Pakistan's quest for the H-bomb

[ramana]

I used to read with great enthusiasm all the stuff written about the TSP program- Islamic Bomb, Nuclear Myths and Realities, the BAS articles, and FAS. However the Pu sample in Chagai blew the cover on all these sham activites. <P>The TSP arsenal consists of Chinese supplied weapons and nothing else. All that is cover story for this great act of proliferation. And this was done after the Cold war was over in 1987-1988. The reduction of AQK status after the tests shows that it was the transferred stuff that worked otherwise he would be right in the jihadi councils.<P>So this is another sham story to cover up new transfers. So please spare us the humbug.

[Vick]

ramana, please refresh my memory regarding the details of the Chagai Pu samples. Or provide a link. Thanks

[ramana]

Link to Forum archive:<BR> <A HREF="http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/ubb/Archi ... 02861.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/ubb/Archi ... 61.html</A>

[svinayak]

TSP started its plutonium reprocessing plant only in 1999-2000 after the test in 1998. <BR>Hence the Pu samples after the Chagai shows that the entire TSP tests were with components AND materials obtained from outside the country.<BR>Which country would have given the components AND material and of the P-5 who were really in the know about this transfer between 1987-1992.

[Sunil]

<BR>Actually .. they would even have the 100kT device weaponized by now.. if it were not for the fact that manuals were all in chinese and that the translators went on strike after not being paid for the last 7 years. <BR> <P>

[Prateek]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mukesh:<BR><B>My anger is not at the chinese, who in my opinion are very nice people generally. But at the Chinese Intelligence and Army who are hell bent on containing us.<BR></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Actually India and Indians should be blamed in this. Wecan't blame either CHina or TSP.<P>Who asked Indi(r)a to stop testing our weapon designs after 1974 ? There could have been no one blaming India if they had tested it continuously since 1974.<P>Any way it's all spilled milk ...<P>What's important is One must learn from past mistakes and must improvise !!! The question is are we moving in this direction ? Pittyfully I would not say Yes whole heartedly....<BR>

[Shirish]

This is like the old guy I work with- whats the big deal about a nuke , he asked, "any guy with a perfect uranium sphere and some explosive , can make one!" Ok, piece of cake.

[Kaushal]

<B>The TSP arsenal consists of Chinese supplied weapons and nothing else</B><P>I have to thank BR and Ramana for the realization(after Chagai) that all the hoopla about Xerox Khan stealing drawings of Centrifuges from Urenco didnt amount to a hill of atomic beans. The good news is that the terrorist state is tied to the apron springs of China for the foreseeable future. The bad news is that China realizes this and will keep TSP adequately supplied to cause India enough damage, but of course the largesse will not include the Big Bomb.<P>Kaushal

[Harry]

How can a nation whose father of it's nuke program gets busted for stealing Uranium in a suitcase,make a H-bomb?

[Roop]

Kaushal:<P>As a corollary to what you stated above, is it reasonable to speculate that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are ultimately under Chinese control? i.e. that there is some vital link (a trigger, if you will) in the whole firing chain that is in Beijing's hands?<P>This is an important question because if the answer is "yes", then Pakistan cannot willy-nilly threaten to nuke India (or anyone else, for that matter). They would have to first convince China of the need to use nukes.

[ramana]

Long time ago KS answered the question. He says that the weapons have launch authority delegated to the possesors- ie TSP. That is the crux of the problem.

[svinayak]

<B>The good news is that the terrorist state is tied to the apron springs of China for the foreseeable future.</B><P>Actually business week in an article says that TSP has become a total client state of China. It has been using TSP generals to work with fellow rulers in uniform in countries such as Burma etc. <BR>There seems to be an informal alliance of generals in such states as TSP, SL, Burma, BD, UAE etc.<BR>One can also infer during the Kargil war that TSP army got a tacit support from Chinese PLA and hardliners to go ahead with the coup to stabilize the country(This has not been articulated by anyone or corroborated yet)<P>Now China needs a stable TSP for its grand global geopolitical gameplan and if this is upset the gameplan will also go up in a toss. <BR>China seems to have put its ME strategy based on one country - unstable TSP. <p>[This message has been edited by acharya (edited 25-07-2001).]

[Tim]

Ramana, <P>Interesting post, but there's something I'm not sure about. Maybe I've missed something, but from the tone of your post you may be placing enormous faith in a still-unconfirmed report (Pu sample over Chagai). If there's more info out there than is contained in the archived thread, it would be very useful to collect it all in a new thread somewhere. I've never heard it confirmed by a reliable source, but it might have gotten by me.<P>The only thing I have heard, from a usually reliable source, is that something was detected but the info wasn't released because it would have embarrassed a third party. That might suggest that the PRC was involved - OTOH, it could be a different third party (others have suggested India - probably a low-odds chance). If the PRC WAS the source, either through test or transfer to Pakistan, do you really think that info would still be buried? My bet is that it would have leaked the day the new administration took office.<P>Anyway, sorry to be a pessimist, but I think it's still worth monitoring the info on Pakistan's nuclear program until we get a lot more verification about their fissile stocks, and about this report.<P>Just a thought, <BR>Tim

