Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20432
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

Postby SSridhar » 26 Feb 2013 16:32


Why is the above here (from India Nuclear thread} ?
Washington also got in touch with Beijing and asked it to use its good offices with Islamabad to ensure Pakistan does not react even to news reports of an Indian test and conduct a pre-emptive test of its own.


So, by c. 1995, Washington was well aware of Pakistani bombs.

shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6700
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

Postby shyamd » 26 Feb 2013 18:19

All, this may interest you.:

RE: NoKo test - Arun_s on india forum states the following:

The previous N test was no simple fission test, but was boosted primary for use in 2 stage TN. NoKo and Pakistan are jointed at the hip in this endevour. Poof goes Indian nuclear warhead qualitative edge against Pakistan.
All N7 nations know that but are keeping quite.

ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 458
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

Postby ramdas » 27 Feb 2013 19:33

Shyamji,

This is why we must go ahead and test soon: the NoKo TSP axis will test a two stage TN next. Will we at least react to that and prevent a situation where what is demonstrated by this axis is superior to what has been demonstrated by us ? Let us hope so.

shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6700
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

Postby shyamd » 27 Feb 2013 20:36

Absolutely, and Arihant is a dud as current weapons can't be used on it (will kill everyone with radiation).

So the likelyhood is something will happen on that front soon. Which is what our neighbours and global powers are expecting.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8671
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

Postby arun » 07 Nov 2013 06:43

X Posted.

Nandu wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24823846

Saudi nuclear weapons 'on order' from Pakistan

Saudi Arabia has invested in Pakistani nuclear weapons projects, and believes it could obtain atomic bombs at will, a variety of sources have told BBC Newsnight.

While the kingdom's quest has often been set in the context of countering Iran's atomic programme, it is now possible that the Saudis might be able to deploy such devices more quickly than the Islamic republic.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8671
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

Postby arun » 24 Nov 2013 18:05

-Pakistan's Illegal Nuclear Procurement Exposed in 1987

-Arrest of Arshed Pervez Sparked Reagan Administration Debate over Sanctions

-Newly Declassified Documents Show Illegal Network Had Islamabad's "Approval, Protection, and Funding"

-Reagan White House Chose Afghan War over Nonproliferation Enforcement

-National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 446

-Posted - November 22, 2013

Clicky

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5337
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

Postby vishvak » 24 Nov 2013 19:39

While Indians faced sanctions, pakis could indulge in nuke proliferation! Even now, nuke weapons on demand by Saudis is going unchallenged while Iran is pressured for nuke weapons development. Same for USA help to pak under excuse of afghan war when even now situation is still in flux. Now pakis are misusing it as umbrella of protection while spreading terrorism against India and paki fourfathers are still on paki side bankrolling paki state and ignoring terrorism under nuke umbrella. Anti India stance of pakis was never hidden all through.

Shows how casual is nonproliferation chatter when it can be ignored under some pretext.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20432
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

Postby SSridhar » 24 Nov 2013 20:19

vishvak, the rut runs deeper than mere sanctions against India because the US positively helped Pakistan's vertical & horizontal proliferation. None other than an ex- Pakistani Ambassador to the US, Hussain Haqqani, has stated that the Pressler Amendment itself was worded in collaboration with the Pakistani foreign office to calm that country down and assure it of escape clauses therein.

By January 1979, in spite of mounting intelligence assessment that Pakistan’s nuclear programme was continuing unhindered, the Carter administration decided that withholding aid was considered an unwelcome prospect because of the “critical importance of Pakistan”. Even a year before the Russian entry into Afghanistan, the US had decided not to punish Pakistan for its nuclear transgressions. Rather than curbing the Pakistani programme, the US administration wanted India to accept international safeguards for its nuclear facilities "to help assure the Paks of the peaceful nature" of the Indian program," and reduce their incentive for the nuclear option.

Gen. Zia’s support for the US campaign in Afghanistan was predicated on two conditions, one, the United States should not raise any queries on Pakistan's nuclear programme and two, there should be no pressure or calls for democratization. Pakistan was determined to build a nuclear weapon since 1964 and the US in spite of deep-rooted nonproliferation concerns turned a blind eye

The set of documents released by the US Administration in May, 2012 reveal how the US Secretary of State, George Shultz, had written to President Reagan in November, 1982 that the US Administration was certain that their intelligence assessment of how far Pakistan had clandestinely progressed was accurate but the Reagan administration decided that “A rupture of our relationship would call into question a central tenet of this administration's foreign policy -- strong support for our friends”

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 45702
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

Postby ramana » 24 Nov 2013 22:48

The joke was Pressler was lionized in India and by Indian Americans for having put the Pakis in the dock with his bogus amendment which allowed the administration to fund the Pakis while turning a blind eye to the acquisition of nuke weapons!!!

I always argued to them that Cranston Amendment which was superseded by Pressler Amendment was the better one.

Lilo
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3521
Joined: 23 Jun 2007 09:08

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

Postby Lilo » 05 Dec 2013 03:06

X-post viewtopic.php?p=1551529#p1551529

The Man Who Warned Congress about Pakistan Nukes Paid a Steep Price
He tried to pull the plug on Pakistan’s nuclear bomb program. His career blew up instead.

Richard Barlow was driving his 13-year-old motorhome through a mountain state’s blizzard the week before Thanksgiving when news broke of the Iran nuclear deal.

Bad memories flooded his mind, not that they’re ever far away. For more than 25 years, ever since he testified behind closed doors on Capitol Hill that the CIA had “scores” of “absolutely reliable” reports on Pakistan’s clandestine efforts to obtain nuclear bomb technology – technology it later gave to Iran – his life has been tumbling through one trapdoor after another.

Barlow’s testimony in 1987 shocked several panel members of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee, in part because Army General David Einsel, assigned to the CIA as a top intelligence official, had just told the committee that – despite the recent arrest of a Pakistani caught red-handed buying prohibited nuclear materials – the evidence that Islamabad was pursuing a bomb was inconclusive. The hearing erupted in shouts when Barlow told them differently. “They went through the roof,” he recalled from the road this week. By the time he got back to CIA headquarters, “the phones were ringing off the hook.”

Top Reagan administration officials were in “a panic,” he said, because Pakistan was the crucial player in the CIA operation funneling weapons to Islamic “holy warriors” fighting the Soviet Red Army next door in Afghanistan. If it became known that Pakistan was secretly building a bomb, a law passed by Congress would require a cut-off of military aid.

Obsessed with communism, the administration made a choice: It would turn a blind eye to Pakistan’s nuclear program in order to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan
.

And that meant Barlow, 33 at the time, had to be destroyed.

For the Cold War warriors, the only way to save the Pakistan program was to discredit the young agency analyst,” British journalists Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark wrote in their 2007 book, Deception: Pakistan, the United States and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons.


And they did. His phone stopped ringing. His reports went into circular files. Barlow realized his career at the CIA had flamed out, he says, and he resigned. He moved temporarily to U.S. Customs as a special agent and then to the Pentagon, still tracking nuclear smuggling. After internally objecting to Congressional testimony by Department of Defense officials that Pakistan’s U.S.-bought F-16s were not capable of carrying nuclear weapons he was forced out and subjected to a security investigation, his marriage (to a woman who worked at the CIA) destroyed, he left town. Today, at 59, his savings nearly drained, he wanders the mountains from Montana to Arizona in his motorhome, hunting and fishing with his three dogs, haunted by the idea of what might have been. And what is.

“If they had busted those [Pakistani] networks,” he said last week, “Iran would have no nuclear program, North Korea wouldn’t have a uranium bomb, and Pakistan wouldn't have over a hundred nuclear weapons they are driving around in vans to hide from us.”

Iran had no means to advance its nuclear desires without Pakistan’s help, he said. “It would have been impossible. The Iranians lacked the technical, scientific, and engineering capabilities to develop or manufacture centrifuges or nuclear weapons on their own. They were trying, but they were getting nowhere. It made the impossible possible.”

Barlow moved to New Mexico in 1991, but he still had a few friends in the CIA’s analytical wing who valued his expertise on Pakistan. Indeed, in 1988, before his world started crumbling, he’d won a “certificate for services of extreme value to the Central Intelligence Agency,” signed by CIA Director William Webster. And in May 1990, the Pentagon’s security office declared that “any questions of your trustworthiness or access to sensitive information was resolved in a manner completely favorable to you.”

For a while he worked for the CIA “out of my house in Santa Fe.” but efforts by his allies to get him fully reinstated were blocked by higher-ups.

He reached out to the FBI’s terrorism maven, John O’Neill (who would die on 9/11 at the World Trade Center); O’Neill asked him to help the bureau set up a nuclear counter-proliferation program from the Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque.

For the next dozen years, the exiled Barlow helped run operations to penetrate the nuclear weapons programs of not just Pakistan, but Iran, North Korea, and others. In 2004 a bureaucratic power struggle broke out between the FBI and Sandia, and his job was eliminated.

Numerous efforts through the years to repair the damage to Barlow have all fallen through. Inspector general investigations at the CIA and the State Department found that officials had punished Barlow unfairly. The Pentagon’s inspector general also found that the department had retaliated against Barlow (albeit just legally).

The Government Accountability Office, Congress’s investigative arm, looked into the inspector general’s handling of Barlow’s case and confirmed the retaliation against him. Although the Senate Armed Services Committee ordered the Pentagon to compensate Barlow for the harm done to him, it refused.

In response, the committee instructed Barlow’s senator, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, to introduce a “private bill” to recompense him. But Senator John Warner of Virginia, a former Secretary of the Navy, with the Pentagon on his home turf, objected. Ducking a confrontation with Warner, the Senate then punted Barlow’s case to the Court of Federal Claims. That proved a blind alley, however, when then-CIA director George Tenet, then-NSA director Michael Hayden and Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre declared that all the relevant classified information on Barlow’s case was protected by the so-called state secrets privilege.

In 2009, 22 years after he had first told truth to power about Pakistan, Barlow approached the Obama White House about his case. A plan was hatched to turn Barlow into a “poster boy” for a federal whistle-blowers protection act. That ploy fell apart, however, when it became clear that the president had no intention of signing a bill that would include protections for spy agency employees.

Barlow then turned to a friend, Suzanne Spaulding, a former CIA lawyer and general counsel of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Spaulding recognized the embarrassment the public resolution of his case would cause the State and Defense departments, Barlow said, and proposed the novel idea of urging Leon Panetta, who had become CIA director in 2009, to use a little-known section of the Central Intelligence Act of 1949 that authorizes a CIA director to cut a fast check – in secret, naturally – to someone in the interest of national security. Before anything could get going, though, Spaulding was nominated to be an under-secretary of homeland security and Panetta was moved from the CIA to the Pentagon.

In any event, Barlow insisted, “I’m not a whistle-blower. I testified before a committee behind closed doors in a top-secret session with the full approval of my chain of command.”

And look what happened. He has no idea whether Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor whose leaks have caused an international uproar, drew a lesson from his case. But he noted that “none of us can go to Congress [on our own] with anything, if it’s classified.… If you understand this, you understand what Snowden did and the way he did it. My case shows what happens to you when you do it right.”

Anybody who gets Barlow on the phone had better be prepared to talk or trade emails for hours about the nuclear black market, Pakistan’s perfidy, his many travails and, now, the nuclear deal with Iran. It’s bad, he insisted. “Iran is gaming” the West.

“The holes in the agreement are multiple. Among them, it does absolutely nothing to address Iran’s extensive nuclear weapons physics work.… In addition, as long as a country maintains an enrichment plant and stocks of enriched uranium, it is has the capability to make [highly enriched uranium]. And the agreement does not remove a single one of the thousands of centrifuges Iran has.”

Centrifuges, he must remind everyone that began with Pakistan.

Barlow could go on – and he will, for hours, late into the cold Arizona night. But for a moment, he paused, hugged one of the dogs at his feet, and laughed into the Skype camera on his laptop.

“I used to hunt Pakistanis,” he said. “Now I hunt birds.”


This story has been corrected to reflect the following: Richard Barlow won back his security clearances before the GAO looked into his case, not after. While working with the FBI out of the Sandia Labs in New Mexico, Barlow helped run operations to penetrate the nuclear weapons programs of not just Pakistan, but Iran, North Korea and others. The Senate was not "stymied" by former Sen. John Warner's objection to a "private bill" on Barlow's behalf; it chose to avoid a confrontation with him and referred his case to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. It is the "Central Intelligence Act of 1949" that has a provision authorizing the CIA director to make discreet classified payments, not the National Security Act of 1947.


Lotta spin to be assumed in the above Newsweek artecal, yet reiterates that most in Massa establishment knew about the new clear project of Pakistan and yet saw to it that it was unhindered.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35193
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

Postby SaiK » 11 Dec 2013 07:17

http://www.ippnw.org/pdf/nuclear-famine ... k-2013.pdf

it is easier nowadays to get a chaddi or two, just throwing an imaginary famine of limited nuke war between india and pak.

Anindya
BRFite
Posts: 1505
Joined: 02 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

Postby Anindya » 11 Dec 2013 08:04

SS - what you write above, I have not seen consolidated before. A full article or blog post with references etc, will be very helpful for the longer term.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20432
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

Postby SSridhar » 11 Dec 2013 09:11

Anindya wrote:SS - what you write above, I have not seen consolidated before. A full article or blog post with references etc, will be very helpful for the longer term.

Anindya, pl see the following posts:

viewtopic.php?p=1004746#p1004746

viewtopic.php?p=771546#p771546

viewtopic.php?p=686178#p686178

viewtopic.php?p=673282#p673282

viewtopic.php?p=1383594#p1383594

viewtopic.php?p=1151459#p1151459

viewtopic.php?p=1023993#p1023993

Ms. C. Fair's statement in 2011 quoted below.
Pakistani and American analysts tend to view the 1985 Pressler Amendment as a punitive tool as it was finally this legislation that required sanctions to be applied to Pakistan in 1990. However, this is a serious misunderstanding of the objective and origins of the legislation. The Pressler Amendment did render U.S. assistance to Pakistan conditional on an annual presidential assessment and certification that Pakistan did not have nuclear weapons. However, its origins were not punitive; rather the amendment permitted Washington to sustain its military and other assistance to Pakistan even though other parts of the U.S. government increasingly believed that Pakistan had crossed the nuclear threshold, meriting sanctions under various U.S. laws.


Peddling Peril: How the Secret Nuclear Trade Arms America's Enemies, David Albright
If you have not read it, the review posted here would be helpful.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20432
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

Postby SSridhar » 09 May 2014 12:14

Saudi Arabia trying to get Nuclear technology from Pakistan: expert - DAWN
Mark Fitzpatrick, an expert on nuclear proliferation, renewed on Thursday fears of Saudi Arabia trying to get nuclear technology from Pakistan, saying retired Pakistani nuclear scientists could be recruited by the Saudis.

“It’s pretty clear that Saudi Arabia may be looking for a nuclear neutraliser with Iran … so some Pakistani retired scientists could be asked for help,” Mr Fitzpatrick, director of the non-proliferation and disarmament programme at the UK-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, said at the launching of his book ‘Overcoming Pakistan nuclear dangers’ at the Institute of Strategic Studies.

Mr Fitzpatrick referred to media reports suggesting that Saudi Arabia had financed Pakistan’s nuclear programme at the time of its inception and said that it could have come with implicit or explicit understanding that Pakistani nukes would be used for Saudi defence.

He said Saudis were concerned about Iranian nuclear advancements, but did not have a well-developed infrastructure to start their own.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9610
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

Postby Gagan » 09 May 2014 19:00

If the Saudis have a bum, it is China designed, Pak-assembled or China assembled one.
China can't send in any 'chinese looking' person for day to day maintenence and trouble shooting the package and its ancillary equipment.
So retired Paki scientists who have been trained by the chinese to maintain similar bums will probably be hired by the saudis.

Pakistan continues to be a good servant to the Chinese - they took the blame and sanctions for Chinese nuclear test, the chinese proliferate through the Pakistanis (and the Pakis take the blame)

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8671
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

Postby arun » 14 Apr 2015 05:44

During the first ever visit to India by a North Korean Foreign Minister, India conveyed its security concerns to North Korea over supply of its missile technology to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

India should not agree to North Korea’s request for humanitarian aid for passing on nuclear weapon and missile technology to the Islamic Republic :

Read more at:

India conveys concern to North Korea over missile tech supply to Pakistan

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8671
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

Postby arun » 19 May 2015 05:21

Reiteration of the old. UK newspaper Sunday Times reports the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has committed to proliferate nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia:

Saudis ‘to get nuclear weapons’

Toby Harnden, Washington, and Christina Lamb

Published: 17 May 2015

SAUDI ARABIA has taken the “strategic decision” to acquire “off-the-shelf” atomic weapons from Pakistan, risking a new arms race in the Middle East, according to senior American officials.

The move by the Gulf kingdom, which has financed much of Islamabad’s nuclear programme over the past three decades, comes amid growing anger among Sunni Arab states over a deal backed by President Barack Obama, which they fear could allow their arch foe, Shi’ite Iran, to develop a nuclear bomb.

The agreement, which is due to be finalised by the end of next month and involves the permanent members of the UN security council and Germany, is designed to roll back part of Tehran’s nuclear programme in return for an easing of UN sanctions.

There are concerns that Saudi Arabia joining the nuclear club might provoke Turkey and Egypt to follow suit.

“For the Saudis the moment has come,” a former American defence official said last week.

“There has been a longstanding agreement in place with the Pakistanis and the House of Saud has now made the strategic decision to move forward.”

Atomic boom
Turkey and Egypt could follow if the Gulf kingdom gets the bomb (Corbis) While the official did not believe “any actual weaponry has been transferred yet”, it was clear “the Saudis mean what they say and they will do what they say”, following last month’s Iranian outline nuclear deal. His assessment was echoed by a US intelligence official who said “hundreds of people at Langley”,the CIA’s headquarters, were working to establish whether or not Pakistan had already supplied nuclear technology or even weaponry to Saudi Arabia.

“We know this stuff is available to them off the shelf,” the intelligence official said. Asked whether the Saudis had decided to become a nuclear power, the official responded: “That has to be the assumption.”

Prince Turki bin Faisal, the former Saudi intelligence chief and ambassador to London and Washington, declared bluntly last month: “Whatever the Iranians have, we will have, too.”

The revelation of Riyadh’s step came as Obama concluded a summit at Camp David with the oil-rich monarchies of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates at which Iran’s nuclear role was centre stage.

Saudi Arabia has long been suspected of helping to fund Pakistan’s clandestine nuclear programme. Saudi defence ministers have been secretly allowed into highly sensitive nuclear facilities — a privilege not even accorded to Pakistan’s own prime ministers.

In return for the unofficial nuclear arrangement, the Saudis have provided Pakistan with billions of dollars of subsidised oil. Pakistan has sold its Shaheen mobile ballistic missiles to the Saudis; these can carry nuclear warheads, which Pakistan can also supply.

“Nuclear weapons programmes are extremely expensive and there’s no question that a lot of the funding of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme was provided by Saudi Arabia,” said Lord Owen, Britain’s foreign secretary from 1977-9, who has long urged a reduction in nuclear weapons.

“Given their close relations and close military links, it’s long been assumed that if the Saudis wanted, they would call in a commitment, moral or otherwise, for Pakistan to supply them immediately with nuclear warheads,” he added.

The prospect of a nuclear deal with Iran that would leave in place 5,000 centrifuges and a research capability has pushed the Saudis to call in the favour from Pakistan.

“There is a widespread belief in the Middle East that there is an American-Iranian stitch- up against Sunni interests,” said Sir John Jenkins, who was Britain’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia until earlier this year.

“For the last two or three years I started hearing people in Saudi talking of themselves as the regional superpower. The problem is they are 20m compared to 80m Iranians.”

A senior British military official warned that if Saudi Arabia pushed ahead, its neighbours would also want nuclear weapons as a bulwark against a newly assertive Iran.

“We [the western military leadership] all assume the Saudis have made the decision to go nuclear. Some think they already have the whole thing set up, others that it’s just a strategic decision and the Pakistanis will provide as necessary,” the military official said.

“The fear is that other Middle Eastern powers — Turkey and Egypt — may feel compelled to do the same and we will see a new, even more dangerous, arms race.”

Lieutenant-General Khalid Kidwai, adviser on Pakistan’s nuclear programme, insisted during a recent visit to London that Pakistan has never sent nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia or any other country.


From here:

Clicky

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 45702
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

Postby ramana » 22 May 2015 01:29

Pak issued a statement denying any such ideas to give or sell nukes to Saudi Barbaria.

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

Postby Vipul » 22 May 2015 02:15

Had the Pakis not agreed to give Nukes to the Saudis, by now most of the 1.2 Million Shitistanis working in Saudi Arabia would have been back in Shitland.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3081
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

Postby Cosmo_R » 22 May 2015 02:36

ramana wrote:Pak issued a statement denying any such ideas to give or sell nukes to Saudi Barbaria.


Taqiyya: it's a "lease" :) not a sale or gift.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8671
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

Postby arun » 10 Oct 2015 16:42

X Posted from the STFUP thread.

Jhujar wrote:Ashwathama Maara Gya

Reported US-Pak nuclear deal not like the one with India

The deal US is considering with Pakistan to limit its nuclear arsenal in exchange for free access to nuclear material and supplies is very different from the one it has with India.

The US proposal, as reported by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, is to cap Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and delivery systems, tying them to the defence needs regarding India.

In other words, the deal seems designed to cover Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal — the warheads — fissile material and production facilities, giving US access to them.
In return, the US will facilitate for Pakistan easier access to nuclear material and supplies from the 38-member Nuclear Suppliers Group, which doesn’t trade with non-NPT countries.The US nuclear deal with India covers only civilian use facilities, opening them to international inspection. But it does not cover weapons and related processes at all.Pakistan has been seeking a nuclear deal like the one US has with India, arguing for a “non-discriminatory approach on nuclear issues”, but hasn’t had any success, not until now, it seems.Now, however, the US seems to be moving towards using Pakistan’s desire of a deal to cap its weapons programme and delivery systems that had long been an international concern.The White House refused to confirm or deny the Washington Post column saying it doesn’t typically comment on internal discussions. But, implicit here, is the absence of denial.

The Post said talks have been on quietly between the US and Pakistan in the run-up to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s coming visit to the US to meet President Barack Obama later this month.

The columnist called the move a “diplomatic blockbuster”, but warned progress could be “slow and difficult” as “Pakistan prizes its nuclear program … and it’s not clear if Islamabad would be willing to accept the limitations that would be required”.A recent study by Carnegie and Stimson Center, both think tanks, suggested Pakistan could go up to 350 in a decade based on its estimation of India’s stock of fissile material.Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal worries the world given its proliferation history, Abdul Qadeer Khan’s nuclear black-market, and growing presence of extremists.But the current move comes, the Washington Post columnist said, in the context of bringing lasting peace to Afghanistan and in recognition of Pakistan’s role in it.Pakistan is already one round of talks between the Afghanistan government and the Taliban, in Murree, which was to be the venue for the next round also, but then talks broke down.


US State Department Spokesman on the topic of a civil nuclear deal with the nuclear weapon technology proliferating Islamic Republic of Pakistan:

John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
October 9, 2015 …………………………………

QUESTION: And finally, is U.S. in talks with Pakistan on a separate civilian nuclear deal?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have an update for you on that. Thanks, everybody.


From here:

US State Dept.

Pranay
BRFite
Posts: 1463
Joined: 06 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

Postby Pranay » 15 Oct 2015 18:18

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/world ... -news&_r=0

U.S. Exploring Deal to Limit Pakistan’s Nuclear Arsenal
By DAVID E. SANGEROCT. 15, 2015

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is exploring a deal with Pakistan that would limit the scope of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, the fastest-growing on earth. The discussions are the first in the decade since one of the founders of its nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, was caught selling the country’s nuclear technology around the world.

The talks are being held in advance of the arrival of Pakistan’s prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, in Washington next week. They focus on American concern that Pakistan might be on the verge of deploying a small tactical nuclear weapon — explicitly modeled on weapons the United States put in Europe during the Cold War to deter a Soviet invasion — that would be far harder to secure than the country’s arsenal of larger weapons.

But outside experts familiar with the discussions, which have echoes of the Obama administration’s first approaches to Iran on its nuclear program three years ago, expressed deep skepticism that Pakistan is ready to put any limitations on a program that is the pride of the nation, and that it regards as its only real defense against India.

The discussions are being led by Peter R. Lavoy, a longtime intelligence expert on the Pakistani program who is now on the staff of the National Security Council. White House officials declined to comment on the talks ahead of Mr. Sharif’s visit.

But the central element of the proposal, according to other officials and outside experts, would be a relaxation of the strict controls imposed on Pakistan by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a loose affiliation of nations that try to control the proliferation of weapons.

“If Pakistan would take the actions requested by the United States, it would essentially amount to recognition of rehabilitation and would essentially amount to parole,” said George Perkovich, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who has maintained contacts with the Pakistani nuclear establishment.

“I think it’s worth a try,” Mr. Perkovich said. “But I have my doubts that the Pakistanis are capable of doing this.”

David Ignatius, a columnist for The Washington Post, first disclosed the exploratory talks in a column a week ago. Since then, several other officials and outside experts have talked in more detail about the effort, although the White House has refused to comment.

The activity of Mr. Khan, who lives in retirement in a comfortable neighborhood in Islamabad after many years of house arrest, prompted more than a decade of American-led punishment of Pakistan’s nuclear enterprises. He ran what amounted to the world’s most sophisticated black market in the equipment needed to make nuclear fuel, and he did business with Iran, North Korea and Libya.

When Libya turned over the equipment it bought, in late 2003, it included a nearly complete design for one of China’s first nuclear weapons.

Pakistani officials denied that any of the country’s leaders knew of Mr. Khan’s black market activities, a story American officials did not believe because some of the equipment was shipped on Pakistani Air Force cargo planes. While Mr. Khan is not under formal restrictions today, he has not left Pakistan in years and has been prohibited from talking to most outsiders.

Even before entering office, President Obama was interested in addressing the Pakistani nuclear problem, considered by most proliferation experts to be the most dangerous in the world. But until now, most efforts to manage the problem have been covert.

During the Bush administration, the United States spent as much as $100 million on a highly classified program to help secure the country’s nuclear arsenal, helping with physical security and the training of Pakistani security personnel. Those efforts continued in the Obama years, with State Department, Energy Department and intelligence officials meeting secretly, in locales around the world, with senior Pakistani officials from the Strategic Plans Division that controls the arsenal.

They would use those sessions to argue to the Pakistanis that fielding the small, short-range nuclear weapons, which Pakistan designed to use against an invading Indian ground force, would be highly risky.

American officials have told Congress they are increasingly convinced that most of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is under good safeguards, with warheads separated from delivery vehicles and a series of measures in place to guard against unauthorized use. But they fear the smaller weapons are easier to steal, or would be easier to use should they fall into the hands of a rogue commander.

“All it takes is one commander with secret radical sympathies, and you have a big problem,” said one former official who dealt with the issue.

The message appears to have resonated; an unknown number of the tactical weapons were built, but not deployed. It is that problem that Mr. Lavoy and others are trying to forestall, along with preventing Pakistan from deploying some long-range missiles that could reach well beyond India.

But American leverage has been hard to find. Unlike Iran, Pakistan never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the international agreement that prohibits nations, except for existing declared nuclear states like the United States, from possessing a nuclear arsenal. Pakistan is not alone in that distinction: India and Israel also have not signed.

(North Korea left the treaty two decades ago.)

Ordinarily, any country’s refusal to sign the treaty would preclude American nuclear cooperation. So Pakistani officials remain angry with the American decision to enter an agreement with India in 2005 allowing India to buy civil nuclear technology, even though it remains outside the treaty and put no limits on its nuclear program. Under that agreement, India’s nuclear infrastructure was split with a civilian program that is under international inspection, and a military program that is not.

Pakistani officials have demanded the same arrangement.

That does not appear to be on the table. Instead, the United States is exploring ways to relax restrictions on nuclear-related technology to Pakistan, perhaps with a long-term goal of allowing the country to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which regulates the sale of the technology. That would be largely symbolic: Pakistan manages to import or make what it needs for its nuclear arsenal, and China has already broken ground on a $9.6 billion nuclear power complex in Karachi. Mr. Sharif presided over the ceremony.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6304
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

Postby JE Menon » 15 Oct 2015 18:35

At this juncture, we should make every effort to ensure the US gives as relaxed a deal to Pakistan as possible - the more access the better. India is already under comprehensive threat from Pakistan, China and the Pak-China combine. Nothing is really going to change for us, other than that we'll have to upgrade our nuclear capabilities even faster (which is not a bad thing from our point of view). Of course, the Americans are right to trust that Pakistan will not use the new technology and access it gets to proliferate even more, or even to use those weapons against American interests, or America itself. Just like it trusted Pakistan not to use the money and arms it got not to fund radical Islamists who would kill Americans by the thousands. One must admit that Pakistan has been trustworthy on that front.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20432
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

Postby SSridhar » 16 Oct 2015 18:14

'Pakistan under Zia-ul-Haq broke promise on uranium enrichment' - PTI
Pakistan under dictator General Zia-ul-Haq's administration broke its promise on uranium enrichment in the 1980s, a series of newly declassified documents have shown amid reports that the US is considering a civil nuclear deal with the country.

According to the latest declassified documents released by National Security Archive, the then military dictator General Haq assured that Pakistan would not enrich uranium above five per cent and in lieu of it extracted huge amount of financial aid and modern military assistance from the US.

"I appreciate the assurances you gave Ambassador Hinton that Pakistan would not enrich uranium above the five per cent level," the then US President Ronald Reagan wrote in a letter to Zia on September 12, 1984.

In the letter, Regan expressed concern over Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme.

"I must candidly state that enrichment of uranium above five per cent would be of the same significance as those nuclear activities, such as unsafeguarded reprocessing, which I personally discussed with you in December 1982 and would have the same implications for our security programme and relationship," Regan said.

In fact, Regan in his letter warned that if Pakistan goes ahead with his nuclear weapons programme, it might attract untoward action from other countries in the region.


"I have personally discussed with you my concerns about stemming nuclear proliferation, and my Administration remains fully committed on this issue," he wrote.

"Concern is also growing in Congress and among the public about Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme. I am mindful that other countries in the region might use this issue as a pretext for untoward action towards Pakistan," Regan said.

By saying so, Regan was referring to the CIA assessment that India was planning to carry out strikes against Pakistani nuclear facilities.

A talking point memo of the letter refers to this.

The talking points, which has now been declassified and made public by NSA, refer to Washington's "judgement" that it is "likely that at some point India will take military action to pre-empt your military programme."

Such a possibility had been discussed in previous national intelligence estimates.

Consistent with the allusion to an Indian threat, the talking points included an inducement for Pakistan to adopt safeguards on its nuclear facilities, in light of the threats that Pakistan faced, "we would be prepared to act promptly to discourage or help deter such action as you move toward safeguards."

Whether this offer, close to a security guarantee, was actually made to General Zia remains to be learned, the NSA said.

The declassification of documents comes amid a Washington Post report which said the US is negotiating a pact on new limits on Pakistan's nuclear weapons and delivery systems, a deal that might lead to an agreement similar to the Indo-US civil nuclear deal.


This is complete hogwash. Regan never meant to carry out any of the threats. This whole scenario is stage-managed. We must remember that all this 'warning' etc was followed by the Pressler Amendment a couple of years later that was actually drafted in Islamabad. Regan 'built-up' a false record to 'prove' his steadfastness in pursuing the American nuclear non-proliferation goals.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8671
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

Postby arun » 18 Oct 2015 19:04

X Posted from the STFUP thread.

Indian origin Dhruva Jaishankar of the German Marshall fund has written an op-ed in Foreign Policy titled “The Definition of Insanity Is U.S. AfPak Strategy”.

On the central problem in the Af-Pak Fak-Up, namely the Uniformed Jihadi’s of the Punjabi dominated Military of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan:

The central problem confronting the United States in the region is no longer al Qaeda or the Taliban. It’s the Pakistan Army, which has always pursued its own objectives over those of the country it is meant to defend. The Army has a 40-year history of supporting terrorists against Afghanistan, India, and (more recently) Americans. Even in the absence of a smoking gun, there is little doubt that the Army and its intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate, sheltered Osama bin Laden and protected Taliban leader Mullah Omar. This policy of supporting terrorism has been driven by a warped ideology, political imperatives, and corporate interests. The Army has long used Islamism and imagined foreign threats to consolidate its political primacy and shore up its commercial interests, which range from cement to telecommunications.


On the US plan to provide an India type nuclear deal to the US’s Major Non NATO Ally, the nuclear weapon technology proliferating Islamic Republic of Pakistan:

The proposed agreement to mainstream Pakistan’s nuclear program and the failure to address the Pakistan factor in Afghanistan are, in Trump’s parlance, just dumb, dumb, dumb. The White House seems completely removed from South Asia’s political and security realities. It’s quaint, almost funny, that U.S. officials and experts still worry about a “rogue commander” with “radical sympathies” seizing control of a Pakistani nuclear bomb. The Pakistan Army radicalized and went rogue many years ago.


From here:

The Definition of Insanity Is U.S. AfPak Strategy : The central problem confronting the United States in the region is no longer al Qaeda or the Taliban. It’s the Pakistan Army.

kit
BRFite
Posts: 1923
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

Postby kit » 21 Oct 2015 11:20

i suppose holding a gun to the head is a much better motivation for the US than money or business interests.. Pakistan will do the same thing vs china .. short term interests better than long term ?.. a tactical nuke is most likely to be the weapon of choice for the next laden !

Chandragupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3030
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 15:26
Location: Kingdom of My Fair Lady

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

Postby Chandragupta » 21 Oct 2015 12:14

All this 'Pakistani Program', 'Pakistani Nuclear Scientists' etc etc looks like a sham to me. How many Pakistanis have had the education or expertise to be a nuclear scientists. Do the resident Paki experts here believe that any Pakistani had a worthwhile role to play in a Nuclear program other than spray painting it in green? I think they were delivered the bum by China actively egged on by the US.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35193
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

Postby SaiK » 22 Oct 2015 17:15

100-150 paki nukes is a 100% halaal bluff.. and as if the real khans cant count them. totally ridiculous to accept at phase value. time for another modi salvo against paki's nuke bluffs. we need to teach the khans a real lesson or two in addition to our mil exercise exchange. let us begin some strategic chankyans too.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8671
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

Postby arun » 06 Jan 2016 20:03

US Senator Ron Johnson in an interview by Wolf Blitzer on CNN program “The Situation Room” says the Islamic Republic of Pakistan could sell a nuclear weapon to Saudi Arabia:

THE SITUATION ROOM

Interview With Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson; ……………………….

Aired January 4, 2016 - 18:00 ET ………………………………….

BLITZER: Given the tensions right now, Senator, between Iran and Saudi Arabia, there is concern. I know it from sources that I have spoken to. The Saudis may, when all is said and done, simply go out, not necessarily even develop or build a nuclear bomb, but just buy one maybe from Pakistan. They certainly have the cash to do so.

Is that really credible?

JOHNSON: It certainly was a concern of many of us that opposed the Iran nuclear agreement, was that this could actually produce a proliferation of a nuclear arms race within the Middle East. And I think that is certainly a real risk that we have to take into account.

Saudi has good relationships with Pakistan. They could just buy a weapon and again further destabilize the Middle East.


From Here:

CNN

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8671
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

Postby arun » 01 Oct 2016 09:11

In a hacked audio recording, former US Secretary of State and US Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, in February 2016 during a fund-raising event at the home of Beatrice Welters who was US Ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago talks of her fears of Tactical Nuclear Weapons (TNW) in the arsenal of the Mohammadden Terrorist Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan will slip out of the hands of the Uniformed Jihadi’s of the Pakistan Military into the hands of Un-Uniformed Jihadi’s:

“Pakistan is running full speed to develop tactical nukes in their continuing hostility with India.” she said. “But we live in fear that they’re going to have a coup, that jihadists are going to take over the government, they’re going to get access to nuclear weapons, and you’ll have suicide nuclear bombers. So, this could not be a more threatening scenario.”

In Hacked Audio, Hillary Clinton Rethinks Obama’s Nuclear Upgrade Plan

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8671
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

Postby arun » 01 Oct 2016 12:56

X Posted from the STFUP thread.

US asks her Major Non NATO Ally, the Mohammadden Terrorist fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan to can the Nuclear Weapon Dropping rhetoric being thrown about by the likes of the Islamic Republic’s Defence Minister

Also on Nuclear matters, a question on Hillary Clintons comment on the dangers of the Islamic Republics Tactical Nuclear Weapons falling into the hands of Un-uniformed Jihadi’s from the hands of the Uniformed Jihadi’s.

Then off course questions on India’s boots on the ground Cross LoC strike:

Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
September 30, 2016 …………….

QUESTION: Have you got any assurance from either India or Pakistan regarding the situation on the Line of Control about what future course of action each of them might take?

MR TONER: Do we have any – I apologize, any clarity, you said?

QUESTION: Any assurance from either India or Pakistan on what future action they might plan on the LOC.

MR TONER: Well, I think John Kirby spoke a little bit about this. We’re continuing to follow the situation on the ground very closely. From our perspective, we urge calm and restraint by both sides. We understand that the Pakistani and Indian militaries have been in communication and we believe that continued communication between them is important to reduce tensions. I think we don’t – certainly don’t want to see any kind of escalation and any – and certainly any kind of break in that communication. We have repeatedly and consistently expressed our concerns regarding the danger that cross-border terrorism poses for the region, and that certainly includes the recent attacks – terrorist attacks in Uri. And we continue to urge actions to combat and de-escalate – and delegitimize, rather, terrorist groups like Lashkar-e Talaba – Tayyiba, rather – Haqqani Network, as well as Jaish-e-Mohammad.

Yes, sir, then I’ll go to you, Matt.

QUESTION: Yeah, it’s from the same – I just have some – few clarification.

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: Did you have any pre-knowledge of this so-called Indian surgical strike on Pakistani soil?

MR TONER: No, I don’t have anything for you on that, sorry.

QUESTION: And it’s all based on an Indian statement that this happened, and the Pakistan says it didn’t happen and then it says two killed and they have arrested – so what – on what basis are you reacting? On the basis of the statement from India, on the basis of – do you have – I know you don’t talk about the intelligence matters.

MR TONER: I mean, we have high-level engagement, as you can imagine, with both governments, and our assessment is based on that.

QUESTION: So you confirm it happened?

MR TONER: It’s not for me to confirm it happened. It’s for the governments themselves to speak to their roles.

QUESTION: Okay. And then there was calls between Secretary Kerry and Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj.

MR TONER: There was --

QUESTION: And --

MR TONER: -- a few days ago.

QUESTION: -- what – yeah, what was – was there a suggestion from Secretary to Indian minister to cool down the – the whatever was going on at the UNGA and take it easy before this happened?

MR TONER: I’ll have to see if I can get you a readout of that call, but again, it’s part of our – we’re very concerned about the situation there. We don’t want to see it escalate any further. And as part of that concern, the Secretary is certainly engaged and talking to Indian leadership – senior Indian leadership.

QUESTION: Just the last one.

QUESTION: Can I have --

QUESTION: Just the last one. Pakistan has reacted, saying that if India does it again, they will react. And then they also talked about using nukes. Like, they don’t have a no-first-use policy, like India has declared a no-first-use. So do you – according to – as you have high-level connections and the intelligence reports, which you do not talk from the podium --

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: -- do you expect further trouble?

MR TONER: I mean, in terms – so just to answer your question about some of the rhetoric from the Pakistani Government and the possibility of using nukes or nuclear weapons, I would just say nuclear-capable states have a very clear responsibility to exercise restraint regarding nuclear weapons and missile capabilities. And that’s my message publicly and that’s certainly our message directly to the Pakistani authorities.

QUESTION: So after your call for restrain and calm, the signals that you get from India and Pakistan – are they reassuring for you?

MR TONER: I don’t have a real readout. I mean, I think we’re just still following the situation on the ground very closely.

Please.

QUESTION: Yeah. Today New York Times published an article based on leaked audio of Secretary Clinton’s fundraiser in which she is heard as saying – expressing concerns about the security of Pakistani nuclear weapons, and she also talks about a nuclear suicide bomber kind of thing. Do you agree with her assessment? Do you have concerns about Pakistan’s nuclear security?

MR TONER: Well, I think I just attempted to speak to that concern about some of the rhetoric, as I said, we’ve seen coming out of Pakistan, regarding its nuclear weapons or – with regard to – I haven’t seen her remarks, honestly. I just haven’t seen them, so I can’t speak to them. Sorry.

QUESTION: The rhetoric or the statement has come from none other than the defense minister himself. And in this month twice in interviews, he has said use (inaudible).

MR TONER: But I – sorry. I don’t mean to talk over you, but I just said obviously we believe that nuclear-capable states have a very clear responsibility to use nuclear weapons responsibly.

QUESTION: To not use them.

MR TONER: Well, to not use them, exactly. But also to refrain from rhetoric – did I say use --

QUESTION: Use them responsibly. (Laughter.)

MR TONER: Well, this is what happens when you keep me up here for 90-plus minutes.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR TONER: Yeah. To not use nuclear weapons. And with that, I’m going to cut you all off. I want to go to –


From here:

Clicky

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8671
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

Postby arun » 01 Jan 2017 09:50

X Posted from the “Afghanistan News & Discussion - April 2016” thread.

Wide ranging interview of Russian President Vladimir Putin's Special Envoy to Afghanistan and Director of Russian Foreign Ministry's Second Asian Department, Zamir Kabulov , by Turkey’s Andalou Agency.

Russian Foreign Ministry's Second Asian Department covers India besides Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka:

Exclusive interview with Russian diplomat Zamir Kabulov


Excerpt dealing with the Mohammadden Terrorist fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Indicates USSR (Russia) believed that Pakistan had Nuclear Weapons at the time when USSR sent troops to assist Afghanistan and that the US, Peoples Republic of China and Saudi Arabia may likely have helped in the acquisition of Nuclear Weapons by the Islamic Republic:

AA: This may be a shocking question. I don’t know if anyone had asked you before.

Had the Soviet Union ever thought of invading Pakistan? Because Pakistan was the logistical base of the Afghan resistance.

Kabulov: Well if possible, we can discuss this issue hypothetically. But I was, of course, a junior diplomat at that time working in the Soviet Embassy, and I don’t remember.

I never heard anybody discussing that. I think the Soviet leadership realized the perils of such a thing, [that it] might trigger a bigger war and conflicts – after all, Pakistan already had nuclear warheads. They did not provide tests but we suspected.

I talked to many people who were very big bosses at that time. This issue was never discussed. But the issue of how to eliminate such bases within Pakistan was, of course, an operative discussion. And it is natural.


AA: I have another question regarding Pakistan's going nuclear. Who allowed Pakistan? Because without the consent of global [nuclear powers, it is not possible to produce nuclear weapons.

Kabulov: That is not true, Pakistan proved that. But the Soviet Union was not a friend of Pakistan.


AA: Maybe the United States?

Kabulov: The United States, China... Pakistan had a lot of friends. I don’t know which of them. Everybody blamed [Pakistani nuclear scientist] Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan. But somebody should give [support], because it is not only about using intelligence, or know-how money. Some actors, Saudi Arabia as well... It was not a consensus between the great powers. It is possible.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8671
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation

Postby arun » 21 Apr 2017 07:52

X Posted from the STFUP thread.

Op Ed in the New York Times (NYT) written by Rahmatullah Nabil who says “Having served in senior roles in Afghanistan’s intelligence services, I have good reason to be skeptical about Pakistan’s ability to keep its nuclear weapons safe from extremists.”.

Rahmatullah Nabil served as the head of Afghanistan’s Intelligence Agency, the National Directorate of Security (NDS) from 2010 to 2012 and again from 2013 to 2015.

This Op Ed by rightly pointing out the Nuclear Weapon Technology Proliferating and Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting credentials of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, will undoubtedly be deemed a blow to the Islamic Repubic’s H&D aka Hechendee aka Honour and Dignity.

The World Must Secure Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons
By RAHMATULLAH NABILAPRIL 20, 2017

KABUL, Afghanistan — Pakistan is not just one of nine countries with nuclear weapons, it is also a hotbed of global jihadism, where the military and the intelligence services use terrorist networks to advance their regional goals. And even as Pakistani officials proclaim that their nuclear assets are secure, evidence, including internal Pakistani documents, suggests that they know better.

Having served in senior roles in Afghanistan’s intelligence services, I have good reason to be skeptical about Pakistan’s ability to keep its nuclear weapons safe from extremists.

The international community, working with the United Nations Atomic Energy Agency or the United Nations Security Council, must take action to prevent a global catastrophe before it is too late. Pakistan is believed to have the fifth-largest nuclear arsenal in the world, larger than Britain’s. It also has an established history of giving nuclear technology to countries like Iran and North Korea. As the Trump administration begins developing its policies toward Pakistan and toward nuclear nonproliferation, it should make Pakistan a top priority.

Pakistanis with the most knowledge of the country’s nuclear program are among the most worried. On Dec. 16, 2014, the Taliban launched a deadly attack on an army-run school in the Pakistani city of Peshawar. Afterward, Pakistan’s Atomic Energy Commission sent an urgent letter to the director general of the Strategic Plans Division, which is responsible for securing Pakistan’s nuclear assets, expressing concern. The Atomic Energy Commission requested that the military devote more resources to ensuring that the personnel with knowledge of the nuclear program are monitored. This letter, which has been kept secret until now, reveals just how concerned some Pakistani officials are — and how worried the rest of the world should be.

The Atomic Energy Commission is not the only group sounding alarms about the role of extremists inside Pakistan. In early 2014, the ministry of interior issued a policy paper called the National Internal Security Policy 2014-2018 (CLICKY), a classified document that outlined the government’s security priorities. It warns that Pakistan is home to hundreds of terrorist and extremist groups, and points out that many of them are operational in all four provinces of Pakistan, including in the areas in Punjab near some of Pakistan’s nuclear facilities. This document also raises concerns over the growing influence of certain terrorist groups, in particular Lashkar-e-Taiba, inside the Pakistan Army and intelligence agencies, and within the families of senior and midlevel military officers.

Despite all of this, the Pakistani authorities continue to insist in public that their nuclear assets are safe. As a senior official told The Atlantic magazine in 2011, “Of all the things in the world to worry about, the issue you should worry about the least is the safety of our nuclear program.” When Pakistani officials came to Washington for a nuclear security summit last spring, they affirmed in the broadest terms their country’s commitment to nuclear security from “the entire spectrum of threats” — playing down terrorism specifically, or the fact that Pakistan represents a particular threat.

The Pakistanis say they are confident in the Strategic Plans Division’s professionalism. And the division claims to have strong systems in place to screen personnel for integrity, weeding out those who have dangerous political, ethnic or religious affiliations. They also report that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are de-mated, meaning the warheads are separated from their delivery mechanisms. But even if this is true, it doesn’t mean that all nuclear material is safe. There are reports that Pakistan is building tactical nuclear weapons, smaller arms that are easier to use on the battlefield. It is unclear how the Strategic Plans Division intends to secure them.

Instead of asking for help dealing with these vulnerabilities, the Pakistani Army and intelligence community close themselves off. They fear that the United States is trying to seize their nuclear weapons and say that the West refuses to allow a Muslim country to have access to the world’s most powerful weapons, a line often repeated by extremists.

Pakistan should instead be asking for help keeping its nuclear weapons out of terrorists’ hands. But until that happens, the United Nations Security Council — and the United States, an ally of Pakistan’s — should step in.

First, Pakistan must be forced to stop playing a double game, supporting extremist groups while publicly proclaiming that it is fighting terrorism. Second, the government in Islamabad should welcome the help of the United Nations Atomic Energy Agency in securing nuclear assets. Government agencies inside Pakistan have admitted that the country’s nuclear assets are in danger. The rest of the world should take heed and try to protect them before it’s too late.


From the New York Times, here:

The World Must Secure Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media, RoyG, SriJoy, Vishal Jolapara and 28 guests