Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

nachiketa
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 7
Joined: 08 Dec 2002 12:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby nachiketa » 02 Feb 2004 18:32

Paki EXPLETIVE DELETED still won't give up :roll:

Developments in Afghanistan strengthen the Pakistan hand. From March this year, as the winter thaw begins, more than ever since September 11, after which Pakistan pledged allegiance to the US in the "war on terror", the US needs Pakistan's help for the safety of the 12,000 international troops in Afghanistan.

Intelligence reports confirm that once the ice has melted, the Afghan resistance, comprising al-Qaeda, the Hizb-i-Islami Afghanistan of Gulbuddin Hekmatyr and the Islamic Movement of Taliban, will invite local tribes on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border to help expel foreign troops and retake major cities lost by the Taliban in late 2001.

The tribal aspect of this plan has alarmed Western security officials as US-led forces rely on sections of their support to conduct operations in Afghanistan. Strategists in Islamabad told Asia Times Online that Pakistan would now offer to mediate by soliciting the Taliban - which Pakistan originally helped bring to power in 1996 - to join in a national government and end their resistance.

If this works, the US will get a much-desired exit strategy from Afghanistan, and Islamabad will get to keep its nuclear program intact. :roll:

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

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby jrjrao » 02 Feb 2004 18:43

The Telegraph, UK.

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/02/wpak02.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/02/02/ixportal.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=141715]Pakistan faces protests over scientist's sacking
[/url]
By Ahmed Rashid in Lahore
Senior Pakistani officials said Khan was first asked to resign but he refused, saying it would make him appear guilty when he denies any wrongdoing.

Khan, who is under house arrest at his luxurious villa outside Islamabad, is being investigated
...Khan's closeness to the army and his popular status did not allow Gen Musharraf to go further.

Najam Sethi, the editor of The Friday Times, said: "Musharraf's strategy seems twofold - admit a degree of guilt but absolve the state by attributing it to a few greedy scientists."

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

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby jrjrao » 02 Feb 2004 19:05

Lesson for the Pakis:

Don't trifle with the Big A.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23780
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby SSridhar » 02 Feb 2004 19:08

Consequently, Pakistani authorities have devised a strategy under which they will urge the US to back off their nuclear facilities, in exchange for help in extracting the US from the imbroglio in which it finds itself in neighboring Afghanistan.
From the above post by Nachiketa, it is obvious that some more top AQ guys will be shortly "apprehended" ...probably even the vey top if the heat is too much.

James Bund
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 08 May 1999 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby James Bund » 02 Feb 2004 20:01

Yeah the neocons are just going to thank Pakistan for pulling the knife out and let them keep their nukes as a reward.

Somebody at P.I.S.S. needs to do a paper on the psychology of terror against a vastly more powerful foe. Is Musharaf sure America is going to go away after exiting Afghanistan? Does he not realise Pakistan is on the exit route?

Kuttan
BRFite
Posts: 439
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby Kuttan » 02 Feb 2004 20:18

The other side is: perhaps here's the answer to "why now?"

Answer: "Because we're tired of waiting for cooperation on the Afghan frontier".

Right after 9/11, John McCain remarked about TSP that: "yeah, we have to play that game, and know its a crooked poker game".

The Pakis are seeing a few cards coming out from the rolled-up sleeves of Unkil Al Sam.

Remember that at this point, if Unkil releases a "report" saying flat out that Mush transferred nukes and got paid, well... end of Mush. Having sold Abdul Xerox down the river, mush has won even more hate inside TSP than by selling the Taliban down the river.

So the Big Squeeze is on - DIRECTLY on mush.

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

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby Rangudu » 02 Feb 2004 20:27

N,

When did McCain make that statement? Where did he do that?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby SaiK » 02 Feb 2004 20:28

I would not be surpised if xerox khan starts up his labs in libya or wherever he has links.

Then slowly, he will leak that it was all under ISI... and CIA's brain as you all know is as "mushy" as it can be.

too much of "inside job" with cross links across the Al Sam super chain structure, can't be easy for us to expose, though its very rudimentary watson kind of thing for us.

When d!ck chain-y and porgie bush are themselves in a mess with wmd in iraq.. what other time is the best for the pakis to throw up their nuke imbroglio.

for our raw brains, what is important is knowing more the links.. so that we can certain identifiers that we put on the watch list.

Kuttan
BRFite
Posts: 439
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby Kuttan » 02 Feb 2004 20:31

Right after 9/11, after the Senate Armed Services Committe I believe, had a hearing, and media people were asking him why US was tolerating TSP.

Had to be late Sept. / October 2001. If you have PakNews threads saved from that time, a search for McCain should bring it up. I don't remember referencing that comment anywhere, so can't place the reference.

Search Google under "crooked poker" or some such American slang reference to a crooked game of poker. The actual word was not "crooked" (can't remember), but poker experts clarified that it referred to a crooked game of poker.

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

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby Umrao » 02 Feb 2004 20:31

The only problem with this poker game unkil is playing at this table is

1) The world expects unkil to impartial sherif.

2) The world expects unkil to deliver as the sole marshal of the town.

But in reality the Sherif and the crooked player both know that each wants.

The crook also knows that the sherif is going to sub optimize the real goal to win back his election as sherif.

Also by law of diminishing utility,

Mushy's marginal cost is now exceeds unkils marginal utility.

