Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

jrjrao
BRFite
Posts: 869
Joined: 01 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby jrjrao » 29 Jan 2004 18:10

[url=http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=27986]America goes soft on Pak's nuke sale
[/url]
The White House on Wednesday said that Musharraf “has assured us that that's, one, part of the past, and the past is past.”

Umrao
BRFite
Posts: 547
Joined: 30 May 2001 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Umrao » 29 Jan 2004 18:19

Originally posted by jrjrao:
[b]India and proliferation by Pakistan
By C. Raja Mohan

"The international ramifications of Pakistan's proliferation will come back to haunt India. New Delhi will be mistaken in believing that it will continue to look good as Islamabad looks bad."

http://www.hindu.com/2004/01/29/stories/2004012901201000.htm[/b]
You cant find any bigger ass_@ole than raja mohan.

There is nothing the article that substantiates, the header line of

""The international ramifications of Pakistan's proliferation will come back to haunt India."

1) If Pakistan screws the Non proliferation its between the Sherif of the world and Pakistan.

2) What does he mean by reasonable record of India in non proliferation? The ass that he is should look to the North of India and where his boss N Rams dieties live aka China.

If Raja Mohan is even a fraction of a strategic expert he should better than this kind of crap.

Man how do these people make living by writing crap like this

Line up these kind of jurnos and fire them I say.

Vijay J
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: India

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Vijay J » 29 Jan 2004 19:06

Hello C Rajamohan,

The Pakistanis are in the dock for proliferating to technology to US adversaries like Iran, Libya and North Korea that can be used to make nuclear bombs. India has never done that.

All this the Pakistanis have done with Chinese involvement and support. Despite all the NPT, MTCR, CTBT etc... the Chinese have successfully done this.

To me this says that those treaties are dead in the water and the people who still cling to them are out of touch with reality. These people are soon going to become irrelevant.

Vivek_A
BRFite
Posts: 593
Joined: 17 Nov 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Vivek_A » 29 Jan 2004 19:30

Now the people who said TSP was a responsible nuclear power look like shireens..or worse..

Pakistan's nuclear salesmen are identified

Two senior scientists may have received millions from Iran

It is now believed that Khan took advantage of his position as head of Pakistan's nuclear program and an agreement between Pakistan and Iran to share non-weapons-related nuclear technology to offer the Iranians more critical information -- including blueprints for equipment used to enrich uranium.

Shireen Mazari, director of Islamabad's Institute of Strategic Studies, said Pakistan has been unfairly singled out. :D

"The fact of the matter is that European governments have yet to make public and penalize those middlemen and mafias that have been responsible for breaching the Non-Proliferation Treaty ..." she said. "Why should only Pakistani citizens be made scapegoats for a global problem?"

krithivas
BRFite
Posts: 424
Joined: 20 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Offline

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby krithivas » 29 Jan 2004 19:50

I disagree. MR. C. Raja Mohan has a very good point. Everyone is looking for a foot-hold, a leverage. Denuking Pakistan is a foregone conclusion. Pakistan has lost its nuclear weaponry, and all the Uncle Sam song and dance is H&D.

The non-proliferation eyes will then slowly turn on India. We need to expect it and not react to it when it happens. Practice your lines now, so that when the time comes it will be a class act. Work on positioning statements. Get ready for it now, so that we can work on deflecting it.

C. Raja Mohan is warning the Indian strategic think tank not to be complacent (and be happy that Pakiland is in trouble). That is my take.

R> Krithivas

Originally posted by John Umrao:
Originally posted by jrjrao:
[b][b]India and proliferation by Pakistan
By C. Raja Mohan

"The international ramifications of Pakistan's proliferation will come back to haunt India. New Delhi will be mistaken in believing that it will continue to look good as Islamabad looks bad."

http://www.hindu.com/2004/01/29/stories/2004012901201000.htm[/b]
You cant find any bigger ass_@ole than raja mohan.

There is nothing the article that substantiates, the header line of

""The international ramifications of Pakistan's proliferation will come back to haunt India."

1) If Pakistan screws the Non proliferation its between the Sherif of the world and Pakistan.

2) What does he mean by reasonable record of India in non proliferation? The ass that he is should look to the North of India and where his boss N Rams dieties live aka China.

If Raja Mohan is even a fraction of a strategic expert he should better than this kind of crap.

Man how do these people make living by writing crap like this

Line up these kind of jurnos and fire them I say.[/b]

Bharat
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 08 Mar 1999 12:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Bharat » 29 Jan 2004 19:54

John Umrao and Vijay J

Read what C Rajamohan has written carefully. Lot of it is true .
There will be ramifications for us too. Be sure for that. Already someone like Krepon has stated that "India and Pak" have unsecured nuclear facilities.

We will have to bring about laws (if we don't have those ) on what we can sell and not sell in nuclear technology. We don't need to close our export market but be very careful on what we sell.

The rest about Pakistan in the article is very true.

As a result, the President of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, has begun a massive damage limitation operation that is politically controversial
"Damage limitation is the key word. Mush would do only as much required to satisfy US upto a certain extent. The minimum to jump the rope.

Secondly, India must find ways to separate its civilian and military programmes in the nuclear field. So long as there are no clear firewalls between these dimensions of its sensitive programmes, India's ability to access advanced technologies will be constrained
This is the debatable point. Nuclear technology is not that diverse. And the Americans know about it. Hence they would be very reluctant to cooperate on this issue.

But we would need to seperate the fields as each (civilian or nuclear ) has different goals. And now we are too big to have the same person co-ordinating both at the top level.
The argument against would be that there would be excessive bureaucracy.

Vijay J
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: India

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Vijay J » 29 Jan 2004 20:18

I completely disagree with the line of thinking that suggests that Pakistan has been denuked. Some Pakistani nuclear weapons are under surveillance of some variety but the surveillance regime relies on having a Pakistani-in-the-loop, as long as this is the case, the case that Pakistan has been de-nuked cannot be made.

The Bush government very wisely is unwilling to see the full extent of its failure to check Pakistani and Chinese proliferation exposed. This would create severe problems in the run up to the election.

Therefore it is likely that the Non Proliferation lobby which subscribes to virulent anti-India hatred will attempt to deflect attention from Pakistan towards India. However nothing of substance will come from this deflection.