[svinayak]

U.S. must be ready to face threats from China: Rumsfeld <P> By Sridhar Krishnaswami <P> WASHINGTON, JULY 25. The United States must have a strong military<BR> presence in Asia to deter future threats from China; and that ``weakness''<BR> should never be a ``first choice'', says the Defence Secretary, Mr. Donald<BR> Rumsfeld, in an interview to The Washington Times. <P> Mr. Rumsfeld, a hawk in the Bush administration, argued that China faces an<BR> uncertain future, perhaps even unstable given the fact that it strives to move to<BR> the path of capitalism at the same time retaining a tight fisted political control.<BR> ``My view of China is that its future is not written and it is being written.'' <P> The Defence Secretary is a known hardliner on China but has chosen to pass<BR> off his perceptions as something as old fashioned realism. ``I never believed<BR> that weakness was your first choice. I have always felt that weakness is<BR> provocative, that it kind of invites people to do things that they otherwise<BR> wouldn't think about doing,'' says Mr. Rumsfeld in the interview. <P> For a person who has some strong views on both conventional and<BR> non-conventional military force and posturings, Mr. Rumsfeld has made it plain<BR> that while the Pentagon may be getting ready for a new strategy for Asia, it did<BR> not mean that other regions of the world such as the Persian Gulf and Europe<BR> were being written off. <P> The new strategy for Asia is pinned on the thinking that that part of the world<BR> ``is different from Europe in terms of distances, in terms of the kind of<BR> countries that are there and the nature of the political and economic systems'',<BR> Mr. Rumsfeld argued. <P> The Pentagon, in his view, has to have different capabilities to deal with the<BR> different challenges of Asia. ``... in the first instance for the purpose of<BR> deterring, and in the second instance, for the purpose of prevailing'' in the event<BR> of a conflict, he said. <P> There have been quiet and yet serious discussions within the Bush<BR> administration on this new strategy for Asia that seeks to factor in both the<BR> short term and the longer term threats. One view is that the U.S. may have to<BR> move more air and naval units closer to the region to deal with potential<BR> conflict spots in North Korea and Taiwan. <P> But the emphasis has also been on the longer term where the U.S. is keen on<BR> building and developing capabilities to meet threats. And the Bush<BR> administration has been making the point that Beijing has not only been<BR> involved in the area of missiles but is also investing in such areas as intelligence<BR> activities and information warfare technologies. <P> ``They are looking at things that are not being looked at by a lot of other<BR> countries in the world,'' Mr. Rumsfeld has told The Times. That said the top<BR> Bush administration official also made it clear that there were limits to what it<BR> was that the United States could do to influence the scheme of things in China,<BR> or have any impact at all. ``We as a country are not unimportant, but it takes<BR> an awful lot of countries behaving in a way that can conceivably moderate or<BR> affect the behaviour of a country of that nature, that size, that location, that<BR> history, that view of themselves,'' Mr. Rumsfeld pointed out. <P> Mr. Rumsfeld has not minced words on the 1972 ABM Treaty but has chosen<BR> to make the point in the interview that it is not that simple to walk away from<BR> the agreement. ``... these things are complicated. Everyone has multiple<BR> audiences that they have to deal with and I am sure that they do there (Russia)<BR> and we do here...'', Mr. Rumsfeld remarked.

[Umrao]

<B> "That might suggest that the PRC was involved - OTOH, it could be a different third party (others have suggested India - probably a low-odds chance)." </B><P>This is the Bunkum spread by the British Magazine 'The New Scientist'. which said that Pu was vented in Pokhran and drifted to top of Chagai hills. ( The British, surely can spin on paper, if not on a turning wicket)<P>The biggest embarrassment, if truth comes out is the collusion of Uncle and Dragon in the proliferation of Nukes into S Asia. and that's a hard lump to swallow<BR>

[ramana]

I do not have any updates after that thread. However quite a few visiting India based scholars also hold this view and have been questioning their Chinese counterparts. And getting the usual spiel about why do we need to as they already had it from 1987 as attested by Gen Beg. Yeah right! <BR>As for POK-II venting and being airborne these are the events that have to occur- <BR>1)the tests must vent( (Indians are not beginners at this) <BR>2)the wind pattern has to be from East to West( due to Fennel's Law of Deflection winds blow from West to East above the Equator due to earth's rotation - Physical geography as taught in high school), <BR>3)the particle has to travel the distance from POK to Chagai, <BR>4)the sample has to be airborne from May 13 to the 30th, and <BR>5)it has to be detected. <P>All these are three sigma events. So you do the math and see what is the probability of these five events. Then apply the rule that the simplest explanation is the one that is most likely.<BR>While at it please explain the circus of Kohl and the Japanese PM announcing the Pak tests on May 16 at the G-8 summit and then retracting. And the seismic signature of the May 30the test and the last Chinese test(#45).<P>Welcome back John, How was HYD?