If say for instance yet another general comes out and cuts a deal with sherif, that I will deliver

1) AL qaeda
2) OBL
3) All Taliban hide outs

The sherif will say ok its a deal, Mushy goes new general comes Sherif gets re elected, the world is not (yet) in peace
because

1) Taliban can resurrected
2) The son of (which) OBL comes back as a sequel
3) AL Qaeda come back ( remember the wife taking of Mullahs as Sunil had educated us earlier).

Sherif will wink at all this because the New general with his newly resurrected will focus on India and wreck mayhem ( read the 10 step cycle of N guru uvaacha)

Time for India to be weary of all these poker games.

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

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby Rye » 02 Feb 2004 20:55

Originally posted by narayanan:
So the Big Squeeze is on - DIRECTLY on mush.
Right on! And add to this Uneven's statement that Mushy is not all that important, i.e., replacable. Mushy goes out on a date with 72 beautiful women, and his replacement will be touted as the saviour of pakistan.

The last statement in Waseem shehzad's article shows the extent to which scapegoating khan is causing fractures in pakistan's polity.

abrahavt
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 55
Joined: 27 May 2003 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby abrahavt » 02 Feb 2004 21:00

Mushy goes out on a date with 72 beautiful women
72 Virgins :D

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1729
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby ldev » 02 Feb 2004 21:06

One possible answer to "Why now"? is that the Libyan transfers occurred post 9/11, that Pakistani Air Force planes were used to transport the material and that AQK's fingerprints were all over the crime scene. Maybe part of the alleged $2 Billion came into his accounts post 9/11 and was certainly monitored by the US. Since the entire security paradigm of the US in general and particularly towards Pakistan and the Islamic world has changed post 9/11 from benign watchfulness to hawk eyed scrutiny, Musharaff's 400% guarantees that nothing would happen under his watch suddenly rang hollow and the US which had been waiting for the right excuse to move in, pounced at the opportunity (Hey Mush, since you cannot do the job, we will move in and castrate AQK). The synchronized publicity was to ensure that Mushraff could cover his a*s in front of his corpse commanders and other domestic constituency citing helpless in the face of such US pressure, the onslaught of publicity and obvious proof of AQK's involvement. Big loss of H&D for Musharaff, but at least his a*s is covered.

The big question now is how will PAEC be controlled? After all, there could be copies of Xerox floating around in PAEC ready to xerox his feats.

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

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby Sunil » 02 Feb 2004 21:09

> Pakistan to leverage Nuclear Proliferation revelations against the US exit strategy from Afghanistan.

Thank your Mr. Shehzad, that is the one piece of news I have been waiting all of last week for. It was the missing piece in the puzzle.

Pakistan will agree to a complete stop to the A Q Khan proliferation channel for Uranium refining technology to US adversary states and help the US seek an honorable exit from Afghanistan. This will probably involve Pakistan supporting the Karzai government and an ebb in `resurgent' taliban activity to facilitate a US exit from the region.

As far as proliferation is concerned, the US will consider the entire matter closed and will hope that counter proliferation initiatives like PSI will hold the ground stable until the next crisis brews. An announcement of a US exit strategy from Afghanistan will be of massive political utility in the run up to the elections.

My respect for Asia Times continuously grows with each passing day.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1729
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby ldev » 02 Feb 2004 21:17

Sunil S,

That answers my question as to how PAEC will be controlled in my last post. Clearly the game of bluff and double bluff re PAEC has alread started i.e. the Pakistanis want to go back to the pre 9/11 situation - Give us back our strategic depth in Afghanistan and lay off PAEC and we will allow you (the US) a honorable retreat from Afghanistan. Well, let us see if the US is going to be sent packing by the Pakis.

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

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby Raj Singh » 02 Feb 2004 21:18

Received the following in an e-mail. Thought it might be suitable here.

Quote:

Greetings,


No doubt, Pakistani nuclear scientist is just a fall guy. No doubt, the cheatin' lyin' tinpot and his courtier knew all and were in all of this all along. No doubt, Uncle too perhaps knew or, at least, had a wind of all of this for quite some time. No doubt, the mighty tinpot knows well if does not act (create this charade of being seen as whipping his scientists) then Uncle is gonna come charging in to bust his nukes.

... absolutely no doubt, Atal Bihari, ride his horse to Dilli's throne again he very well may, is gonna watch his dhoti and his dreams of Noble prize get blown in the winds about to sweep Pakistan.

Why?

Simply because, no doubt, this is the wrong Pakistani and the wrong time to be dreamin' of smokin' a peace Hukkah.

Still hallucinating?


Read CHICAGO TRIBUNE's expose on what Uncle's scripting for Pakistani version of epic 'Gone with the Wind' ..

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

U.S. plans Al Qaeda offensive - Sources say military is mapping operation to strike inside Pakistan
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0401280334jan28,1,1724348.story

You need logins for both Pak Friday Times and Chicago Tribune, so I am reprinting below.

===
Nuclear shenanigans


Najam Sethi's


E d i t o r i a l




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








General Musharraf has omitted to note the most critical factor in such reckoning, the unaccountable status of the Pakistan army as the guardian of our nuclear programme and its overbearing control of civil society. In the final analysis, the buck stops at GHQ



akistan’s nuclear programme and scientists are in the gun-sights of the sole superpower. Allegations of wrongdoing (proliferation) are slowly hardening into undeniable facts. Iran and Libya have got off the hook but screwed us in the bargain. Our footprints have even been discerned on the tarmac of Pyongyang’s airport in North Korea. In the event, Islamabad is desperate to limit damage and “close” this potentially explosive case. To this end, General Pervez Musharraf’s strategy seems twofold: admit a degree of guilt but absolve the state by attributing it to a few greedy and wayward scientists. This is savage and naked realpolitik: among the targeted fall-guys is, Dr A Q Khan, the state-acclaimed “father of the Islamic bomb”.

Pakistan’s nuclear programme had survived international pressure until now for several reasons. First, it was supposed to be India-specific. Therefore as long as the world was prepared to accept India’s nuclear programme, it could hardly trample on Pakistan’s nukes. Second, it was supposed to be a defensive deterrent and not a weapon of threat in an aggressive adventure. In other words, it was supposed to keep the peace, not precipitate war, in the region. Third, it was shrouded in secrecy. Indeed, a degree of ambiguity was deliberately cultivated by the state to maximise its deterrent value for India while minimising its threat value for the rest of the world. Fourth, Pakistan’s frontline status in the cold war compelled the “free” world to turn a blind eye to it.

But problems began in the late 1980s, and one by one these benign conditions started to fall by the board. In 1987, following India’s aggressive intents in Operation Brasstacks, Dr A Q Khan seemingly lost his cool and exploded with the scoop of the decade (“We’ve got the bomb”!) before the bewildered Indian journalist Kuldip Nayar. That was the end of the theory of plausible ambiguity. Then the cold war came to an end with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the spotlight was turned on Pakistan. In April 1990, Washington dispatched Robert Gates of the CIA to the sub-continent when it suspected a nuclear conflict in the offing following Pakistan’s fuelling of low-intensity conflict in Kashmir. This implied that the development of nuclear weapons had emboldened rather than restrained Pakistan from adventuring in the region. Therefore in September 1990, the US ambassador to Islamabad, Robert Oakley, accused Pakistan of having “crossed the nuclear red light” and the Bush Sr administration slapped economic and military sanctions on Pakistan. For the next four years, Washington tried to pressurise Pakistan to “freeze, cap and roll back” its nuclear programme in exchange for a restoration of mutually profitable ties. But Pakistan refused to accept a rollback. Instead, it claimed it had frozen its programme. More critically, it insisted its programme was under tight controls and proliferation was out of the question. But telltale signs to the contrary were aplenty.

In 1991, COAS General Aslam Beg advised Nawaz Sharif to sell nuclear know-how to Iran. The idea was spurned, according to Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan and Ishaq Dar of the PMLN. But the nuclear rogues were not to be thwarted. In the mid 1990s, following a series of carefully planted “nationalistic” articles in the press advocating sale of nuclear technology to offset American economic and military sanctions, a full-page advertisement appeared in a national daily hawking nuclear wares to the world at large. When the diplomatic enclave in Islamabad erupted in protest, the nuclear rogues seemed to beat a hasty retreat. But now it transpires that in fact they did quite the opposite: they simply went underground with their business.

Dr A Q Khan has been at the heart of our nuclear programme. His secret “successes” made Kahuta Research Laboratories an unaccountable state institution within the larger, unaccountable praetorian state of Pakistan. Dr Khan has accumulated extraordinary wealth in pursuit of his nuclear dream. He has funded self-serving seminars and books. With the help of pliant journalists, he has bankrolled his image as “the father of the Islamic bomb” so that no one can dare accuse him of any wrongdoing. When colleagues like Dr Munir Ahmad Khan and others in the atomic energy establishment protested his dubious “dealings”, he connived to have them shunted aside as “American agents”. Those in the media who wondered about his newfound wealth and questionable ways were accused of being “unpatriotic”. Every army chief and every general who headed the strategic nuclear establishment knew much was amiss but preferred to turn a blind eye “in the national interest” to Dr Khan’s comings and goings. But when the national interest changed, efforts were speeded up to quietly wean KRL away from critical elements of the programme and hand these over to the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission. Indeed, General Pervez Musharraf was the first army chief who actually confronted Dr Khan and was stunned by the revelations of impropriety.

General Musharraf is absolutely right to insist upon a detailed investigation into the matter, partly to assuage international proliferation concerns and partly to devise better mechanisms of command and control in the future. Both individuals (scientists and generals and civil servants and politicians) and state institutions (intelligence agencies, media, defense organs) are guilty to a greater or lesser extent. He is also right in suggesting that such things happened because of the intrinsic secret nature of the programme and Dr Khan’s pivotal role in it from the outset. But he has omitted to note the most critical factor in such reckoning: the unaccountable status of the Pakistan army as the guardian of our nuclear programme and its overbearing control of civil society. In the final analysis, the buck stops at GHQ rather than at any particular army chief.

At the moment, however, too much is at stake for the state and nation to accommodate some of the more self-righteous protests of so-called “nationalist” elements in our media against the investigations (“debriefings”) underway. To punish some or all of the rogue scientists and army officers or not to punish anyone at all is also not the real issue because the problem is symptomatic of a deep political confusion about the nature of the Pakistani state and society, the role of the armed forces and the “ideology” of Pakistan. But while we mull over how to address such weighty issues, we must urge the government of the day to close this dangerous file as quickly as possible. In this context, General Pervez Musharraf needs all the support he can get from us in cleaning up this act effectively and laying the international community’s suspicions and fears to rest.

====

CHICAGO TRIBUNE

U.S. plans Al Qaeda offensive
Sources say military is mapping operation to strike inside Pakistan



Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf (AP)

U.S. plans Al Qaeda offensive (Getty/AFP photo by Farooq Naeem)
January 28, 2004

Graphic

Pakistan



By Christine Spolar
Tribune foreign correspondent
Published January 28, 2004

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration, deeply concerned about recent assassination attempts against Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf and a resurgence of Taliban forces in neighboring Afghanistan, is preparing a U.S. military offensive that would reach inside Pakistan with the goal of destroying Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network, military sources said.

U.S. Central Command is assembling a team of military intelligence officers that would be posted in Pakistan ahead of the operation, according to sources familiar with details of the plan and internal military communications. The sources spoke on the condition they not be identified.





As now envisioned, the offensive would involve Special Operations forces, Army Rangers and Army ground troops, sources said. A Navy aircraft carrier would be deployed in the Arabian Sea.

Referred to in internal Pentagon messages as the "spring offensive," the operation would be driven by certain undisclosed events in Pakistan and across the region, sources said. A source familiar with details of the plan said this is "not like a contingency plan for North Korea, something that sits on a shelf. This planning is like planning for Iraq. They want this plan to be executable, now."

The Defense Department declined to comment on the planned offensive or its details.

Such an operation almost certainly would demand the cooperation of Musharraf, who previously has allowed only a small number of U.S. Special Operations forces to work alongside Pakistani troops in the semi-autonomous tribal areas. A military source in Washington said last week, "We are told we're going into Pakistan with Musharraf's help."

Yet a large-scale offensive by U.S. forces within the nuclear-armed Islamic republic could be political dynamite for Musharraf.

The army general, who took power in a bloodless coup in 1999, has come under growing political pressure from Islamic parties, and his cooperation with U.S. anti-terrorism efforts is widely unpopular among average Pakistanis. Nor can Musharraf count on the loyalty of all of Pakistan's armed forces or its intelligence agency, members of which helped set up and maintain the Taliban in Afghanistan and are suspected of ties to militant Islamic groups.

Speaking on Friday at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Musharraf again rejected the need for U.S. forces to enter Pakistan to search for bin Laden.

"That is not a possibility at all," Musharraf said. "It's a very sensitive issue."

The U.S. military is operating under the belief that, despite his recent statements, Musharraf's thinking has changed, sources said. Musharraf said last week that bin Laden and his followers likely were hiding in the mountains along the Afghan border. He also said "we are reasonably sure that it is Al Qaeda" who was behind the two attempts on his life.

An offensive into Pakistan to pursue Al Qaeda would be in keeping with President Bush's vow to strike wherever and whenever the United States feels threatened and to pursue terrorist elements to the end.

"The best way to defend America . . . is to stay on the offensive and find these killers, one by one," Bush said last week. "We're going to stay on the hunt, which requires good intelligence, good cooperation, good participation with friends and allies around the world."

Musharraf's vulnerability is of deep concern to U.S. officials. If he were killed, Bush administration officials say, it is unlikely that any successor would be as willing to work toward U.S. goals to eliminate Islamic extremists.

The U.S. military plan is characterized within the Pentagon as "a big effort" in the next year. Military analysts had previously judged that a bold move against Islamic extremists and bin Laden, in particular, was more likely to happen in spring 2005.

A series of planning orders--referred to in military jargon as warning orders--for the offensive were issued in recent weeks. The deadline for key planning factors to be detailed by the U.S. military was Jan. 21.

Sources said the plan against Al Qaeda would be driven by events in the region rather than set deadlines and that delays could occur. But military sources said the push for this spring appeared to be triggered by the assassination attempts on Musharraf, both of which came in December, and, to some extent, the capture of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Hussein was captured after eight months of an intense military and intelligence effort on the ground in Iraq. Pentagon and administration officials, buoyed by that success, believe a similar determined effort could work in Pakistan and lead to the capture or killing of bin Laden, said sources familiar with the planning.

Thousands of U.S. forces would be involved, as well as Pakistani troops, planners said. Some of the 10,600 U.S. troops now in Afghanistan would be shifted to the border region as part of regular troop movements; some would be deployed within Pakistan.

"Before we were constrained by the border. Musharraf did not want that. Now we are told we're going into Pakistan with Musharraf's help," a well-placed military source said.

Internal Pentagon communications indicate the U.S. offensive would rely on several areas of operation, including Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries in the region.

The U.S. also is weighing how and if Iran can be persuaded, through direct or indirect channels, to lend help, according to internal Pentagon communications. The U.S. is eager to avoid a repeat of the Afghan war in 2001, when some Al Qaeda fighters were believed to have escaped into Iran.

Military planners said the offensive would not require a significant increase in U.S. troops in South Asia. But Special Operations forces that shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq in 2003 will return.

"We don't have enough forces but we can rely on proxy forces in that area," said a military source, referring to Pakistani troops. "This is designed to go after the Taliban and everybody connected with it."

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

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby Rye » 02 Feb 2004 21:18

Originally posted by L Dev:
The big question now is how will PAEC be controlled? After all, there could be copies of Xerox floating around in PAEC ready to xerox his feats.
Pakistan does not really care about PAEC being controlled, as long as PAEC is left alone, and there will be 400% cooperation on this front from the GOTUS/SD.

I believe the question asked earlier on BRF of why PAEC is being so carefully shielded by the GOTUS/US SD needs to be answered first?

We have an answer assuming that GOTUS needs face saving in Afghanisthan. What if that assumption is removed? Why would the US want to keep PAEC out of the limelight for now in that case?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby SaiK » 02 Feb 2004 21:27

The worst thing for america now should it happen that libya or nk or iran explode a n-test.. and going by the chain of events, they can say, "mr khan gave it to us", so we used it.

Perhaps, such events though not a welcome thing in our neighbourhood, would certainly stan vindication of the realities that india is facing in terms of terrorism and its links to pakistani CoC.

OBL again can go into another oblivion, and think of creating worser nightmares for the general public.

It would be tough for iran, or libya to wag their tails, but NK, i am not sure!

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1729
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby ldev » 02 Feb 2004 21:28

Rye,

I believe the US is not going to wait any longer for Pakistan to deliver OBL and that is why the talk about the spring offensive in Afghanistan. If they can get OBL on their own, I would reckon Mushraff can say goodbye to PAEC. The Asia Times article of an honorable exit is a Pakistani wet dream of trading OBL for letting Pakistan keep PAEC intact.

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

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby Rye » 02 Feb 2004 21:30

Originally posted by Sai Krshna:
The worst thing for america now should it happen that libya or nk or iran explode a n-test.. and going by the chain of events, they can say, "mr khan gave it to us", so we used it.
Iran certainly has people smarter than that at the helm. It think there is no doubt that AXK basically turned out to be a nuclear con-man, whose nukes never worked from the start (all the way back to pokharan II)

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

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby Sunil » 02 Feb 2004 21:36

Hi L Dev,

I tend to think of this as a game of bridge.

IMO Osama Bin Laden is a very high card in Pakistani suite. They aren't going to put him down on the table unless they are sure they can carry the entire game.

Instead they will drop the moderate Taliban and hope that the infiltrations in the ANA will cover their losses if the time comes in Afghanistan.

If the Americans want to finesse the high cards in Pakistan's suite they are going to have to do better than this.

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

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby Rye » 02 Feb 2004 21:38

Originally posted by L Dev:
If they can get OBL on their own, I would reckon Mushraff can say goodbye to PAEC.
But they won't be getting OBL without the help of the ISI. OBL will move around easily right under the nose of the US, which is why this is a pressure tactic to get Musharraf to cooperate, and he cannot do so,until he has full cooperation of the ISI. If he sold out AXK, the these very elements he is seeking cooperation from, will refuse to do any such thing.

As N^3-ji said, the pressure is on Mushy, and is increasing.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1729
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby ldev » 02 Feb 2004 21:48

Sunil S,

>If the Americans want to finesse the high cards in Pakistan's suite they are going to have to do better than this.

A busy bargaining season lies ahead. The Pakistani wish list is certainly being refreshed and the game has to end by the end of summer.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1729
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby ldev » 02 Feb 2004 22:10

Rye,

>But they won't be getting OBL without the help of the ISI

If the straws in the wind about building up MI as a counterweight to the ISI are anything to go by, then the AQK castration is also an attack on the ISI since they were his primary patrons. In addition, ISI's Afghan desk has been closed. Regardless the US would like some local help to locate OBL, maybe MI, but all of this is part of the game of bridge that Sunil S spoke off.

rama
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 60
Joined: 11 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby rama » 02 Feb 2004 22:15

Hmmm, the Dawood angle is brought in as well now.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_556746,00050002.htm

FWIW This is bylined AFP, i.e. not DDM stuff.

So jihadism, terrorirm - both J&K & Mumbai blasts kinds, proliferation, plain old gangsterism, and the Paki military establishment are all tightly linked.

The only common thread is the "RAPE" class and their one ideology of self service. Occasionally outsiders like OBL, Xerox and Dawood are let in, but may be dispensable in the end. AXK is now finding this out, and OBL is almost certainly next.

p.s. to Dr Khan, NKorea is not an Islamic country! Does your confession state that the dingdongs are also not "yours" either? Academic point, but we do want to know.

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

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby Rye » 02 Feb 2004 22:22

Originally posted by L Dev:
If the straws in the wind about building up MI as a counterweight to the ISI are anything to go by, then the AQK castration is also an attack on the ISI since they were his primary patrons.
The fine line that Mushy has been walking is the jihadi vs. fake-jihadi (a.k.a. moderate) line.
There are certain elements in the army that he cannot allow the US to touch, without signing his own death warrant. AXK was the first scapegoat in a long line of scapegoats; the question is wheter Mushy figures in that line of scapegoats. There are certain people that cannot possible be scapegoated before mushy.

In addition, ISI's Afghan desk has been closed. Regardless the US would like some local help to locate OBL, maybe MI, but all of this is part of the game of bridge that Sunil S spoke off.
Well, I am not so sure that MI is any more different that ISI, with respect to jihadi infiltration, unless the MI you speak of is vetted by the US, in which case they will not have access to OBL. OBL is being protected by MI/ISI/whatever-you-want-to-call-it jihadi elements. Mushy cannot scapegoat those folks without endangering his own position.

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

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby Sunil » 02 Feb 2004 22:41

L Dev,

If the game of bridge analogy is correct, there is no game end, one game will lead into another and then into yet another until one party says it is too tired to go on playing.

My read is that currently the Americans are desperate, they have a security posture that is politically painful to sustain. So they need a few quick wins before the next election.

IMO it is not that the American people will vote on the Government's performance on issues like non-proliferation, war on terror (i.e. internationalist issues) but that people in the vast MNC complex in the US will evaluate this adminstration on the basis of its performance in the international arena. Corporate support is the key to an easy electoral victory.

Nowhere are corporate interests more intricately tied with political interests than in the current US military deployment pattern. If the word gets around that the current adminstration cannot defray the political costs of this pattern, corporate support could shift to someone who appears to be able to do so.

A series of international `victories' is the key to retaining the image that this adminstration can work for the benifit of US economic interests abroad and can successfully manage international crises. That is what the entire engagement with Musharraf is about.

It is not that Musharraf or Pakistan is of great economic value to the US per se, but that Musharraf (and Pakistan) has the potential to disrupt economies that the US tends to value deeply. Outside of Osama Bin Laden and the `Islamic Nuclear Bomb', Pakistan has nothing to guarantee its ability as a trouble maker. So there is absolutely no chance the Pakistanis will every give that up. From all the public Mush-love we have seen, it is apparent to me that elements of the adminstration understand this as well.

So I think this entire Pakistani proliferation drama we saw enacted over the last two odd months is now over. The Pakistanis will continue with their end of the show and the US will go on with its election.

The deflation of the crisis by both the US and the Pakistani government indicates to me that neither was really interested in finding out the details of what had happened in the proliferation arena, nor was there any real interest in evaluating each other's commitment to the non-proliferation goals set out in major treaties. Both governments did not want this thing blowing out of hand, and given the amount of cr*p buried in there, I sense there is an agreement that one should not dig too deep.

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

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby Rangudu » 02 Feb 2004 22:54

http://home.kyodo.co.jp/all/news.jsp?news=asia&an=

Pakistan's nuclear weapons, missile program cost $3.2 bil.

2 February 2004

Pakistan invested about $3.2 billion in its nuclear weapons and missile programs since inception in early the 1970s, a senior government official said Sunday.

The official told a select group of journalists that 2% of the national budget and 7.8% of the defense budget during last 32 years was pumped into the development of nuclear weapons and missiles.

The amount was spent by Khan Research Laboratory (KRL) and the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), which were assigned to build the bomb and a missile delivery system.

Pakistan started work on the nuclear program in 1972 when then Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto summoned top nuclear scientists and asked them to start work on the nuclear weapons program because India also had a program.

Two organizations, PAEC and the Engineering Research Laboratory, which is now KRL, worked on the plutonium and enrichment routes to give Pakistan nuclear capability.

In the late 1980s, Pakistan began development of missiles as a delivery system and again both PAEC and KRL were assigned to work in parallel on solid-and liquid-fuel missile development.

KRL, headed by A. Q. Khan, is suspected of bartering uranium enrichment technology in exchange for assistance in the development of its Ghauri missile, which is believed based on North Korean technology.

The official discounted the assertion Pakistan entered into a barter deal with North Korea, saying Pakistan paid $200 million to North Korea for the missile technology used in the Ghauri program.

But the official did accuse Khan of providing prototype centrifuge machines and uranium hexafluoride gas used in enriching uranium, briefing North Korean scientists and permitting them to visit KRL near Rawalpindi.
:roll:

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

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby Rangudu » 02 Feb 2004 22:59

Also from Kyodo.

Pakistani generals probed over nuclear proliferation.

2 February 2004

Two former chiefs of the Pakistan army and another senior general have been questioned about the on-going investigation into the transfer of nuclear technology from Pakistan to other countries, a senior official said Sunday.

The official, well-versed with the investigation that has already led to removal of Pakistan's top nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan from the office of adviser to the prime minister, told journalists that former army chiefs Gen. Aslam Beg and Gen. Jehangir Karamat, and Lt. Gen. Zulfiqar Ahmed, have been questioned.

Beg served as army chief from August 1988 until August 1991 while Karamat held the office until October 1998. He resigned after a row with then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

Zulfikar was head of the army's Combat Division, which was responsible for development of Pakistan's nuclear and missile program until early 2000 when this task was assigned to the Strategic Planning Division and Nuclear Command Authority.

At least three senior army officials are being held by security authorities for security lapses or involvement in the transfer of enrichment technology and know-how to Iran, Libya and North Korea.

Four nuclear scientists who had been involved in the development of centrifuge technology and establishment of a uranium enrichment plant are also being detained.

Khan, according to the official, has given a 10-page statement in which he has confessed to providing help to Libya, Iran, North Korea and Malaysia for their uranium enrichment programs.

Khan is reported to have told his questioners he provided the technology and know-how, particularly to Muslim countries, because he did not want Pakistan to be singled out as the only Muslim country possessing the technology.

"I wanted two to three other Muslim countries to have this technology so that Pakistan was not singled out and pressured," he reportedly said.

<u>The official said that at one time when Khan was on a visit to Malaysia, it was learned the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency might abduct him. He was ordered to return to Pakistan and given a warning that something "foul" was going on in Khan Research Laboratories (KRL). </u> :roll: :roll:

The official, who lauded Khan for his contribution to Pakistan's nuclear program, said no decision has been taken if Khan should be censured or charged with wrongdoing.

Khan is believed to have sent a video cassette to his daughter in London in which he defended himself and detailed his activities as head of KRL, which he founded and headed for more than a quarter century until retirement in 2001, the official said.

Aarya
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 13
Joined: 29 Aug 2003 11:31
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby Aarya » 02 Feb 2004 23:04

Fun has just beginning...

Pak scientist sends a videotape in defence abroad

ISLAMABAD - Unconfirmed reports have said that Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan has videotaped his defence and sent a copy abroad through his daughter.

Meanwhile, the ruling party chief Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain met Dr Khan along with Senator S.M. Zafar.

Mr Zafar is very close to Dr Khan and had defended him in a Belgian court in 1980s against charges he stole documents on enrichment.

Dr Khan reportedly handed out one copy of the video to them.

The copy has explosive material revealing many secrets, it is said.

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

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby Raj Singh » 02 Feb 2004 23:06

Originally quoted by Rangudu
.
.

Khan is believed to have sent a video cassette to his daughter in London in which he defended himself and detailed his activities as head of KRL, which he founded and headed for more than a quarter century until retirement in 2001, the official said.
Could this be a rumour for the for the sake of rumour? Afterall, meglomaniacs like Dr Khan do live in the world in which the belief is , they cannot be touched.

Aarya
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 13
Joined: 29 Aug 2003 11:31
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby Aarya » 02 Feb 2004 23:08

entertainment the paki way..

Sacked AQ Khan's Threat to Hit Back May Save Him From Public Trial

SA Tribune reporters in Islamabad and Lahore learnt this from a number of sources close to friends of Dr Khan, including a senior editor, a senior Urdu columnist, a number of social activists, who have been meeting him prior to his “quarantine” at his home.

According to one report Khan has already smuggled out of the country a video recorded statement to his daughter abroad and has told the authorities that his statement would be released to the international media if he was made a target.


SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23780
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby SSridhar » 02 Feb 2004 23:16

http://home.kyodo.co.jp/all/news.jsp?news=asia&an=

Pakistan's nuclear weapons, missile program cost $3.2 bil.
Out of which, USD 2B ended up with AQK leaving very little for the programme as such.

Prateek
BRFite
Posts: 310
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby Prateek » 03 Feb 2004 01:20

South Asia

Navigating the proliferation archipelago
By Stephen Blank

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FB03Df06.html

Recent revelations are beginning to show the vast scope of what might be called the proliferation archipelago. This archipelago includes governments, semi or quasi-independent operators and middlemen, ie individuals who facilitate or actually consummate the transfer of weapons and technologies to buyers, and large corporations and firms who produce these goods and sell them, often with a pretty good idea of what their buyers intend to do with those products. The scope of this network is global, although certain key states and participants in it, eg Pakistan and its nuclear scientists, are clearly playing a disproportionately large role in the transfer of weapons and technologies to other proliferators.

The motives for the members of this archipelago differ. North Korea, which now is trying to sell missile technology to Nigeria, which hardly needs it, clearly seeks to make money, and yet at the same time it also seeks to provoke the United States. But beyond that, its missile and nuclear programs are obviously subordinated to the logic of reason of state and to Pyongyang's conception of its national interest, not to mention Kim Jong-il's personal interests as head of state.

Pakistani proliferators and middlemen apparently are or were animated by feelings of ideological and religious solidarity with other Muslim or anti-American states, as well as by the lucrative fees they obtained from their customers. Indeed, it is very clear that many of those who were and are involved in facilitating proliferation of high-tech conventional weapons and systems, aiding the development of a capability for using and producing weapons of mass destruction, were greatly, if not primarily, motivated by greed. This applies to agencies acting on behalf of governments, as well as to private actors for the pursuit of the national interest, which is often easily conflated with the pursuit of the private interest.

Certainly, the list of foreign firms and individuals that have now been revealed as having taken bribes from Iraq shows that they knew full well what Saddam Hussein was up to. Yet despite numerous United Nations resolutions and domestic laws forbidding such sales, they went right ahead with them.

The combination of greed, personal interest, ideological interests of either solidarity with Islam or antipathy to America, plus the dictates of national interest, show just how ineffectual the international agencies set up to monitor or restrict this traffic have been. We know for a fact that middlemen like Russian businessman Viktor Bout, who sell large numbers of conventional weapons systems without any accountability or scrutiny, function very clearly with the protection of their governments, Many proliferators to Saddam's Iraq and other such states acted with the complicity of high-ranking government officials in Russia and elsewhere, and they did so with impunity and often without being detected.

At the same time, scholars like Mohan Malik and Justin Bernier have laid out the contours and dimensions, as well as the motivations, behind China's network or proliferation "proxies", where Beijing has clearly aimed to check Indian, Japanese, and American interests in Asia. Russia. too, has long maintained a network of suppliers in former Soviet republics like Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and Armenia for shipments to which it did not wish to be formally linked. This last fact can hardly come as a surprise. After all, in July 2000, the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported that Russia was using Belarus as a conduit for arms sales to Iran in violation of the then extant Gore-Chernomyrdin agreement. It also reported then that Belarussian-Iraqi trade in 1999 was not US$6 million as reported but $60 million, 10 times that figure.

Subsequent revelations of Ukrainian arms sales to Iraq and the endless reports of visits between high-ranking Chinese, Iraqi and Iranian officials with their opposite numbers in all of these ex-Soviet republics suggests that this network is continuing to flourish, especially as Moscow under President Vladimir Putin is busily reconstituting a unified defense-industrial complex throughout the entire former Soviet Union except for the Baltic states.

However, the new revelations based on the discovery of Libya's and of Iraq's network suggest that these middlemen or officials, eg Pakistani scientists, who could not provide their own indigenous technologies to clients, instead offered them "wish lists" of what they needed to acquire, and possibly their contacts, who could make those products available for the right price.

In this way, a vast black market in the proliferation of technologies and weapons of mass destruction grew up alongside the somewhat less opaque and pre-existing "gray market" of states, middlemen and suppliers. And all this was taking place in parallel to those official or quasi-official transfers of the systems necessary for producing these weapons systems.

The scope of the archipelago that is now being mapped, and which comprises both this vast subterranean black market and its parallel "gray market", almost completely eluded discovery or sanction by any international agency - not least those charged with monitoring transfers of dangerous technologies or weapons systems.

Dr Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and US investigators have confessed to their astonishment at the scope of these parallel markets. Libya, for instance, was able to buy an entire centrifuge plant without any detection. Thus the size of the market shows that the individuals selling the technologies needed to build weapons of mass destruction are able to sell proliferators systems that are virtually complete. That is, buyers can obtain what are called turnkey systems, where virtually all they need to do is literally to turn the key that starts the machine, much like the ignition key on a car.

But it is not just international monitoring agencies of the United Nations or those formed by other international agreements like the Missile Technology Control Regime who have utterly failed to find out about the growth of this proliferation archipelago. As is now clear, virtually every major intelligence agency in the world was fooled by Iraq and believed that Saddam Hussein had an active program to develop weapons of mass destruction. Before that, many of these agencies, as well as those chartered by the UN after the Gulf War of 1990-91, were also surprised to learn just how large Iraq's program for building chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons was.

Again, the record is not just that the American and many other countries' intelligence agencies got it wrong, or that their governments then misused or abused the bad intelligence that they received and twisted those findings to suit their political ends. Neither is it enough to argue that the American or any other government refused to heed intelligence that contradicted their preconceived notions of what was happening inside Iraq.

Indeed, the fact that so many intelligence agencies got it wrong suggests that a kind of global groupthink was at work here. Now the reaction to the findings that Iraq did not have an operating program of weapons of mass destruction before the war is provoking calls in Israel, Great Britain and the US for wholesale reforms of the intelligence agencies, and this calls into question other reports of proliferation, eg North Korea's nuclear program. Even if those reports about North Korea's nuclear capabilities may be justified, it will be harder to build a consensus about the existence of such programs or about the need to act against them. For example, China has indicated that it does not believe American claims concerning North Korea's possible uranium enrichment program.

Finally, it is important to recognize the fact that proliferators have generally been uncommonly adept at deceiving or fooling those who are spying on them. Or perhaps it is quixotic to hope for definitive and satisfying answers to key questions concerning third parties' proliferation from intelligence agencies. As Professor Peter Feaver of Duke University recently pointed out, US intelligence agencies underestimated the nuclear capabilities of the USSR in 1949, China in 1964, India in 1974 and again in 1998, Iraq in 1991, and in 2003 they again overestimated Iraqi capabilities.

The record of estimates of North Korea's capabilities as of 1994 and 2002 and of Pakistan's capabilities in 1998 also had to be revised. Similarly, Russian officials have publicly claimed that North Korea already had a nuclear program in 1990 and that Iran actually possesses nuclear weapons, so the US' misreadings of third parties' nuclear capabilities are probably no worse or better than those of its main interlocutors. But all this suggests that it will be impossible to police proliferation effectively and make non-proliferation a reality without robust enforcement backed up by sound political judgment. Moreover, that judgment will be needed where reliable evidence is often simply unavailable.

Under these conditions, it is surely not surprising that the only truly effective enforcement of non-proliferation treaties and arms control treaties has been through the use of coercive instruments, eg the occupation of Germany and Japan in 1945, or the US' intense public diplomacy combined with Mikhail Gorbachev's and Edvard Shevarnadze's reform drives that forced Soviet admissions of violations of the SALT agreements in the late 1980s.

The revelations of the size of this proliferation archipelago and the conclusion that its size requires multilateral navigation to get it under control will please few people, whether they supported the US war on Iraq or opposed it.

Nigeria's announcement that North Korea has offered to sell its missile technology and thus add a new "theater" to this archipelago both illustrates and adds to the urgency of the problem. But the problem here is not just that intelligence may or may not be defective, but rather it is that collective political will and judgment must also be improved, and sooner rather than later.

Stephen Blank is an analyst of international security affairs residing in Harrisburg, PA.

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

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby Nandu » 03 Feb 2004 01:29

Originally posted by raj singh:
Could this be a rumour for the for the sake of rumour? Afterall, meglomaniacs like Dr Khan do live in the world in which the belief is , they cannot be touched.
I think it is genuine. After all Mushy had already shunted him out once, so he would know he is not beyond danger, esp. knowing how amenable to U.S. pressure gola is. He made the tapes when "scientists" who worked under him were arrested.

Now that the tape is out there, it is eventually bound to come out, irrespective of how Mushy treats him. Khan is already xeroxing the tape and handing it out to visitors, not just his daughter. He is spreading the risk (to his daughter), but it also increases the chances that the tape will become public, even if he wants to prevent it.

Fun fun fun.

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

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby Umrao » 03 Feb 2004 01:40

Raj Singh>> Have you not heard of Insurance Policy
aka Jivita Bima?

Abdul Xerox Khan has whole bunch of ISI, Paki Army, RAPE etc co opted (Just like Telgi scam) thus he threatens to take them down with him

After all AXK is true example of MAD at work.

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

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby Rangudu » 03 Feb 2004 01:49

Without Jivita Bima, AXK would have been turned into a Pakistan "Bheeshma" sleeping on a bed of arrows :lol:

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

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby Rye » 03 Feb 2004 02:08

Cannot find the document written by Mohan Malik and Justin Bernier. Bunch of references to articles by Mohan Malik on this issue, though.

rajivg
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby rajivg » 03 Feb 2004 02:51

This post is for the great BR nobles out there and it is a humble request.

Is it possible to collate all of the TSP proliferation articles in the last few months on a web site? At least a collection of the links, and if in some cases if the links go away, then to contain the articles in PDF format?

All of this will turn out to be very useful when some idiot mullah lets loose one of these TSP nukes. We told you so...

Thanks,

Rajiv...

James Bund
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 08 May 1999 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 31 Jan 2004

Postby James Bund » 03 Feb 2004 02:59

Why bother John when the Pakistanis themselves don't really believe their own prattle?


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests