscure ( Apartheider? Apartheidist? )

Maybe "Nuclear Segregationist" might be a good one. Segregationism still resonates strongly in the US at least, and the recent Trent Lott episode showed that links with Segregationists can be devastating to a political career. With its connotation of racism, it puts us behind the 8-ball again but this time in the role of Dr.King or Nelson Mandela.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 24 Feb 2004 05:17

China brings shift on nukes to Korea talks

It also brings China closer to a traditional Western "arms control" position and closer to those in the Bush administration who want to prohibit "rogue" states from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 24 Feb 2004 05:21

Maybe "Nuclear Segregationist" might be a good one.

Has a nice ring to it.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 24 Feb 2004 05:23

>China changes view on proliferation

Esepecially after "debriefed" ally TSP hands over Chinese nukes+manuals to rogues-r-us nations

BTW, some dorks are always around to buy the Chinese lemon. Deng Xiaoping will be laughing in his grave....

Kuttan · Post by **Kuttan** » 24 Feb 2004 05:25

Guys, that should be

Nucular Segregationist

I swear, I heard a PhD astronaut speak the other day - opening address of a major technical convention - and it was "nookular" all the way..

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Feb 2004 05:42

Originally posted by shiv:
Hoodbhoy met a person who is known to me through someone else at a conference. When he was asked about Pakistani nukes - he said "They are under US security" Exact words here. "US security". The source asked a second time and got the same words.?

Hoodbhoy's statement was in 2002 at the following conference:

http://www.lincei.it/rapporti/amaldi/prg_2002.html

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Feb 2004 05:58

Originally posted by rudradev:

Originally posted by Rangudu:
I have two:

AMPA - Atomic Monopoly Preservation Agent

ASS - Atomic Status-quo Supporter

Maybe "Nuclear Segregationist" might be a good one.

All good.

I prefer something that shows up the non proliferation "experts" and "lobby" for what they are in a transparent and non-cryptic fashion - something like Selective Proliferation lobby or Sponsors of Random Proliferation.

Whatever we call it - we must never again refer to it as unqualified "non-proliferation"

Raghz · Post by **Raghz** » 24 Feb 2004 07:34

Bhutto alleges nuclear 'cover-up'

Pakistan's disgraced nuclear scientist AQ Khan could not have leaked nuclear secrets on his own, former prime minister Benazir Bhutto says.
Ms Bhutto said she believed senior government or military figures must have known what was going on.

"We believe there's a cover-up... there are certainly others involved," she told the BBC's Asia Today programme.

A government spokesman rejected the allegations and said the scientist had acted independently throughout.

Dr Khan, the so-called father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, was pardoned in January after admitting leaking nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea.

Many observers are sceptical that he could have done what he says he did without the powerful military knowing.

'Real culprits'

Ms Bhutto said she wanted the matter investigated further - but she doubted any light would be shed on the role of President Pervez Musharraf, whom she accused of being "reckless".

"General Musharraf would like the world to believe that Dr Khan is responsible for the export of nuclear technology, but nobody in Pakistan buys that," she told the BBC.

I'd like to know whether the president or the prime minister changed that policy [of no nuclear exports] or whether the army acted in defiance

Former Pakistan PM Benazir Bhutto
The scientist was a scapegoat who people thought had been carrying out orders, she said.

The fact he had been pardoned sent the wrong message to would-be exporters of weapons of mass destruction.

"We want the real culprits identified so that this can never happen again."

Ms Bhutto said she had run a policy of "no exports of nuclear technology" when she had been in power.

"I'd like to know whether the president or the prime minister changed that policy or whether the army acted in defiance of the president or prime minister, or whether intelligence acted as an independent operator."

Ms Bhutto, one of President Musharraf's bitterest critics, has been living in self-imposed exile in Britain and the United Arab Emirates since 1999. She faces a string of corruption cases if she returns to Pakistan.

'Dishonest"

The Pakistani government has said throughout the scandal that Dr Khan and other scientists acted entirely of their own accord.

Speaking to the same programme, Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed denied any cover-up.

"Not a single government was involved in this nuclear proliferation - that was a personal act of these two or three scientists."

He accused Ms Bhutto of being corrupt, dishonest and power-hungry, and of manipulating the media.

Pakistan had launched investigations when it had been informed of possible wrongdoing by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the minister said...
--------------------------------------
I saw part of the interview on BBC world last night. I am looking for the full interview transcript. Regarding the "No export policy", this is how it went (Quoting from memory).

BBC Interviewer (BI): As a prime minister, were you in the know of the nuclear activities?

Benazir Bhutto (BB): The military definetly tried to keep me out to the loop, but I wanted to be in the loop. During my time, none of these things have happened. In fact I chaired a meeting with the military and told them that We need to have a NO Export Policy of Nuclear Technology

BI: Why did you talk about "No export policy"? Was there anything happenning?

BB: There was a lot of pressure from George Bush (Sr) about the nuclear program. The Americans said "Look, we know you have done a cold test and have the bomb." [have forgotten some bits here] We store the components of the weapon seperately so that there is a delay...
---------------------------------------------
George Bush (Sr) was President from 1989 to 1993.
Benazir Bhutto was Prime Minister from 1988 to 1990 & 1993 to 1996.
AQK Proliferation "detected" in 2003-2004.
BCCI went bust in 1991.

If Bush (Sr) administration was applying pressure during his tenure about "No export policy" then what were the intelligence and non-proliferation mullahs doing between 1993 and 2003?

I remember S^2's words "Replace BCCI with any other bank..."

Raghz · Post by **Raghz** » 24 Feb 2004 07:41

Nuclear devices kept apart to allay US concerns: Benazir
ISLAMABAD, Feb 23: PPP leader Benazir Bhutto today conceded that under US pressure she asked the army and the President during her regime not to assemble a nuclear bomb.

Talking to BBC tv, Bhutto said she convinced the then president and the army not to put together the nuclear devices. Bhutto said that there were lot of concerns about Pakistan's nuclear programme and claimed "so I sat down and convinced the president and the army and co-opted the nuclear scientists to ensure there were no export of nuclear weapons and that we would not put together our nuclear devices."

" So that there was a time lag in the event that there was a threat, because when we put together a device it takes time," she said. Referring to the negotiations, which her government was having with the then Bush (senior) administration, she said the U.S. government was very worried about Pakistan's nuclear programme.

She observed there was also a fear of an attack on Pakistan's nuclear assets - on the line of the one Israel had carried out on Iraq's nuclear plant. Bhutto said she addressed the concerns of the Bush administration to "protect" the country's nuclear programme. (APP)

daulat · Post by **daulat** » 24 Feb 2004 14:01

you almost have to feel sorry for benazir, she uses every opportunity to tell everyone that she was doing the wrong things the right way and how bad bad mushy is doing the wrong things the wrong way! its getting a bit sad to watch her beg to be let back in to power. please benazir, where is your pride?!?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 24 Feb 2004 14:39

BB was totally unaware of what was happening around her. She could not even get "permission" to visit KRL. Rajiv briefed her on the progress of their nuclear program. She now pretends as though she was in-charge.

daulat · Post by **daulat** » 24 Feb 2004 14:54

Originally posted by SSridhar:
BB was totally unaware of what was happening around her. She could not even get "permission" to visit KRL. Rajiv briefed her on the progress of their nuclear program. She now pretends as though she was in-charge.

indeed, but as the telegenic face of muslim authority figures, 'pinkie' is easy to put on TV, and boy does she love to give interviews! doesn't matter if she was not in charge, can she persuade the movers and shakers that she should be brought back in as a western friendly moderate face?