The Non Proliferation people are quite capable of putting on a show that India and Pakistan are somehow equally culpable of proliferation but this is expected, rather than just plainly face up to the fact that Pakistan has used proliferation as a way of getting back at America for everything it has done to Pakistan, the Non proliferation community will try to make it look like Pakistan has done proliferation in order to keep up with India.

The number of people who believe this nonsense is falling. It is becoming harder and harder for people in the US to believe that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are aimed solely at India.

The first bomb Pakistan made may have been aimed at India, but the second bomb was aimed at America. At some point of time, the Americans are going to have to think why that is the case.
The way things are going right now, it is only a matter of time.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6723
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Amber G. » 29 Jan 2004 20:23

Don't know if this is news to many (I have heard that before) From Rediff:
Ex-colleague spills beans on A Q Khan
A former friend and colleague has made sensational disclosures about how Dr Abdul Qader Khan -- 'father' of Pakistan's nuclear programme -- stole blueprints and classified components from the offices of his Dutch employers in Amsterdam.

Frits Veerman, a professional technical photographer who shared office space with Khan, also revealed details of the Pakistani metallurgist's systematic deception.

Veerman was for many years a full time employee at the Physics Dynamics Research Laboratory (known as FDO) that conducted research on behalf of Urenco, a nuclear engineering consortium funded by Holland, Germany and the UK. Bhopal-born Khan was one of his colleagues.

When Khan fled Holland in 1976, he attempted to use Veerman to procure equipment he needed to duplicate Dutch-made centrifuges to produce highly enriched uranium required for Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme.

Before leaving, he introduced Veerman to a number of fellow Pakistanis, including a brother he said was employed by Pakistan International Airlines in Amsterdam.

Dismissed by FDO after he threatened to go public with his concerns about how Khan had insinuated his way into the FDO 'brain box,' Veerman was subsequently tailed for a year by BVD, the Dutch internal security service, and even spent a day in prison on charges of aiding and abetting Khan in his nuclear espionage.

Dutch interrogators told him, 'If Khan is a spy so are you because if he has actually done what you persistently say he did, he could never have done it on his own. He would have received help. From you.'

Now aged 60, Veerman says he has nothing to lose by revealing some hitherto closely held secrets about Khan's operations.

Describing the 68-year-old Pakistani as more of a thieving James Bond than a scientist, Veerman has for the first time revealed some of the letters Khan wrote to him to obtain components he desperately needed for his work in Pakistan.

In one letter dated January 1976 and shown to rediff.com, Khan wrote, 'Dear Frits, It is almost a month that we have left the Netherlands and I am gradually beginning to miss the delicious chicken. I need a few things from my desk. Will you please take Henny (Khan's wife) to FDO on a Saturday morning so she can take the required things? A carton would be sufficient to take these things.'

In another letter, he tells his Dutch friend of the beautiful weather in Islamabad and how the latter is always welcome to come and stay.

At one point, Khan dropped hints of money and the offer of an all expenses paid trip to Pakistan where he promised Veerman would be treated like royalty.

In a third letter, he writes, 'Dear Frits, very confidentially I request you to help us. I urgently need the following information for our research programme:

1. Etches of pivots:
(a) Tension - how many volts?
(b) Electricity - how many amperes?
(c) How long is etching to be done?
(d) Solution (electrolytic) HCL or something other is added as an inhibitor

If it is possible, grateful for 3-4 etched pivots. I should be very grateful if you could send a few negatives for the pattern. You should be having negatives of these.

Frits, these are very urgently required, without which the research would come to a standstill.'

Veerman has told rediff.com that the letters are only the tip of the iceberg. He claims to have seen top secret blue-bound FDO files stacked in Khan's home where Veerman was routinely invited for a cup of tea or a meal of fried chicken.

Khan justified their presence by explaining that being fluent in German, Dutch and English, he was helping out his employers in translating the contents into different languages.

Khan's wife Henny, a South African-born Dutch woman with a British passport, was given a part time job by FDO to translate highly classified files and documents.

Veerman believes Khan still returns regularly to The Netherlands under a false identity to renew ties with his contacts and maintain access to certain suppliers.
with Iran




This is the first time an independent authority has testified to Khan's role in stealing classified data. In Pakistan, where such charges have previously been ascribed to Indian propaganda, Khan is routinely praised for his intelligence and regularly compared to Albert Einstein.

The disclosures come at a time when Khan and at least a dozen other Pakistani nuclear scientists face charges of selling nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya, North Korea and Al Qaeda terrorists.

Rediff.com has been told of how Khan set up some companies with the specific aim of marketing his stolen expertise to whoever was prepared to purchase it.

Unlike the vast majority of Pakistanis who view Khan as half way between a saviour and a saint, Veerman sees him as a flawed and insecure human being. If they ever meet again, he wants to ask Khan how he justifies all the years of deception.



Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Rye » 29 Jan 2004 20:32

It seems to me that the US allowing the perception that pakistan is a nuclear weapons state to persist is purely so that it can continue to work on "denuclearizing the region". If pakistan is publicly known to be nuke nude, then the non prolif jihadis in the US SD have no excuse for de-nuking India.

All in all, treating the US as an outright adversary/hostile state (privately, not a public stance) seems best until it accepts the reality of India's nukes, which can only happen when the Krepon -types have their nuts sliced off, metaphorically speaking. But then anti-India lowlifes like Krepon get to use a soapbox in the Indian Media; thankfully, most Indians do not read english to be influenced by his ilk's snake oil.

Vijay J
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: India

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Vijay J » 29 Jan 2004 20:42

C. Rajamohan is merely outlining the likely response of the Non Prolifertion people. He is correct in that the Non Proliferation people will attempt to use their questionable success in Pakistan to try and leverage India.

My answer to his question was very simple, it should not be very hard to deflect such a blow. There is no need to go warn the country of dire portents and evils imminent as there are unlikely to be any of serious consequence. A far greater danger lies in allowing incompetence to dominate the non proliferation activity of the US but rather than voice that C. Rajamohan spends time telling us the nonsense being discussed in non proliferation circles. Where he should be pro active, C Rajamohan is being reactive. I am very displeased.

This leveraging India with Pakistan is an old pastime for these non proliferation people. These people hope that by doing this attention will shift to India and like the good old days of the 80s all the failures with respect to Pakistan will be forgotten and instead all sorts of meaningless tripe will be poured on India. That will simply not happen.

The Non Proliferation people don't understand that cold war is over. India is not some vague nation with an adversarial nature, but rather a familiar face with a big wallet and a nuclear program that is not dependent on imports or exports. This reality will hit the Non Proliferation people hard in the years to come.

suryavir
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 27
Joined: 06 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: usa

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby suryavir » 29 Jan 2004 20:48

All in all, treating the US as an outright adversary/hostile state (privately, not a public stance) seems best
If this forum is as widely read as I think it is, statements like this will do more harm than good to India.

Umrao
BRFite
Posts: 547
Joined: 30 May 2001 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Umrao » 29 Jan 2004 20:57

Originally posted by suryavir:
All in all, treating the US as an outright adversary/hostile state (privately, not a public stance) seems best
If this forum is as widely read as I think it is, statements like this will do more harm than good to India.
If this be true

Then Raja Mohan is very known in the strategic circles of unkils SA experts and pundits, therefore his thoughts ( NPT Jihadis in administration might do this or not do this) will do more harm, for it is giving them ideas as to what to do.

Vijay J
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: India

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Vijay J » 29 Jan 2004 20:58

I am arguing that the adversarial mindset is now slowly changing. It is hangovers like Krepon who are attempting to relive the glory of days gone by, but the reality of our time simply does not support such thinking.

Krepon is what I call a friend of Pakistan.

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Rye » 29 Jan 2004 21:02

Originally posted by suryavir:
If this forum is as widely read as I think it is, statements like this will do more harm than good to India.
Huh? Why? So the US publicly making statements detrimental to India's interests must be welcomed?? Krepon is not some random streetcorner rabble-rouser. The bugger testified to the congress and he wouldn't be there if his views did not have a lot of currency out in the US. F1ck all the pussyfooting about "offending our american friends".

Bharat
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 08 Mar 1999 12:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Bharat » 29 Jan 2004 21:10

It seems to me that the US allowing the perception that pakistan is a nuclear weapons state to persist is purely so that it can continue to work on "denuclearizing the region". If pakistan is publicly known to be nuke nude, then the non prolif jihadis in the US SD have no excuse for de-nuking India.
Rye, I think on the contrary without Pakistan, US non prolifs would argue more on an Indian denuclearization. Of course these are the people who don't know much about real politics across the Oceans.

Vijay,
Rajamohan is warning and it is true. The US media listens to what is being said in Congressional hearings. Simply by clubbing together India and Pakistan, there is a ground being made. If there comes up some proof stating India has proliferated then these warnings would be highlighted.

So we need to be more careful in our nuclear exports.

The US print media is repeatedly talking about Pak proliferation. In most cases US media is a fair indication on the thinking of Washington. But time and time again in the case of Pakistan Washington has been more lax. Previously in the case of terrorism against India, nuclear sabre rattling and Kargil , the US was not affected. But the past year and a half Pakistani actions have directly been affecting the US national security.

Prior to 9/11 Pak support to AQ and Taliban has been forgiven for Pak support to the US after 9/11.

But Pak existing proliferation and support for Taliban, AQ has directly affected US. Still there is a persistent point of view in at least one branch of the USG and Congress that Pak needs to be treated with Kid Gloves.

Shocking but never surprising !!!! :roll:

Tim
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: USA

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Tim » 29 Jan 2004 21:13

I wouldn't necessarily assume that everyone who's invited to testify before Congress is influential.

:)

Umrao
BRFite
Posts: 547
Joined: 30 May 2001 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Umrao » 29 Jan 2004 21:16

amazing
Prez has identified

Iran
Libya
N Korea as axis of evil.

Pakistan exports Nukes to all these countries.

India is threatned by Pak of nuking, and a proxy war is waged.

Pakistani back stabing unkil is being exposed.

Still Pakistan is a allie in War against Terror,

Now India is being brought into the equation by NPT jihadis and their chelas,

Now somebody in his wisdom is fed up with the GOTUS on this forum (mind you not with American people who are the most open minded, generous and liberal with some exceptions), now thats going spoil the image of Indians.

some one give me more edoocayshan pleez.
:roll:

TIA

Tim
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: USA

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Tim » 29 Jan 2004 21:18

If it hasn't been posted, the site to find the testimony for yesterday's Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearings is

http://foreign.senate.gov/hearing.html

The 0900 hearing was closed (probably classified). The 1030 hearing was the one with Cohen, Wisner, and Krepon.

Umrao
BRFite
Posts: 547
Joined: 30 May 2001 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Umrao » 29 Jan 2004 21:19

Originally posted by Tim:
I wouldn't necessarily assume that everyone who's invited to testify before Congress is influential.

:)
Very true have to agree with Dr. Tim.

Shri Raman was invited to testify, but I dont think he was influential even though very knowledgeble and articulate.
:)

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Rangudu » 29 Jan 2004 21:25

Thanks Tim. Did you see/listen to the hearing? I tuned in and thought I could sense a bit of tension between Krepon and Cohen. Ambassador Wisner was his usual diplomatic self.

Your thoughts?

daulat
BRFite
Posts: 338
Joined: 09 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby daulat » 29 Jan 2004 21:44

so, the issue before this house is

1. will unkil's eye of sauron fall upon dhoti clad bania hobbits to de-nuke now that it has withered away the evil wizard mushuman (and his orc army)?

or

2. does unkil allow dhoti clad bania hobbits to brandish limited inventory of sub-strategic weapons against dragon?

unkil-sauron does not yet have the power to banish the dragon to the pit of doom, i think it will be option 2, since bania-hobbits are potentially of some use to unkil in the forseeable future

Umrao
BRFite
Posts: 547
Joined: 30 May 2001 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Umrao » 29 Jan 2004 22:12

circa 2001.
***
The general and the bomb

Of all the dangers currently facing the US-led anti-Taliban coalition, perhaps none is so urgent as the status of Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal. However, relations between the country’s self-appointed president, General Pervez Musharraf, and those scientists who actually developed the bomb for the world’s first Islamic nuclear power raise a number of awkward questions.

In recent weeks there has been intense media speculation over alleged links between several of the Pakistani scientists who played key roles in the country’s nuclear programme and the Taliban regime in neighbouring Afghanistan. The main concerns are:

The risk that Pakistani nuclear experts may have already passed weapons technology over to Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda network.

The danger that such technology might be supplied in the future.

A fear that Pakistan’s existing nuclear arsenal might fall into the hands of terrorists, or of pro-Taliban elements within the country’s armed forces.

Against this background, in recent weeks there has been intense pressure on General Musharraf to ensure that his leading nuclear specialists are not in a position to defect to the Taliban or to provide Al-Qaeda with the know-how to develop its own nuclear weapons for use against the West or its military forces in the region.

Earlier this week the general approved the detention of two of Pakistan’s best known nuclear scientists: Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood and Abdul Majeed. Both are retired members of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) and, according to the Pakistani interior minister, Moinuddin Haidar, they have been taken into what he termed “protective custody”. Local intelligence sources suggest that the two scientists have links to organisations that are suspected of supporting the Taliban.

278 of 908 words

[End of non-subscriber extract.]

The full version of this article is accessible through our subscription services. Please refer to the box below for details.

TSP the Cyotehttp://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jid/jid011101_1_n.shtml

***
Can somebody post the article

Umrao
BRFite
Posts: 547
Joined: 30 May 2001 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Umrao » 29 Jan 2004 22:22

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1050932/posts

Former American intelligence and nonproliferation experts say the C.I.A. was aware of some, but not all, of these activities, and began tracking scientists at the Khan laboratory.

But at every turn, overt pressure was weighed against strategic interests. In the 1980's, Washington viewed Pakistan as a critical ally in the covert war it was waging against the Soviets in Afghanistan. By 1986, American intelligence agencies concluded that Pakistan had succeeded in making weapon-grade uranium, the sure sign that the centrifuges worked. But that same year, the Mr. Reagan announced an aid package to Pakistan of more than $4 billion.

The First Nuclear Deals

What American intelligence agencies apparently did not understand at the time was the pace at which Dr. Khan's team was beginning to help other nations.

It started as a quid pro quo with an old patron: China. A declassified State Department memo, obtained by the National Security Archive in Washington, concluded that China, sometime after its first bomb tests in the mid-1960's, had provided Pakistan technology for "fissile material production and possibly also nuclear device design."

Years later, the flow reversed. Mr. Albright, who is the president of the Institute for Science and International Security, an arms control group in Washington, has concluded China was an early recipient of Pakistan's designs for centrifuges. China had used an antiquated, expensive process for enriching uranium and the technology Dr. Khan held promised a faster, cheaper, more efficient path to bomb-making.

But that was just the start. Evidence uncovered in recent months shows that around 1987 Pakistan struck a deal with Iran, which had tried unsuccessfully to master enrichment technology on its own during its war with Iraq. The outlines of the deal — pieced together from limited inspections and documents turned over to the I.A.E.A. in October — show that a centrifuge of Pakistani design finally solved Iran's technological problems. That deal was "a tremendous boost," Mr. Albright and his colleague, Corey Hinderstein, said in a draft report on the Iranian program. "The possession of detailed designs could allow Iran to skip many difficult research steps," they added.

The Iranian documents turned over to the I.A.E.A. make no reference to Pakistan itself; they only point to its signature technologies.

"We have middlemen and suspicions," said a Western diplomat with access to the documents. "There is a Pakistani tie for sure, but we don't know the details."

Iran's program fooled the I.A.E.A., which caught no whiff of it during 18 years of inspections. But Pakistan's role was also well hidden from American intelligence agencies.

"We had some intelligence successes with Iran, we knew about some of their enrichment efforts," said Gary Samore, who headed up nonproliferation efforts in the Clinton administration's National Security Council. "What we didn't know was the Pakistan connection — that was a surprise. And the extent of Pakistan's ties was, in retrospect, the surprise of the 1990's."

The Iranians were hardly satisfied customers. They had gotten Pakistan's older models and were forced to slog ahead slowly for two decades, foraging around the world for parts, building experimental facilities involving a few hundred centrifuges, but apparently failing to produce enough fissile material for a bomb.

If the Iranians were the turtle, the North Koreans proved the hare. Around 1997, a decade after the Pakistani deal with Iran, Dr. Khan made inroads with the government of Kim Jong Il, as it sought a way to make nuclear fuel away from the Yongbyon plant and the prying eyes of American satellites. Dr. Khan began traveling to North Korea, visiting 13 times, American intelligence officials said.

During those visits, North Korea offered to exchange centrifuge technology for North Korean missile technology, enabling Pakistan to extend the reach of its nuclear weapons across India.

Again, American intelligence agencies missed many of the signals. They knew of an experimental program, but it took evidence from South Korea to demonstrate that North Korea was moving toward industrial-level production. Then in the summer of 2001, American spy satellites spotted missile parts being loaded into an Pakistani cargo plane near Pyongyang, the North Korean capital. The parts were assumed to be the quid pro quo for the nuclear technology.

Last spring, a few months after the deal was revealed in The New York Times, the State Department announced some sanctions against the Khan laboratory but cited the illegal missile transactions. The State Department said it had insufficient evidence to issue sanctions for a nuclear transfer, a move some dissenting officials suspected was a concession to avoid embarrassing General Musharraf, who had denied any nuclear transfers ever occurred.

A Congressional report on the Pakistan-North Korea trade notes that over the years "Pakistan has been sanctioned in what some observers deem, an `on again, off again' fashion," mostly for importing technology for unconventional weapons, and later for its 1998 nuclear tests. Those sanctions which were also issued against India were waived shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when the United States suddenly needed Pakistan's cooperation.

It is unclear whether the Pakistan-North Korea connection has been cut off. But new evidence suggests that North Korea is still racing ahead. In April, a ship carrying a large cargo of super-strong aluminum tubing was stopped in the Suez Canal after the German authorities determined that it was destined for North Korea. The precise size of the tubes, according to Western diplomats and industry reports, suggested that they were intended for making the outer casings of G-2 centrifuges, the kind whose rotors are made of steel, and that Dr. Khan wrote about.

The C.I.A. estimates that by 2005, if unchecked, North Korea will begin large-scale production of enriched uranium.


Umrao
BRFite
Posts: 547
Joined: 30 May 2001 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Umrao » 29 Jan 2004 22:25

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1050318/posts
Writing his memoirs in his prison cell just before he was executed by General Zia-ul-Haq in 1979, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto stated that his aim as prime minister of Pakistan had been to put the "Islamic Civilization" at par with the "Christian, Jewish and Hindu Civilizations," by giving the Islamic world a "full nuclear capability." In a meeting of top scientists and advisers that he had convened on Jan. 20, 1972, just after assuming office, Bhutto made it clear that he was determined to achieve nuclear capability, not merely to neutralize India's inherent conventional superiority, but also to make his country a leader of the Islamic world.

But how was a cash-strapped Pakistan to get the financial resources to achieve these objectives? Bhutto's press adviser, Khalid Hasan, has since revealed how Bhutto sought and obtained financial assistance from Saudi Arabia and the mercurial Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi to fulfill his ambitions. Bhutto also indicated in his prison memoirs that China under Mao's leadership had agreed to provide Pakistan the necessary assistance to build the bomb. Despite changes in leadership in China, there has been no dilution of its nuclear and missile assistance to Pakistan.

While successive rulers in Pakistan have vowed that they would not transfer nuclear technology to others, the IAEA has come up with evidence indicating that both Libya and Iran received assistance in developing uranium enrichment capabilities from Pakistan. Col. Gadhafi had such a close relationship with Bhutto that the latter named the largest cricket stadium in Pakistan the "Gadhafi Stadium." Funds from Libya flowed freely to Pakistan "in suitcases," to fuel its nuclear ambitions. What is even more interesting is that the transfer of nuclear technology to Iran is said to have commenced in 1987, when Pakistan was professing to be a close U.S. ally. Pakistan was then under the rule of Gen. Zia. The entire nuclear program was then, as it is now, under the direct control of the Pakistan army. There is no way that there could have been any "rogue operation" by individual scientists to transfer nuclear technology to Iran, without the knowledge and consent of the Pakistan army.

Daniel Henninger is away.

While Iran and Libya have agreed to comprehensive IAEA inspections of their nuclear facilities under international pressure, there has been little or no attention paid to the nexus between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia on nuclear issues. Apart from the revelations of Khalid Hassan about Saudi funding of the Pakistan nuclear program, Mohammed al Khilawi, the senior Saudi diplomat who defected to the U.S. in 1994, has also given details about how Riyadh bankrolled Pakistan and then Iraq to obtain nuclear weapons capabilities.

More recently, eyebrows were raised when the Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan was provided unprecedented access to Pakistan's nuclear enrichment facilities in Kahuta in March 1999. During this visit he invited Dr. A.Q. Khan, the "Father of the Islamic Bomb" to visit Saudi Arabia. Dr. Khan had paid over a dozen visits to North Korea and was instrumental in the transfer of enrichment technology to North Korea in exchange for North Korean missiles. Weapons inspectors in Iraq have traced Iraqi documents showing that Dr. Khan had offered nuclear technology to the Saddam Hussein regime. Dr. Khan's associates, Sultan Bashiruddin Mehmood and Abdul Majid visited Kandahar for a quiet pow-wow on nuclear technology with Osama bin Laden. And more recently, Dr. Khan has been questioned for his involvement in the transfer of enrichment capabilities to Iran. He obviously did not visit Saudi Arabia at the personal invitation of its defense minister to discuss Islamic theology!

While Saudi Arabia actively uses "charities" to promote Wahhabi extremism across the world, Pakistan has been the recipient of huge direct economic assistance from the desert kingdom. The Saudis have bailed out Islamabad over the past decade by supplying Pakistan with an estimated $ 1.2 billion of oil products annually, virtually free of cost. Just after the visit of Dr. Khan to Saudi Arabia in November 1999, a Saudi nuclear expert, Dr. Al Arfaj, stated at a seminar that "Saudi Arabia must make plans aimed at making a quick response to face the possibilities of nuclear warfare agents being used against the Saudi population, cities or armed forces." After the departure of American forces from its soil, how does Saudi Arabia propose to deal with such nuclear contingencies? The 2,700-kilometer range CSS-2 missiles that Saudi Arabia obtained from China in 1987 are useless if fitted only with conventional warheads. One cannot, therefore, avoid the inference that like the Pakistan-North Korean nukes for missiles deal, there is an "oil for nukes" deal between the Saudis and Pakistanis.

Washington's response to these developments has been strange. When Mr. Al Khilawi made his revelations about Saudi nuclear ambitions in 1994, a senior official in the Clinton White House remarked: "Can you imagine what would happen if we discovered Saudi had a bomb? We would have to do something and nobody wants that. Best not to ask tough questions in the first place." We are now told that Colin Powell is fully satisfied with General Pervez Musharraf's assurances that the nuclear transfers to North Korea and Iran were done by individual scientists, before he assumed office. If this is indeed true then what is one to make of reports that during a visit of a three-member team of its scientists to Pyongyang in 2001, Pakistan shared data of its nuclear tests with the North Koreans?

In July 2002, U.S. satellites took pictures of C-130 aircraft of the Pakistan Air Force picking up missile components from North Korea. Around the same time, a Pakistani "Shaheen Airlines" aircraft is reported to have transported 47 tons of special aluminum acquired from the U.K. by the Kahuta Research Laboratories established by Dr. Khan, to Pyongyang for its enrichment program. The Clinton administration sought to appease China by pretending that it could not make a "determination" about that country's missile and nuclear transfers to Pakistan. The Bush administration would be ill advised to follow this example.


Vijay J
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: India

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Vijay J » 29 Jan 2004 22:27

Bharat,

With the American elections looming on the horizon, there cannot be an overt discussion of the true nature of the Pakistan problem. This would open a can of worms that no one would be able to close. Everything done in the name of foreign policy for the last 20 years would be called into question and a lot of the top brass in DC would find themselves in serious trouble. As long as the Pakistanis can look like they are capable of preventing that from happening, the Pakistanis will be entertained as great allies in America. As long as the Indians look like they can risk exposing all this, they will be viewed as adversaries by the people who have dirty hands.

Nobody in the US currently has the strength of purpose to question the non proliferation policy and its repeated failures with China, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran and Libya. No one wants to have to face the prospect that the Jihadis may actually control the nukes, so they will all put on a smiley face and walk away.

Suryavir points out that people read this forum, maybe that is the case but who can trust what is written on an internet forum, after all aren't these just lunatics raving without rhyme or reason.

Sunil
BRFite
Posts: 634
Joined: 21 Sep 1999 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Sunil » 29 Jan 2004 22:40

Oh you guys are going to love this. Overheard last night.

A: "Did you hear about Abdul Qadeer Khan being arrested for selling nukes to Iran?"

B:" Abdul Qadeer Khan?"

A: "Yes you know the one who is called the father of the Islamic bomb in Pakistan".

B: " Oooooh... you mean Abdul Xerox Khan, who made copies of the Chinese Nuclear Bomb with uranium extracted from a copy of a dutch centrifuge?"

A: " Yes yes the very same.."

B: " So which Abdul Xerox Khan was arrested for selling nukes to Iran?"

A: " Huh.. I just told you which one is being..."

B: " No no no .. you don't understand, Abdul Xerox Khan was so deeply in love with the photocopy machine.. He also made copies of himself"

A: (sound of jaw dropping..)

B: "So which Abdul Xerox Khan was arrested?"

(background has me laughing.)

Umrao
BRFite
Posts: 547
Joined: 30 May 2001 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Umrao » 29 Jan 2004 22:43

See India's Nukes are miniscule compared to mighty Pakistani Nukes.

India didnt proliferate, Pakistan did.

SO who is a threat? India say South Asian pundits and NP Jihadis. Logical indeed.

Also note this
An April 1999 test of India's Agni missile, described by the Pentagon as 10 years away from operational status.
*** Note the date 1999
http://www.msnbc.com/news/417106.asp?cp1=1

Pakistan nukes
outstrip India’s,
officials say

U.S. reverses assessment
of South Asia nuclear balance

By Robert Windrem
and Tammy Kupperman
NBC NEWS


WASHINGTON, June 6 — Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is vastly superior to that of rival India, with up to five times the nuclear warheads, say U.S. military and intelligence officials now reassessing the South Asian balance of power. Interviews with senior U.S. officials in the past week revealed the view that Pakistan not only has more warheads than its longtime adversary, but has far more capability to actually use them.





NUCLEAR WEAPONS TESTS by India and Pakistan in May 1998 caught American intelligence off guard. While U.S. agencies long had known about weapons-development research in both countries, the decision by both to go public with their capabilities shocked policymakers.
Since then, U.S. intelligence and diplomacy has focused on South Asia with a new intensity. Until recently, for instance, Pakistan was considered to have somewhere between 10 and 15 nuclear weapons and India between 25 and 100.
But after two years of intelligence gathering, officials now believe those figures overstate the capabilities of India’s home-grown arsenal and understate those of Pakistan, whose program has relied on generous Chinese assistance. One official said the Pakistanis “are more likely to have those numbers [25 to 100 weapons] than the Indians.”
Perhaps most important, the official said, is that Pakistan appears far more capable than India of delivering nuclear payloads. “I don’t think their [the Indian] program is as advanced as the Paks,” the official said, speaking particularly of ballistic missiles.
Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni, commander of the U.S. Central Command, said longtime assumptions that India had an edge in the South Asian strategic balance of power were questionable, at best.
“Don’t assume that the Pakistani nuclear capability is inferior to the Indians,” said Zinni, the senior U.S. officer responsible for the Middle East and South Asia.
Other military and intelligence officials, as well as an intelligence analysis of South Asia’s nuclear balance obtained by NBC News, shed more light on the revised view. NBC News is the broadcast partner of the MSNBC.com joint venture.
“They both have a capability,” said one senior military official. <u>“Pakistan’s may be better than India’s, with more weapons and more capability.</u>
“You can’t underestimate the Pakistani program,” said the official. Like most of the officials NBC News contacted, this one would speak only on condition of anonymity.

Roop
BRFite
Posts: 257
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Roop » 29 Jan 2004 22:48

Unfortunately, C. Rajamohan is probably right -- the non-prolferation mullahs (NPMs) will probably turn their baleful glare on India once they have finished with Pakistan. The poltical clout of the NPMs will be less if Bush wins reelection, but if a Democrat wins in 2004, expect the full heat of the NPMs to be turned against India as well as TSP. Remember Madeline Albright?

That is why I say that Bush in the White House is India's best bet for the next few years. Sure he lied about Iraq and seems to be getting away with it, but that's Iraq's problem (and the Democrats' problem). Let them deal with it.

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Rangudu » 29 Jan 2004 22:49

http://www.sundaytimes.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,8533539%255E401,00.html

Pakistan clears nuclear scientist

From correspondents in Islamabad
30jan04

PAKISTAN said today the country's top nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan was not a suspect in the ongoing probe into alleged proliferation of nuclear technology to Iran and Libya by Pakistani scientists.

"Doctor Abdul Qadeer Khan is neither a suspect nor he is under any restriction," Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat told AFP.
When asked if Khan's name was placed on the Exit Control List (ECL), Hayat said: "It is a routine process that for the persons who are under investigation their names are placed on ECL, but Dr Qadeer Khan's name is not on the list."

Earlier, the government released another nuclear scientist, Abdul Majeed.

Three other scientists and three security officials associated with Pakistan's key uranium enrichment facility, Khan Research Laboratories (KRL), are under investigation following proliferation allegations raised by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in November.

They include close aides of Khan, revered as a national hero for providing the key uranium centrifuge designs that enabled Pakistan to develop a nuclear bomb.

Pakistan's nuclear program, begun in the 1970s, was covert until May 1998 when it conducted a series of nuclear tests in reaction to rival India's atomic detonations

Sam
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 84
Joined: 06 Aug 1999 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Sam » 29 Jan 2004 22:52

Did anyone catch Mansoor Ijaz on Fox news with Greta Van Susteren's show? He was yakking away on how Musharraf is in danger from jihadis within the ISI but the top general of ISI is secular and friend of Musharraf.

Earlier transcript web page

<BLOCKQUOTE>VAN SUSTEREN: Bill, we have only 30 seconds left, but AQ Khan is like a god in Afghanistan. Can Musharraf really control him? <BR><BR>GERTZ: Well, no, he is a big figure, and there are really two motivations behind the spread of this nuclear technology. One is the kind of Islamist solidarity, the idea that Pakistan would come put Saudi Arabia under a nuclear umbrella.</BLOCKQUOTE>

Sunil
BRFite
Posts: 634
Joined: 21 Sep 1999 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Sunil » 29 Jan 2004 22:54

All those statements that Jumrao has put up, were made by the Non Proliferation community and their friends in the US establishment to make Pakistan feel confident about its nuclear posture and to show that the world considers the Pakistan Army as a competent force to be reckoned with in Asia.

Unfortunately for the Non-proliferation mullahs and the friends this talk had two effects:

1) It made Indians feel insecure and prompted a rapid development of weapons systems.

2) It made the Pakistanis feel that they were in a position to challenge US authority as obviously their nuclear strength was respected. The Pakistan then began to ask for all sorts of things from the Americans which they declined to give them, so my guess is that the Pakistanis decided to teach the US a lesson and proliferated to everyone who disliked the US.

BTW... will someone please explain to `Great' Van Susteran, that AQK is revered as a God in PAKISTAN not Afghanistan. It would be very tragic if she can't be bothered to keep her 'stan's straight.

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Rangudu » 29 Jan 2004 22:58

Looks like they are going to let off Xerox Khan with a slap on the wrist. So Mushy has backed down...

suryavir
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 27
Joined: 06 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: usa

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby suryavir » 29 Jan 2004 23:00

So the US publicly making statements detrimental to India's interests must be welcomed??
Who said anything about welcoming US statements that are inimical to India? Criticize them vigorously by all means....better yet, argue whey they are wrong, both for India as well as for the US. However, using intemperate language and issuing a call for India to make the US an overt, hostile adversary is hardly helping India's cause; only adding to the difficulties. India has enough enemies and challenges on its hand, without needing to convert a non-adversary into an adversary. My last post on the topic.

Umrao
BRFite
Posts: 547
Joined: 30 May 2001 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Umrao » 29 Jan 2004 23:06

With nuclear weapons, Pakistan sees itself as the military equal of archrival India. "It's a symbol of empowerment," said security analyst Ayesha Siddiqa Agha.

But it also flows from the fact that Pakistan was the first nation in the Muslim world to develop the bomb - despite years of US sanctions aimed at halting it. Such conceit spreads beyond Pakistan, where its nuclear weapons are hailed as "Islamic" ones.

"You can go to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and they are very proud Pakistan has this capability," said <u>Shireen Mazari, director-general of the government-funded Institute for Strategic Studies in Islamabad.</u>
(not espelling mistik Here is wantedly made as Hear)

Hear a Jilebi
There a jilebi
Everywhere a Jilebi
Old man Mushy
Had a farm

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/nuclear_shadow/081602.htm

Raj Singh
BRFite
Posts: 101
Joined: 23 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Raj Singh » 29 Jan 2004 23:14

John Umrao

Now India is being brought into the equation by NPT jihadis and their chelas,

Don't know if India ever was out of the equation. Even before Pokhran II, there was quite a bit of pressure on India to sign NPT. Going by the story appeared in India Today (in 90s, during N Rao's tenure), things had reached to such a stage that an Indian delegation was just ready to leave for Europe and have meeting with NPT jehadis/chelas to discuss the matters further. Recall, around this time, India's economic/financial situation was quite poor.

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Rye » 29 Jan 2004 23:14

Originally posted by suryavir:
better yet, argue whey they are wrong, both for India as well as for the US. However, using intemperate language and issuing a call for India to make the US an overt, hostile adversary is hardly helping India's cause; only adding to the difficulties.
I am not of the opinion that my opinions on this board, hostile or otherwise, is going to influence policy anywhere on the planet. Besides, I was stating that US is already behaving like a hostile adversary by not only turning a blind eye to the nuclear proliferation and other dangers IN INDIA's NEIGHBOURHOOD, but also encouraging hostile countries in India's neighbourhood to move up the escalation ladder, simply because it gives the US more leverage to "denuclearize the region". If these are the actions of a non-adversarial country, I would like to know what constitutes an adversarial country.

These are the very same worthies (Non prolif jihadis and their mentors in the US SD) who like to pretend that they want to avoid future nuclear holocausts anywhere on the planet. Their actions indicate that they are doing the exact opposite.

I have more faith in the Bush administration than in the US SD and the non prolif drones to do the right thing w.r.t. proliferation by the pakistanis.

India has enough enemies and challenges on its hand, without needing to convert a non-adversary into an adversary. My last post on the topic.
The US being a non adversary is your opinion; I hold an opposite opinion based on their current and past actions towards India's concerns about nuke proliferation in the neighbourhood. So excuse me while I ignore your opinion of my opinion. That said, as and when the US changes its stances on Indian security, I am liable to change my mind as to the kind of threat the US poses indirectly to Indian security.

My current view is that Bush and the current administration have a handle on how to mend fences with India. I am not so sure that this will continue if the Democrats come to power, esp. since they will give the non prolif mullahs a free hand in shaping US-India policy.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1664
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby ldev » 29 Jan 2004 23:15

Originally posted by Rangudu:
Looks like they are going to let off Xerox Khan with a slap on the wrist. So Mushy has backed down...
All the more reason that the US is going to keep a very close watch henceforth over Paki proliferation activities. Nowithstanding the need to keep the H&D of the Pakis intact, their wayward behavior was finally far too much for even the US to withstand and hence the spate of newsreports on the Paki proliferation which in reality is decades old. But the fact that it has now hit the headlines in the US means that the level of concern has crossed crossed a critical threshold. The US now believes that directly or indirectly it has become a potential target for Paki proliferation. India has been living in the shadow of this nuclear blackmail for the last 20 years and finally now that the US perceives itself at risk, a meaningful reponse to control the risk directed at the US appears to be underway. Good luck to the US at trying to control the Pakis, masters in duplicity and fraud.

Raj Singh
BRFite
Posts: 101
Joined: 23 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Raj Singh » 29 Jan 2004 23:19

John Umrao

India didnt proliferate, Pakistan did.

SO who is a threat? India say South Asian pundits and NP Jihadis. Logical indeed.
India has not been accepted as a member of that exclusive club (nuclear), should be a pointer here.

Well, that is the situation as of now.

Umrao
BRFite
Posts: 547
Joined: 30 May 2001 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Umrao » 29 Jan 2004 23:19

The wise Men of Nottingham (aka Tubelightabad)
Spoke thus.
Note the chronology of these statements and the corresponding Nuke proliferation of the TSP. ( You easily visualize the adage ".. bites the hand that feeds).

*******************
`The proposed United States assistance program for Pakistan remains extremely important in reducing the risk that Pakistan will develop and ultimately possess such a device. I am convinced that our security relationship and assistance program are the most effective means available for us to dissuade Pakistan from acquiring nuclear explosive devices. Our assistance program is designed to help Pakistan address its substantial and legitimate security needs, thereby both reducing incentives and creating disincentives for Pakistani acquisition of nuclear explosives.'--President Bush, 10/5/89; President Ronald Reagan, 11/18/88; 12/17/87; 10/27/86; & 11/25/85.

President George Bush, letter to Congress (addressed to J. Danforth Quayle as President of the Senate), 12 April 1991, urging abandonment of Pressler certification requirement:

`* * * my intention is to send the strongest possible message to Pakistan and other potential proliferators that nonproliferation is among the highest priorities of my Administration's foreign policy, irrespective of whether such a policy is required by law.'

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Teresita Schaffer, testimony before House subcommittee, 2 August 1989:

`None of the F-16's Pakistan already owns or is about to purchase is configured for nuclear delivery * * * a Pakistan with a credible conventional deterrent will be less motivated to purchase a nuclear weapons capability.'

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Arthur Hughes, testimony before House subcommittee, 2 August 1989:

`Finally, we believe that past and continued American support for Pakistan's conventional defense reduces the likelihood that Pakistan will feel compelled to cross the nuclear threshold.'

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Robert Peck, testimony before House subcommittee, 17 February 1988:

`We believe that the improvements in Pakistan's conventional military forces made possible by U.S. assistance and the U.S. security commitment our aid program symbolizes have had a significant influence on Pakistan's decision to forego the acquisition of nuclear weapons.'

Special Ambassador at large Richard Kennedy, testimony before two House subcommittees, 22 October 1987:

`We have made it clear that Pakistan must show restraint in its nuclear program if it expects us to continue providing security assistance.'

Assistant Secretary of State Richard Murphy, testimony before Senate subcommittee, 18 March 1987:

`Our assistance relationship is designed to advance both our non-proliferation and our strategic objectives relating to Afghanistan. Development of a close and reliable security partnership with Pakistan gives Pakistan an alternative to nuclear weapons to meet its legitimate security needs and strengthens our influence on Pakistan's nuclear decision making. Shifting to a policy of threats and public ultimata would in our view decrease, not increase our ability to continue to make a contribution to preventing a nuclear arms race in South Asia. Undermining the credibility of the security relationship with the U.S. would itself create incentives for Pakistan to ignore our concerns and push forward in the direction of nuclear weapons acquisition.'

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Howard Schaffer, testimony before House subcommittee 6 February 1984:

The assistance program also contributes to U.S. nuclear non-proliferation goals. We believe strongly that a program of support which enhances Pakistan's sense of security helps remove the principal underlying incentive for the acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability. The government of Pakistan understands our deep concern over this issue. We have made clear that the relationship between our two countries, and the program of military and economic assistance on which it rests, are ultimately inconsistent with Pakistan's development of a nuclear explosive device. President Zia has stated publicly that Pakistan will not manufacture a nuclear explosives device.'

Special Ambassador at large Richard Kennedy, testimony before two House subcommittees, 1 November 1983:

`By helping friendly nations to address legitimate security concerns, we seek to reduce incentives for the acquisition of nuclear weapons. The provision of security assistance and the sale of military equipment can be major components of efforts along these lines. Development of security ties to the U.S. can strengthen a country's confidence in its ability to defend itself without nuclear weapons. At the same time, the existence of such a relationship enhances our credibility when we seek to persuade that country to forego [sic] nuclear arms . . . We believe that strengthening Pakistan's conventional military capability serves a number of important U.S. interests, including non-proliferation. At the same time, we have made clear to the government of Pakistan that efforts to acquire nuclear explosives would jeopardize our security assistance program.'

Statement by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Harry Marshall, 12 September 1983, before International Nuclear Law Association, San Francisco:

`U.S. assistance has permitted Pakistan to strengthen its conventional defensive capability. This serves to bolster its stability and thus reduce its motivation for acquiring nuclear explosives.'

President Ronald Reagan, report to Congress pursuant to sec. 601 of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act (`601 report'), for calendar year 1982:

`Steps were taken to strengthen the U.S. security relationship with Pakistan with the objective of addressing that country's security needs and thereby reducing any motivation for acquiring nuclear explosives.'

President Ronald Reagan, report to Congress pursuant to sec. 601 of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act (`601 report'), for calendar year 1981:

`Military assistance by the United States and the establishment of a new security relationship with Pakistan should help to counteract its possible motivations toward acquiring nuclear weapons . . . Moreover, help from the United States in strengthening Pakistan's conventional military capabilities would offer the best available means for counteracting possible motivations toward acquiring nuclear weapons.'

Assistant Secretary of State James Malone, address before Atomic Industrial Forum, San Francisco, 1 December 1981:

`We believe that this assistance--which is in the strategic interest of the United States--will make a significant contribution to the well-being and security of Pakistan and that it will be recognized as such by that government. We also believe that, for this reason, it offers the best prospect of deterring the Pakistanis from proceeding with the testing or acquisition of nuclear explosives.

Undersecretary of State James Buckley, testimony before Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 12 November 1981:

`We believe that a program of support which provides Pakistan with a continuing relationship with a significant security partner and enhances its sense of security may help remove the principal underlying incentive for the acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability. With such a relationship in place we are hopeful that over time we will be able to persuade Pakistan that the pursuant of a weapons capability is neither necessary to its security nor in its broader interest as an important member of the world community.'

Testimony of Undersecretary of State James Buckley, in response to question from Sen. Glenn, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 12 November 1981, on Effects of a Nuclear Detonation on Continuation of Cash Sales of F-16's:

`[Sen. Glenn] * * * so if Pakistan detonates a nuclear device before completion of the F-16 sale, will the administration cut off future deliveries?

`[Buckley] Again, Senator, we have underscored the fact that this would dramatically affect the relationship. The cash sales are part of that relationship. I cannot see drawing lines between the impact in the case of a direct cash sale versus a guaranteed or U.S.-financed sale.'

Undersecretary of State James Buckley, Letter to NY Times, 25 July 1981:

`In place of the ineffective sanctions on Pakistan's nuclear program imposed by the past Administration, we hope to address through conventional means the sources of insecurity that prompt a nation like Pakistan to seek a nuclear capability in the first place.'

Nandu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2195
Joined: 08 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 22 Jan 2004

Postby Nandu » 29 Jan 2004 23:22

>>Looks like they are going to let off Xerox Khan with a slap on the wrist. So Mushy has backed down...

Did Mushy ever have any intention other than that? Isn't it more accurate to say that Bush/Powell has backed down?


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests