So read this post and tell me, people, (and I repeat) do you remember Paddy's book?Originally posted by TSJones:
Since India did develop its bomb in response to what it saw as a hegemonic America AND Bush has directed research and development to produce a low yield nuclear war heads to be used as pin point retaliation, India's nuke production facilities could be in danger if the US is attacked with a nuclear bomb and India refuses to give her bombs. That's a reasonable assumption, yes.
Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
-
putnanja
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4668
- Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
- Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
From TFT's nuggets... 
Jamaat Islami chief Qazi Hussain Ahmad said in Jang that Pakistan made its bomb through the black market when the world was not allowing it to make the bomb. What was wrong if Libya and Iran too wanted to make the bomb the way we had, he asked? He said Pakistan was allowing dancing girls to visit from India and that would be called Indo-Pak common culture. He said now Islamabad wanted to solve all problems with India while leaving the Kashmir issue for the last. He warned that if Dr Qadeer Khan was maltreated further he would hold a conference and reveal all the secrets relating to Dr Qadeer Khan.
...
Ex-army chief General Aslam Beg was quoted in Nawa-e-Waqt as saying that Pakistan’s nuclear programme was completed with the help of the international black market. Pakistani scientists chose the same way of the black market to help the Iranians and the Libyans. The entire world knew how Pakistan acquired its nuclear technology. China and India did it the same way. He said Pakistani scientists had made their millions and put them away abroad but no one embezzled state money. The paper reported Shehbaz Sharif saying from London that the government was responsible for allowing the opening of foreign accounts to all its nuclear scientists and was now accusing them of having stashed away money abroad.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
After saying in the previous incarnation of this thread that the likelyhood of military taking over in India is more than the same happening here in US, it is interesting to note that Tim picks Rumsfelds/Wolfowitzs to make decisions in a crisis like this rather than a democratically elected Bush/Cheney.Originally posted by Tim:
But if a bomb goes off, nuanced discussions of South Asian history and politics will not be persuasive. Decisions will get made by the Rumsfelds or the Wolfowitzes in the context of the deaths of tens of thousands of American citizens.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
Provided that GOTUS let it be known that the source is Pakistani. It is entirely plausible that if such evidence is uncovered by the sleuths - nay, sloths - at the incomptent CIA, it would be buried and some wishy washy story put out. All of us can only guess what has happened during the Konduz air-lift. Probably ht real facts are suppressed.Originally posted by Abhijit_ST:
If there is a nuke incident in America, the average Joe Sixpack will actually demand the blood of Pakistanis and Mushy's head on a platter,
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
ajay - i think the real decision makers may not be politico's at all. there will be a huge swing to the hawks, there will be a need to take drastic action - and it will come. if the president doesn't take it, then there may be a putsch - and the american public will be ok with it
i suspect that the generals themselves would not, since they are more rational
, but the cheneys and rummies... now there's a whole new ball game!
just applying my village idiot understanding of game theory to the thoughts in this thread suggests to me that the US should be striving at all costs right now to account for and remove every miligram of U and Pu and anything else from anywhere in TSP and/or its agents or risk a very serious liklihood of the JDAM scenario
i would request esteemed readers to further elaborate on the al-q sacrificing TSP theory, even in collusion with a gotterdammerung TSPA general going down with his stinking ship...
some thoughts... the cold war rationale of deterrence does not apply, the other party is irrational and willing to take huge risks and catastrophy in order to achieve its aims
if various members of the 'administrative infrastructure' are implicated in previous proliferation, will there be a mcarthyesque witch hunt of these folks when the new breed get into the senate/governorships/whitehouse?
i suspect that the generals themselves would not, since they are more rational
, but the cheneys and rummies... now there's a whole new ball game!just applying my village idiot understanding of game theory to the thoughts in this thread suggests to me that the US should be striving at all costs right now to account for and remove every miligram of U and Pu and anything else from anywhere in TSP and/or its agents or risk a very serious liklihood of the JDAM scenario
i would request esteemed readers to further elaborate on the al-q sacrificing TSP theory, even in collusion with a gotterdammerung TSPA general going down with his stinking ship...
some thoughts... the cold war rationale of deterrence does not apply, the other party is irrational and willing to take huge risks and catastrophy in order to achieve its aims
if various members of the 'administrative infrastructure' are implicated in previous proliferation, will there be a mcarthyesque witch hunt of these folks when the new breed get into the senate/governorships/whitehouse?
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
That kind of invetsigation has happened post 9-11 as well. Nothing happened to the shi*ts who really got all of us into this situation - Bill Clinton, Albright, Sandy Burger et al.Originally posted by kgoan:
And that will lead to all sorts of questions as to *why* they got it wrong and *who* was responsible for getting it wrong.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
I know I said I wasn't going to post much more on this topic, but it's gone in a very bizarre direction.
1. Why on earth would the US nuke India? Short of an act of war? Sorry - I don't get it, can't get it, don't believe it, and find it absurd.
I could write paragraphs on it, explaining my point of view, but don't have time. Suffice it to say - violent disagreement, bordering on utter disbelief. How'd we get here?
On reflection, maybe I understand. This may be a linguistic misunderstanding. My point in saying that the results might not be in Indian security interests was not to imply that the US would nuke India. It was to note that India has always sought a world where nuclear disarmament was the goal, and where nuclear use was prohibited. The Pandora's box that a nuclear strike on the US would open up would be one where nuclear use was legitimized and more possible - in general, a world that creates more security problems for Indian planners and policy makers. See comment #3 below.
2. Sunil, we are in almost complete disagreement. I do not believe, even for a moment, that a US government that had been attacked by one nuclear weapon would be deterred from responding by the possibility of taking a second, or even several other, nuclear strikes.
While I know this doesn't pop up much in discussion of nuclear issues on this forum, it's worth remembering that the US seriously planned for and considered the possibility of taking not one, but thousands of nuclear strikes in the 1970s and 1980s. After the Soviet threat, jihadi nukes are threatening but far from compelling. Their use will simply change the rules in some nasty ways, permitting the US (and, possibly due to public anger, _compelling_ the US) to use nuclear weapons in warfare - something we have resisted since 1945 (although we've come close on a couple of occasions).
Now if you want to argue that people might come up with a misguided theory of deterrence, based on deeply flawed assumptions about US casualty aversion, that vaguely resembles what you have speculated, that is plausible. However, those people are not American policy makers. American theories of deterrence have often (and probably still do) accepted fatalities in the 4-9 digit range if that's what is necessary to win a war. A terrorist nuke might kill tens of thousands of people. Several terrorist nukes might kill fifty thousand or more people. Once the first one goes off, though, the threshold of "acceptable damage" for the US goes way, way up - not down.
Your interpretation of US actions after such a strike is completely and utterly at odds with my own. We are not remotely in agreement, except to note that a nuclear strike on US soil would elicit a fundamental change in the way the US thinks about the world. Given this provocation, I believe it is far more likely that the US would retaliate massively than that it would succumb to blackmail.
3. Vick has a point, although I'd put it a different way. If a nuke is used, it legitimizes nuclear use in response. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that the US would go "rogue" - which is a loaded term anyway, that is mostly applied to "bad" people, and I don't consider the US "bad." However, I would say this - US actions in the international realm are strongly affected by concerns about norms in the international system and by concerns about maintaining and acquiring international support and legitimacy. If you think the current administration is unilateral and unaccountable in its actions, I would simply suggest that it retains enormous constraints - which would vanish, or at least seriously deteriorate - in the aftermath of a nuclear attack. Again, that does not mean it would be random, or that it would attack India - simply that many things which restrain the US would no longer be considered important.
And in that respect, I think Vick has a point. That may not be a world India is as comfortable in, since the US might be much more aggressive in utilizing its power, and there would be no alternative powers available to balance the US or control US actions. It does not necessarily mean that India would be attacked - but India would almost certainly feel less secure.
4. Last but not least. There are lots of experts on Iraq. Most of them told the administration things it didn't want to hear about possible post-conflict reconstruction problems and many other issues. The administration wanted to go to war, believed that a war was necessary for American security, and simply ignored them all.
Why would you think, after a nuclear attack on the US, that South Asia experts would be so much more successful, persuasive, and influential? We would have a much more obvious reason for going to war, and actually very little reason not to.
Shiv, Sunil - I understand your concerns about private interests, ego, or personal contacts influencing American decisions. That's true at the margins, but I do not believe (from personal experience) that it is remotely true when core interests are at stake.
But enough - I digress. This is an important thread. Could we _please_ at least agree not to talk about the US nuking India, or re-hashing fifty years of policy in the region? That's been done a lot, everybody has an opinion, much of it is archived, and at a minimum it could be on a different thread. Let's stick to Pakistan and nuclear proliferation, if we can. Some of these issues may still be germane, but this thread swung wildly off track on this page. I apologize if my opaque language contributed to that.
Tim
1. Why on earth would the US nuke India? Short of an act of war? Sorry - I don't get it, can't get it, don't believe it, and find it absurd.
I could write paragraphs on it, explaining my point of view, but don't have time. Suffice it to say - violent disagreement, bordering on utter disbelief. How'd we get here?
On reflection, maybe I understand. This may be a linguistic misunderstanding. My point in saying that the results might not be in Indian security interests was not to imply that the US would nuke India. It was to note that India has always sought a world where nuclear disarmament was the goal, and where nuclear use was prohibited. The Pandora's box that a nuclear strike on the US would open up would be one where nuclear use was legitimized and more possible - in general, a world that creates more security problems for Indian planners and policy makers. See comment #3 below.
2. Sunil, we are in almost complete disagreement. I do not believe, even for a moment, that a US government that had been attacked by one nuclear weapon would be deterred from responding by the possibility of taking a second, or even several other, nuclear strikes.
While I know this doesn't pop up much in discussion of nuclear issues on this forum, it's worth remembering that the US seriously planned for and considered the possibility of taking not one, but thousands of nuclear strikes in the 1970s and 1980s. After the Soviet threat, jihadi nukes are threatening but far from compelling. Their use will simply change the rules in some nasty ways, permitting the US (and, possibly due to public anger, _compelling_ the US) to use nuclear weapons in warfare - something we have resisted since 1945 (although we've come close on a couple of occasions).
Now if you want to argue that people might come up with a misguided theory of deterrence, based on deeply flawed assumptions about US casualty aversion, that vaguely resembles what you have speculated, that is plausible. However, those people are not American policy makers. American theories of deterrence have often (and probably still do) accepted fatalities in the 4-9 digit range if that's what is necessary to win a war. A terrorist nuke might kill tens of thousands of people. Several terrorist nukes might kill fifty thousand or more people. Once the first one goes off, though, the threshold of "acceptable damage" for the US goes way, way up - not down.
Your interpretation of US actions after such a strike is completely and utterly at odds with my own. We are not remotely in agreement, except to note that a nuclear strike on US soil would elicit a fundamental change in the way the US thinks about the world. Given this provocation, I believe it is far more likely that the US would retaliate massively than that it would succumb to blackmail.
3. Vick has a point, although I'd put it a different way. If a nuke is used, it legitimizes nuclear use in response. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that the US would go "rogue" - which is a loaded term anyway, that is mostly applied to "bad" people, and I don't consider the US "bad." However, I would say this - US actions in the international realm are strongly affected by concerns about norms in the international system and by concerns about maintaining and acquiring international support and legitimacy. If you think the current administration is unilateral and unaccountable in its actions, I would simply suggest that it retains enormous constraints - which would vanish, or at least seriously deteriorate - in the aftermath of a nuclear attack. Again, that does not mean it would be random, or that it would attack India - simply that many things which restrain the US would no longer be considered important.
And in that respect, I think Vick has a point. That may not be a world India is as comfortable in, since the US might be much more aggressive in utilizing its power, and there would be no alternative powers available to balance the US or control US actions. It does not necessarily mean that India would be attacked - but India would almost certainly feel less secure.
4. Last but not least. There are lots of experts on Iraq. Most of them told the administration things it didn't want to hear about possible post-conflict reconstruction problems and many other issues. The administration wanted to go to war, believed that a war was necessary for American security, and simply ignored them all.
Why would you think, after a nuclear attack on the US, that South Asia experts would be so much more successful, persuasive, and influential? We would have a much more obvious reason for going to war, and actually very little reason not to.
Shiv, Sunil - I understand your concerns about private interests, ego, or personal contacts influencing American decisions. That's true at the margins, but I do not believe (from personal experience) that it is remotely true when core interests are at stake.
But enough - I digress. This is an important thread. Could we _please_ at least agree not to talk about the US nuking India, or re-hashing fifty years of policy in the region? That's been done a lot, everybody has an opinion, much of it is archived, and at a minimum it could be on a different thread. Let's stick to Pakistan and nuclear proliferation, if we can. Some of these issues may still be germane, but this thread swung wildly off track on this page. I apologize if my opaque language contributed to that.
Tim
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
This is something I agree with. We have seen it in India too. When parliament was attacked most of politicos supported GOI or atleast they remained silent. Those who opposed were ignored and India mobilised force at border.Shiv, Sunil - I understand your concerns about private interests, ego, or personal contacts influencing American decisions. That's true at the margins, but I do not believe (from personal experience) that it is remotely true when core interests are at stake.
US politicos are likely to behave the same way. Even if they are going to be exposed later at that moment they cannot afford to be seen going soft on perpetretors. They could make a deal with governement to absolve them once the punishment is meted out.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
I think it was wrong to read Tim's and TSJ's posts as implied threats to India - at worst, the posts merely indicated that Sunil's arguments had unsettled the two of them. I think Tim's last post clears up any misunderstandings, and that in interests of serious discussion we should move on.
The notion that US would nuke India in retaliation for a JDAM on US is, quite honestly and respectfully, unreal. The initial argument of a JDAM on US is itself a big "hypothetical", and Tim and TSJ would have done much better to have not been drawn into the whole thing.
Certainly there are influential people who condition US's reflexes vis a vis South Asia, but assigning them the powers that some of the arguments over here grant them would just be extrapolating from a parochial subcontinental experience on to a much larger issue. Let's face it, Tim is right. South Asia never was that important, until 9/11. All that has changed now, and the current happenings in FATA are a far better indicator of the shape of US-Pak dynamics than hangovers from decades past. We don't have to wait for a hypothetical terrorist incident on US mainland - the coming months, when the current administrations' feet will be held to fire regarding their response to terrorism, will be educative enough for those who want to understand how US's conditioning vis a vis Pak is begining to change.
The notion that US would nuke India in retaliation for a JDAM on US is, quite honestly and respectfully, unreal. The initial argument of a JDAM on US is itself a big "hypothetical", and Tim and TSJ would have done much better to have not been drawn into the whole thing.
Certainly there are influential people who condition US's reflexes vis a vis South Asia, but assigning them the powers that some of the arguments over here grant them would just be extrapolating from a parochial subcontinental experience on to a much larger issue. Let's face it, Tim is right. South Asia never was that important, until 9/11. All that has changed now, and the current happenings in FATA are a far better indicator of the shape of US-Pak dynamics than hangovers from decades past. We don't have to wait for a hypothetical terrorist incident on US mainland - the coming months, when the current administrations' feet will be held to fire regarding their response to terrorism, will be educative enough for those who want to understand how US's conditioning vis a vis Pak is begining to change.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
Shashank:
People around here are in fact SOOOO patriotic that they faithfully repeat whatever their Govt says about foreign affairs. Thus, better believe it, Musharraf is genuinely seen as the Lone Hope Against the Savages. Education level is inversely correlated with that - I bet those who don't have fancy educations are least likely to be taken in by such nonsense.
If nuke strikes an American city, even if the mushroom cloud spells out "MADE IN PAKISTAN BY THE PAKISTAN ARMY" I believe that people, as they die screaming, will probably be saying: "But I know Mr. Musharraf is trying his VERY BEST.."
The propaganda IS THAT BAD. Sorry.
This seems sensible, but WHY didn't it happen after 9/11? Why did they get conned into believing that bombing Afghanistan and Iraq constituted winning GOAT?they cannot afford to be seen going soft on perpetretors. They could make a deal with governement to absolve them once the punishment is meted out.
People around here are in fact SOOOO patriotic that they faithfully repeat whatever their Govt says about foreign affairs. Thus, better believe it, Musharraf is genuinely seen as the Lone Hope Against the Savages. Education level is inversely correlated with that - I bet those who don't have fancy educations are least likely to be taken in by such nonsense.
If nuke strikes an American city, even if the mushroom cloud spells out "MADE IN PAKISTAN BY THE PAKISTAN ARMY" I believe that people, as they die screaming, will probably be saying: "But I know Mr. Musharraf is trying his VERY BEST.."
The propaganda IS THAT BAD. Sorry.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
People in the US react like good people anywhere else, to shock and bereavement. Its private. They don't want to talk about it.
*****************************************
www.reuters.com
*****************************************
www.reuters.com
Sept. 11 Families Disgusted by Bush Campaign Ads
Updated 3:07 PM ET March 4, 2004
By Mark Egan
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Families who lost relatives in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks voiced outrage on Thursday at President Bush's first ads of his re-election campaign that use images of the devastated World Trade Center to portray him as the right leader for tumultuous times.
"Families are enraged," said Bill Doyle, 57, of New York, who is active in several Sept. 11 family groups. "What I think is distasteful is that the president is trying to use 9/11 as a springboard for his re-election."
"It's entirely wrong. He's had 3,500 deaths on his watch, including Iraq," said Doyle, whose 25-year-old son Joseph died at the trade center.
Long time Bush adviser Karen Hughes defended the four commercials -- which began running on Thursday in at least 16 important battleground states -- as "tastefully done."
"September 11 is not some distant event in the past," Hughes told ABC's "Good Morning America." "All of us feel deeply that tragedy but it's also important to recognize the impact it had on our national public policy."
Two ads refer to the hijacked airliner attacks that killed about 3,000 as the Bush campaign seeks to present him as a leader who rose to the challenge. One ad shows World Trade Center ruins behind an American flag. Another shows firefighters removing the flag-draped remains of a victim.
Ron Willett of Walnut Shade, Missouri, said he was disgusted when he saw the ads. Willett, who lost his 29-year-old son, John Charles, when planes hit the trade center, said he is now so upset, "I would vote for Saddam Hussein before I would vote for Bush."
"I think it is an atrocity," his wife, Lucy, added. "He should not be allowed to use those images at all."
STAY AWAY FROM GROUND ZERO
With Republicans holding their political convention in New York in late August, victims said they hope Bush does not make it worse by speaking at the site now known as Ground Zero, which many view as sacred.
"If he does, there will be a protest and it could get ugly," said Doyle.
Several family members said their annoyance stemmed in part from Bush's refusal to testify publicly before the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"The Bush administration will not cooperate fully with the 9/11 commission and at the same time they are trying to invoke and own 9/11 and use it for his re-election," said Stephen Push from the Washington office of "Families September 11th." His wife died on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon that day.
The International Association of Fire Fighters, which has endorsed and campaigned for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, denounced the spots as "hypocrisy at its worst."
"I'm disappointed but not surprised that the president would try to trade on the heroism of those fire fighters," the union's general president, Harold Schaitberger, said.
U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat, said the use of the images "demeans and dishonors those who died."
"I urge you to direct your campaign to immediately withdraw these advertisements," Lautenberg wrote in a letter to Bush, adding that elected officials "must maintain standards of dignity and respect that prevent us from exploiting national tragedies for political purposes."
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said he had no objections. And not all relatives of victims were upset by the ads.
"I don't have a problem with his pointing to his leadership at that time. He helped us weather it. To me it was a tasteful ad," said Patricia Reilly, who sister Lorraine Lee died in the New York attacks. (Additional reporting by Larry Fine)
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
Tim,
I think we're having a little static in resolving the question of why the US is behaving quite the way it is where Pakistan, and its nuclear proliferation, is concerned.
Now, assuming we accept that TSJ is right and that there's a PLAN, they're really going to do what is needed in Pakistan - which is dis- and de- everything as pronto as possible, then that is hard to reconcile with the aid-flow (we can quibble on the actual disbursed amount), the flowery platitudes, the inability to get Musharraf to actually do anything other than hand over some flunkey every few months and turn on a nice speech every once in a while. Meanwhile, he's shipped missiles/nukes to Libya and North Korea. OK, he knew nothing about all that. Amritrage said so!!!!
On the other hand, assuming there's no grand deception underway, then the situation is even more scary. Then there's only one real answer to the question of why the US kidgloving Pakistan the way it is. The argument of "apres Musharraf le deluge" is quite meaningless, as the deluge is already upon us. The guys have proliferated to everybody and his uncle, what more are the jihadis going to do? Actually use a nuke? They can do that now. Given the events of the past few weeks, I don't know if anyone wants to bet that the tech and material for a radiological bomb (at a minimum) has not been passed on to Al Qaida - and the threats made by its leaders strongly suggest that is indeed the case, at least.
So what's the answer to why the US is kidgloving Pakistan? There is a strong suspicion that it can only be because America wants to maintain some sort of control mechanism, a reliable leverage, to exercise against India should the need arise - over trade or other issues; and Pakistan will be as reliable as they come in that department. The problem is that they're reliable only in that department.
Which is why most of us are, I believe, hoping like sweet fu(k all that there is actually a grand deception thing going...
Of course, the US is only fulfilling its strategic duty towards perpetuating its predominance by seeking a control mechanism against India. No problem with that whatsoever, as a matter of principle. But can't you guys get someone a little more sane? These chaps can and will turn against you, and they've already got the credentials to prove it... I mean, this is one country that's badly in need of "re-arranging" as you put it.
I think we're having a little static in resolving the question of why the US is behaving quite the way it is where Pakistan, and its nuclear proliferation, is concerned.
Now, assuming we accept that TSJ is right and that there's a PLAN, they're really going to do what is needed in Pakistan - which is dis- and de- everything as pronto as possible, then that is hard to reconcile with the aid-flow (we can quibble on the actual disbursed amount), the flowery platitudes, the inability to get Musharraf to actually do anything other than hand over some flunkey every few months and turn on a nice speech every once in a while. Meanwhile, he's shipped missiles/nukes to Libya and North Korea. OK, he knew nothing about all that. Amritrage said so!!!!
On the other hand, assuming there's no grand deception underway, then the situation is even more scary. Then there's only one real answer to the question of why the US kidgloving Pakistan the way it is. The argument of "apres Musharraf le deluge" is quite meaningless, as the deluge is already upon us. The guys have proliferated to everybody and his uncle, what more are the jihadis going to do? Actually use a nuke? They can do that now. Given the events of the past few weeks, I don't know if anyone wants to bet that the tech and material for a radiological bomb (at a minimum) has not been passed on to Al Qaida - and the threats made by its leaders strongly suggest that is indeed the case, at least.
So what's the answer to why the US is kidgloving Pakistan? There is a strong suspicion that it can only be because America wants to maintain some sort of control mechanism, a reliable leverage, to exercise against India should the need arise - over trade or other issues; and Pakistan will be as reliable as they come in that department. The problem is that they're reliable only in that department.
Which is why most of us are, I believe, hoping like sweet fu(k all that there is actually a grand deception thing going...
Of course, the US is only fulfilling its strategic duty towards perpetuating its predominance by seeking a control mechanism against India. No problem with that whatsoever, as a matter of principle. But can't you guys get someone a little more sane? These chaps can and will turn against you, and they've already got the credentials to prove it... I mean, this is one country that's badly in need of "re-arranging" as you put it.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
N^3 I guess those in power in US have understood that it was a mistake giving so much free hand to Pakistan. Now how to address that mistake? One is simply admit it and deal with Pakistan but thats a very poor response. It will show to the world that they (atleast some) were incompetent and there is no sure way that Pakistan will agree to their demands without going hyper. Whats the solution? Lets not show the world that we did mistakes but at the same time prevent something like JDAM from happening. We will never know what US is doing to save her as* but they sure have to do else their own safety is at risk. I thinks thats where your theory of nook nood pak fits in.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
We have a new monkey here
<img src="http://india-forum.com/forums/html/emoticons/pakee.gif" alt="" />
<img src="http://india-forum.com/forums/html/emoticons/pakee.gif" alt="" />
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
better win-win will be nobody proliferating:)Originally posted by BaijuBanwra:
[QB]
You just can't seem to figure out how AQK could get away with his proliferation shenanigans. Consider this, If the "rogue" states had not been being led around by their noses by AQK, they might have pursued their weapons programs much more clandestinely and might even have succeeded. What Paki scientists did was, basically swindle the rogues, to a point where the rogues themselves started squealing to the Unkil. A win win situation.
QB]
wow you are so much off your rockers i cant even bother to reply. but you should consider becoming bush/SD spokesman
ISI created taliban is a fact and pakistan profilferated nuclear weapons is a fact.unless AQ was stuffing centrifuges and equipment in his shirt pocket
finally f*ck off.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
Well, the Pakis have gotten what they wanted - something they so thoroughly enjoy. GUBO will never be the same after Amritraj-ji.
<img src="http://mysmilies.ipbfree.com/s/otn/funny/smileysex5.gif" alt="" />
<img src="http://mysmilies.ipbfree.com/s/otn/funny/smileysex5.gif" alt="" />
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
For what it is worth, ABC News JUST reported that the US (Bill Clinton) knew about the KRL underground dealing in 1997.
Wow.
Wow.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
What program was this?Originally posted by Niranjan Rao:
For what it is worth, ABC News JUST reported that the US (Bill Clinton) knew about the KRL underground dealing in 1997.
Wow.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
OP-ED: Reflections on the proliferation scandal —Ijaz Hussain
China’s handling of the North Korean nuclear issue has a lesson for Pakistan. Besides, China may be helpful within the Security Council framework but outside of it Beijing’s usefulness would be quite limited
The nuclear-proliferation scandal has been a harrowing experience for Pakistan. While the atmosphere is still emotionally charged, every day bringing a new revelation, it is appropriate to reflect on some of the issues that have arisen in the course of this crisis, especially, the question of how we can handle the threat to our nuclear programme in the future?
When the government initially decided to investigate the matter, it was bitterly criticised. Most Pakistanis said the West had no locus standi in the matter and was equally guilty of proliferation. This was an indiscreet argument. Failure to investigate the matter would only have strengthened the suspicion of the international community regarding Pakistan’s involvement in proliferation.
While the media in the West continue to allege the involvement of Pakistani state in the business, the fact remains that the IAEA, the EU and the Bush administration have issued a clean bill of health to Islamabad. This is owed to Pakistan’s prompt action in the matter.
One could argue that the acceptance by the West, particularly by the Bush administration of the non-involvement of Pakistan, is motivated by its need for Pakistan in the war against terror. True. But why would Mr Elbaradei, chairman of IAEA, absolve Pakistan of any wrongdoing? The IAEA is a technical body and its head cannot make a statement unless he is convinced of it. The certificate of non-involvement by Pakistan, whether political or otherwise, is a saving grace. It could not have come about without the cooperation extended by Pakistan to the IAEA.
Pakistan has a good case of non-involvement and it is borne out by considerable circumstantial evidence. For example, Col. Qaddafi’s son has revealed that Libya paid $40 million to Pakistani scientists. According to papers discovered in the 1990s, a certain Malik, supposedly acting on behalf of Dr A Q Khan, offered the sale of nuclear technology to Iraq for a paltry sum of $5 million. This ridiculously small sum precludes the possibility of government-to-government dealings, but is a huge amount in individual deals.
The non-involvement of Pakistan is also proved by the kind of relations that existed between it and some of the beneficiaries of the nuclear technology during the period in question. Take the case of Iran. During the 1980s and 1990s, when the nuclear technology transfer took place, Pakistan, except for a brief period, did not enjoy good relations with Iran. Similarly, the allegation of transfer of nuclear technology to Libya cannot stick because Pakistan has not enjoyed good relations with that country since the execution of premier Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. It is hard to believe that Pakistan was transferring nuclear technology to these countries while not having good relations with them. As to North Korea, it has been an open secret that the latter has been more in need of cash than technology and that Pakistan paid through its nose to acquire missile technology from it.
If Pakistan’s involvement is ruled out, can we say that the Pakistan army was involved? Unlikely. <u> The army as an institution, like the government, would not stoop so low for such a ludicrous amount. </u>
What cannot be ruled out is the involvement of some army personnel in personal capacity, including perhaps the chief of army staff, in addition to the scientists.
There is a mystery regarding the role played by Iran and Libya in blowing the whistle on Pakistan. It is not clear what made them do so. One can only guess and conjecture. Iran has traditionally treated Pakistan as an inferior nation and has always found hard to accept it as a nuclear power. Could this be the reason for its denunciation of Pakistan? Or has the bitter memory of Pakistan’s support for Taliban made it do it? Or was it because of the inferior quality of centrifuge parts reportedly provided by Dr AQ Khan? Similarly, what made Libya denounce Pakistan? Did the mercurial Qaddafi want to ingratiate with the US at the expense of Pakistan or was he incensed by the ingratitude of the latter despite bankrolling its nuclear programme in the initial stages? In any case the <u> dirty role played by these two Muslim countries </u>
hopefully would have a sobering effect on those who have delusions of an <u> “Islamic bomb”; </u> they should be disabused of such wishful thinking.
Some quarters have argued that Pakistan has done no wrong since it is not a party to the NPT. This argument is flawed because Pakistan has, on a number of occasions, given assurances to the international community to be bound by the NPT regime. Indeed, these “unilateral declarations” could, in light of international law, be construed as creating treaty obligations for Pakistan. Also, of all the crimes relating to nuclear matters, proliferation is emerging as the most heinous one, forcing some analysts to term it as a crime against humanity. Finally, the West that sets the rules of the game in international politics has proscribed it and Pakistan can defy this norm at its own peril. For all these reasons we cannot successfully argue that Pakistan can proliferate at will because it is not a party to the NPT.
Now, the final question: Is there a threat to Pakistan’s nuclear programme following Khan’s confessions? In our judgment, the threat remains, despite Bush administration’s statement to let bygones be bygones as long as Pakistan acts responsibly in the future by not becoming a source of nuclear proliferation. But it is not imminent. There has been a bipartisan consensus in the US against Pakistan’s nuclear programme from day one. The threat, which had increased with the advent to corridors of power of the neo-cons, has been compounded since 9/11. This signifies that the US would be on the look out for an excuse to get Pakistan to roll back its programme or seek to bring it under international control.
What can Pakistan do to ward off any threat to its nuclear programme? The option of help from the toothless and fragmented Islamic ummah is not a serious one. This is amply demonstrated by the role the OIC has played in the recent Middle Eastern crises. Can Pakistan count on China? It must be said that by issuing a statement absolving Pakistan of any involvement in nuclear proliferation and showing trust in it despite the fact that its name was somewhat sullied because of the revelations of wrongdoing by Pakistani scientists the Chinese have been most helpful to Pakistan. Their help can be expected in the future provided it is not at variance with China’s own national interest. This caveat is in order because China has taken the strategic decision not to challenge the US at this stage. China’s handling of the North Korean nuclear issue has a lesson for Pakistan. Besides, China may be helpful within the Security Council framework but outside of it Beijing’s usefulness would be quite limited. This point is important, as the West has handled nuclear issues in recent times outside the UNSC as demonstrated, for example, in the Iranian case.
Pakistan, thus, will have to rely on its own resources to counter any threat to its nuclear programme. For this purpose we need to put our house in order through restoration of full and genuine democracy urgently and shun the one-man pseudo-military rule because it is amenable to American diktat as demonstrated by the way the US is currently dealing with Pakistan, particularly in its so-called war on terror. Parallel with this, it is absolutely imperative that we put in place a foolproof mechanism to stop the export of nuclear-related technology.
The writer is Professor Department of International Relations, Dean of Social Sciences Quaid-e-Azam University, and author of several books
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_5-3-2004_pg7_10
China’s handling of the North Korean nuclear issue has a lesson for Pakistan. Besides, China may be helpful within the Security Council framework but outside of it Beijing’s usefulness would be quite limited
The nuclear-proliferation scandal has been a harrowing experience for Pakistan. While the atmosphere is still emotionally charged, every day bringing a new revelation, it is appropriate to reflect on some of the issues that have arisen in the course of this crisis, especially, the question of how we can handle the threat to our nuclear programme in the future?
When the government initially decided to investigate the matter, it was bitterly criticised. Most Pakistanis said the West had no locus standi in the matter and was equally guilty of proliferation. This was an indiscreet argument. Failure to investigate the matter would only have strengthened the suspicion of the international community regarding Pakistan’s involvement in proliferation.
While the media in the West continue to allege the involvement of Pakistani state in the business, the fact remains that the IAEA, the EU and the Bush administration have issued a clean bill of health to Islamabad. This is owed to Pakistan’s prompt action in the matter.
One could argue that the acceptance by the West, particularly by the Bush administration of the non-involvement of Pakistan, is motivated by its need for Pakistan in the war against terror. True. But why would Mr Elbaradei, chairman of IAEA, absolve Pakistan of any wrongdoing? The IAEA is a technical body and its head cannot make a statement unless he is convinced of it. The certificate of non-involvement by Pakistan, whether political or otherwise, is a saving grace. It could not have come about without the cooperation extended by Pakistan to the IAEA.
Pakistan has a good case of non-involvement and it is borne out by considerable circumstantial evidence. For example, Col. Qaddafi’s son has revealed that Libya paid $40 million to Pakistani scientists. According to papers discovered in the 1990s, a certain Malik, supposedly acting on behalf of Dr A Q Khan, offered the sale of nuclear technology to Iraq for a paltry sum of $5 million. This ridiculously small sum precludes the possibility of government-to-government dealings, but is a huge amount in individual deals.
The non-involvement of Pakistan is also proved by the kind of relations that existed between it and some of the beneficiaries of the nuclear technology during the period in question. Take the case of Iran. During the 1980s and 1990s, when the nuclear technology transfer took place, Pakistan, except for a brief period, did not enjoy good relations with Iran. Similarly, the allegation of transfer of nuclear technology to Libya cannot stick because Pakistan has not enjoyed good relations with that country since the execution of premier Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. It is hard to believe that Pakistan was transferring nuclear technology to these countries while not having good relations with them. As to North Korea, it has been an open secret that the latter has been more in need of cash than technology and that Pakistan paid through its nose to acquire missile technology from it.
If Pakistan’s involvement is ruled out, can we say that the Pakistan army was involved? Unlikely. <u> The army as an institution, like the government, would not stoop so low for such a ludicrous amount. </u>
What cannot be ruled out is the involvement of some army personnel in personal capacity, including perhaps the chief of army staff, in addition to the scientists.
There is a mystery regarding the role played by Iran and Libya in blowing the whistle on Pakistan. It is not clear what made them do so. One can only guess and conjecture. Iran has traditionally treated Pakistan as an inferior nation and has always found hard to accept it as a nuclear power. Could this be the reason for its denunciation of Pakistan? Or has the bitter memory of Pakistan’s support for Taliban made it do it? Or was it because of the inferior quality of centrifuge parts reportedly provided by Dr AQ Khan? Similarly, what made Libya denounce Pakistan? Did the mercurial Qaddafi want to ingratiate with the US at the expense of Pakistan or was he incensed by the ingratitude of the latter despite bankrolling its nuclear programme in the initial stages? In any case the <u> dirty role played by these two Muslim countries </u>
hopefully would have a sobering effect on those who have delusions of an <u> “Islamic bomb”; </u> they should be disabused of such wishful thinking.
Some quarters have argued that Pakistan has done no wrong since it is not a party to the NPT. This argument is flawed because Pakistan has, on a number of occasions, given assurances to the international community to be bound by the NPT regime. Indeed, these “unilateral declarations” could, in light of international law, be construed as creating treaty obligations for Pakistan. Also, of all the crimes relating to nuclear matters, proliferation is emerging as the most heinous one, forcing some analysts to term it as a crime against humanity. Finally, the West that sets the rules of the game in international politics has proscribed it and Pakistan can defy this norm at its own peril. For all these reasons we cannot successfully argue that Pakistan can proliferate at will because it is not a party to the NPT.
Now, the final question: Is there a threat to Pakistan’s nuclear programme following Khan’s confessions? In our judgment, the threat remains, despite Bush administration’s statement to let bygones be bygones as long as Pakistan acts responsibly in the future by not becoming a source of nuclear proliferation. But it is not imminent. There has been a bipartisan consensus in the US against Pakistan’s nuclear programme from day one. The threat, which had increased with the advent to corridors of power of the neo-cons, has been compounded since 9/11. This signifies that the US would be on the look out for an excuse to get Pakistan to roll back its programme or seek to bring it under international control.
What can Pakistan do to ward off any threat to its nuclear programme? The option of help from the toothless and fragmented Islamic ummah is not a serious one. This is amply demonstrated by the role the OIC has played in the recent Middle Eastern crises. Can Pakistan count on China? It must be said that by issuing a statement absolving Pakistan of any involvement in nuclear proliferation and showing trust in it despite the fact that its name was somewhat sullied because of the revelations of wrongdoing by Pakistani scientists the Chinese have been most helpful to Pakistan. Their help can be expected in the future provided it is not at variance with China’s own national interest. This caveat is in order because China has taken the strategic decision not to challenge the US at this stage. China’s handling of the North Korean nuclear issue has a lesson for Pakistan. Besides, China may be helpful within the Security Council framework but outside of it Beijing’s usefulness would be quite limited. This point is important, as the West has handled nuclear issues in recent times outside the UNSC as demonstrated, for example, in the Iranian case.
Pakistan, thus, will have to rely on its own resources to counter any threat to its nuclear programme. For this purpose we need to put our house in order through restoration of full and genuine democracy urgently and shun the one-man pseudo-military rule because it is amenable to American diktat as demonstrated by the way the US is currently dealing with Pakistan, particularly in its so-called war on terror. Parallel with this, it is absolutely imperative that we put in place a foolproof mechanism to stop the export of nuclear-related technology.
The writer is Professor Department of International Relations, Dean of Social Sciences Quaid-e-Azam University, and author of several books
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_5-3-2004_pg7_10
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
While I empathize with Mr. Doyle, it is incorrect to pin the blame on Bush alone. It was under Clinton's watch that Al-Q had become the monster it is today. It is under Clinton's watch that Robin Rafael and Albright went bonkers at Indian nuc tests. It is under Clinton's watch that the whole Pakistani nuc prol had started. Uneven Cohen was in the State dept. under Clinotn's watch. It is under Clinton's watch that China got molly coddled. It is under Clinton's watch that India did not have an US amby for 14 (or was it 18) long months without a conduit to US. If anything, Bush at least acted against the Taliban-Al-Q arm of thr Pakistanis.From article posted by narayanan:
"It's entirely wrong. He's had 3,500 deaths on his watch, including Iraq," said Doyle, whose 25-year-old son Joseph died at the trade center.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
The way I see it, if US tells India to make peace with Pakistanis after 12/13, it does not mean that US will do the same if the shoe is in the other foot. If we think otherwise, we are projecting US's behaviour towards India to US's own response.
So long as the 400% promises were about stopping infiltration, they were good enough for US. Please don't for a moment think that they will be good enough when it comes to homeland security. What Pakistan did is finally being seen as more a threat to US than a regrettable but harmless screwing around with other countries. No amount of Cohenification is going to work, and $700 mill is probably peanuts compared to what US is willing to spend by other means to get Pak walking the walk. Sweet talk costs nothing - just visit the south (here in US) to understand this.
Shiv - my reading about US history does not indicate any significant change in public integrity one way or the other. What has happened is that the rest of the world has grown up, and the scales have fallen off.
So long as the 400% promises were about stopping infiltration, they were good enough for US. Please don't for a moment think that they will be good enough when it comes to homeland security. What Pakistan did is finally being seen as more a threat to US than a regrettable but harmless screwing around with other countries. No amount of Cohenification is going to work, and $700 mill is probably peanuts compared to what US is willing to spend by other means to get Pak walking the walk. Sweet talk costs nothing - just visit the south (here in US) to understand this.
Shiv - my reading about US history does not indicate any significant change in public integrity one way or the other. What has happened is that the rest of the world has grown up, and the scales have fallen off.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
If the JDAM scenario does occur, I doubt that the US would immediately lash out against anyone....Even the GOTUS is bound by international niceties, they can't just go ahead and nuke a percieved culprit.
This I think offers food for thought...will the US (or any govt who have been briefcase- nuked) control the national rage and anguish till the source of the strike is divined out. What happens if the delivery team is later found to be international and the knowledge is somehow made public...lets say american jihadi, chinese assent, saudi buck, paki-chinese weapon, black market nuclear material, diplomatic delivery...who will they blame?. (By the saudi and chinese angles, they needn't be the govt itself..but vested powers, the faithful or committed "patriots")..What can they do?
I'm pretty sure the movers and shakers in the GOTUS know by means of "doublethink" that TSP and KSA are the real threats...wouldn't they want to address it?...And what happens if they do strike at them?..The public and the media would like to know why they have been lied to for so long..and by whom?..So who takes the rap then? 9/11 would be nothing compared with the HORROR of a nuclear strike, even if the casualities from a dirty bomb are low and contained.
Also, wouldn't some powers in the "establishment" like to have a truce with the Jihadi enterprise where they can act on coverging intrests and delay the inevitable showdown beyond their lifetme......Jihadis understand truce and defeat are just temporary, they do not think in terms of a nation or the survival of nation....and they do see beyond their lifetimes for the islamic tide to prevail. You can guess what the tubelights on the other side will be banking on...tie up the loose ends and beef up so that they can have unlimited leverage and concentration when the real showdown against the stateless enemy occurs....
Disclaimer:Just speculating
This I think offers food for thought...will the US (or any govt who have been briefcase- nuked) control the national rage and anguish till the source of the strike is divined out. What happens if the delivery team is later found to be international and the knowledge is somehow made public...lets say american jihadi, chinese assent, saudi buck, paki-chinese weapon, black market nuclear material, diplomatic delivery...who will they blame?. (By the saudi and chinese angles, they needn't be the govt itself..but vested powers, the faithful or committed "patriots")..What can they do?
I'm pretty sure the movers and shakers in the GOTUS know by means of "doublethink" that TSP and KSA are the real threats...wouldn't they want to address it?...And what happens if they do strike at them?..The public and the media would like to know why they have been lied to for so long..and by whom?..So who takes the rap then? 9/11 would be nothing compared with the HORROR of a nuclear strike, even if the casualities from a dirty bomb are low and contained.
Also, wouldn't some powers in the "establishment" like to have a truce with the Jihadi enterprise where they can act on coverging intrests and delay the inevitable showdown beyond their lifetme......Jihadis understand truce and defeat are just temporary, they do not think in terms of a nation or the survival of nation....and they do see beyond their lifetimes for the islamic tide to prevail. You can guess what the tubelights on the other side will be banking on...tie up the loose ends and beef up so that they can have unlimited leverage and concentration when the real showdown against the stateless enemy occurs....
Disclaimer:Just speculating
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
The US kidgloving of TSP is the net result of years of a$$ kissing, symbiosis, blame redirection, old-boy network, various levels of cover up with a little bit of real politik.... like a guarentee of no first use of jihadi bomb, bridge to China and India control.
When the sh1t hits the ceiling, I wonder what spin the Cohenistas and the SDs would put in.....how they will do the tightrope between national security and saving their own skin..
BTW...Loved the GUBO gremlin, where did u get it from , Div?....We need Mushy and Bushy faces for better effect
When the sh1t hits the ceiling, I wonder what spin the Cohenistas and the SDs would put in.....how they will do the tightrope between national security and saving their own skin..
BTW...Loved the GUBO gremlin, where did u get it from , Div?....We need Mushy and Bushy faces for better effect
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
George W Bush's political plank is essentially national security, and while the situation in Iraq has improved greatly, and continues on the whole to improve, the American public is unwilling to accept it as proof positive of his national-security leadership. There's only one thing that would allow Bush to live up to his image in this coming election - the neutralisation of Osama bin Laden.Originally posted by JE Menon:
Then there's only one real answer to the question of why the US kidgloving Pakistan the way it is. The argument of "apres Musharraf le deluge" is quite meaningless, as the deluge is already upon us. The guys have proliferated to everybody and his uncle, what more are the jihadis going to do? Actually use a nuke? They can do that now. Given the events of the past few weeks, I don't know if anyone wants to bet that the tech and material for a radiological bomb (at a minimum) has not been passed on to Al Qaida - and the threats made by its leaders strongly suggest that is indeed the case, at least.
So what's the answer to why the US is kidgloving Pakistan? There is a strong suspicion that it can only be because America wants to maintain some sort of control mechanism, a reliable leverage, to exercise against India should the need arise - over trade or other issues; and Pakistan will be as reliable as they come in that department. The problem is that they're reliable only in that department.
Which is why most of us are, I believe, hoping like sweet fu(k all that there is actually a grand deception thing going...
That political need has unfortunately, but inevitably, trumped the need to make an example of Pakistan for proliferating outwards.
Although Stalin had access to remarkable intelligence from Britain and the US on the Manhattan project, he failed to really grasp its significance and implications (much like his failure to predict the devastating Nazi invasion, despite excellent intelligence) until August of 1945. It then became a mad rush to develop the Soviet bomb.
Some in the MGB wanted to conduct a purge of Soviet nuclear scientists for showing insufficient socialist and patriotic spirit.
Beria, the MGB chief's response was "let them work in peace, we can always shoot them later".
That applies to Pakistan as a whole in a perverse kind of way. The burden of American expectations has not lightened in any way, only re-prioritised. Pakistan, and all of its sins have not been washed away, and the US is in no way less capable of exerting military and financial pressure than before the Khan pardon.
The real test of this American administration with regard to Pakistan will come after November. What will they do with a re-affirmation of their mandate if they receive it?
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
Somewhat agree about Johann's comment, but can't help but wonder if the "after november" is because of the election, or if OBL is to be captured by friendly neighborhood frontline ally around then.
If OBL is caught --- and note that if he is caught at all, it will be by Pakistani forces --- it will be more of the same fawning. Only now, Mush's domestic position will be all that more precarious, requiring that extra bit of TLC from the State Dept.
The choice for GOTUS is therefore a still-absent OBL (bad for politics) + frontline ally Mush, or a captured OBL + even more frontline ally Mush + extra goodies to stabilize Mush's tush. I'm guessing Dubya and State Dept prefer the second option --- everyone happy except Paki mullahdom, but that's no problem if you give Mushy Wan Kanobi (our only hope!) more cash and goodies.
If OBL is caught --- and note that if he is caught at all, it will be by Pakistani forces --- it will be more of the same fawning. Only now, Mush's domestic position will be all that more precarious, requiring that extra bit of TLC from the State Dept.
The choice for GOTUS is therefore a still-absent OBL (bad for politics) + frontline ally Mush, or a captured OBL + even more frontline ally Mush + extra goodies to stabilize Mush's tush. I'm guessing Dubya and State Dept prefer the second option --- everyone happy except Paki mullahdom, but that's no problem if you give Mushy Wan Kanobi (our only hope!) more cash and goodies.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
May I call a halt to the "war" here?
Tim and TSJ have voiced opinions that are not necessarily what people like - but by jumping on them we divert from the topic of the thread - that is the fact that the nuclear genie is out of the bag and is spreading even now so that many small nations other than the US acquire JDAMs.
About India suffering any consequences from a Pakistani JDAM nuclear attack on the US - i would laugh at the idea because such thoughts do not sound like what I expect the US to behave like.
I would really like to know how the US is going to pre-empt and prevent a JDAM from going off on itys territory - and not what the US is going to do to India, Pakistan or Belize AFTER a US city eats refined Yellowcake.
Letting the Pakistan army and Xerox Khan go scot free after all this proliferation could be a sign of slackening of US dominance. As an admirer of the US I am sorry to see such slackening, but that's tough. Someone else will have to pick up where the US leaves off.
.. I am sure there will be people/nations to do that.
Tim and TSJ have voiced opinions that are not necessarily what people like - but by jumping on them we divert from the topic of the thread - that is the fact that the nuclear genie is out of the bag and is spreading even now so that many small nations other than the US acquire JDAMs.
About India suffering any consequences from a Pakistani JDAM nuclear attack on the US - i would laugh at the idea because such thoughts do not sound like what I expect the US to behave like.
I would really like to know how the US is going to pre-empt and prevent a JDAM from going off on itys territory - and not what the US is going to do to India, Pakistan or Belize AFTER a US city eats refined Yellowcake.
Letting the Pakistan army and Xerox Khan go scot free after all this proliferation could be a sign of slackening of US dominance. As an admirer of the US I am sorry to see such slackening, but that's tough. Someone else will have to pick up where the US leaves off.
.. I am sure there will be people/nations to do that.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
PM News (5:30 PM Chicago)Originally posted by Rangudu:
What program was this?Originally posted by Niranjan Rao:
For what it is worth, ABC News JUST reported that the US (Bill Clinton) knew about the KRL underground dealing in 1997.
Wow.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
Rajesh,
There will be no temporary return to anything even remotely resembling the pre-9/11 relationship with Pakistn the West disengages from Afghanistan after the Bin Laden matter is settled. The Pakistanis can't help but antagonise those who compete against them in Afghanistan, even people they want to get along with - they did it to the Iranians in the mid-1990s, and they have been doing it to the Coalition from the summer of 2002 onwards.
Given the volatility of the situation in Pakistan an the associated nuclear implications, I don't think we can afford to ignore Afghanistan (again).
On the other hand its very difficult to say what kind of trade-offs a Kerry administration might chose to make.
There will be no temporary return to anything even remotely resembling the pre-9/11 relationship with Pakistn the West disengages from Afghanistan after the Bin Laden matter is settled. The Pakistanis can't help but antagonise those who compete against them in Afghanistan, even people they want to get along with - they did it to the Iranians in the mid-1990s, and they have been doing it to the Coalition from the summer of 2002 onwards.
Given the volatility of the situation in Pakistan an the associated nuclear implications, I don't think we can afford to ignore Afghanistan (again).
On the other hand its very difficult to say what kind of trade-offs a Kerry administration might chose to make.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
BTW, The ABC Evening News report stated that KRL Scientists HANDED OUT "glosies" - inlcuding to a Janes person, who was on the air - that included what would included for $50 Million. It included EVERYTHING - nuclear bomb material too, to fabricate a nuke. A Swiss eng, known to the AQK family for 10 years also was interviewed and he so casualy states that there are so many Swiss that manufacture parts besides himself (as engineers).
This KRL stuff is no secret to anyone in the business. If there were people in Asia and Europe who knew about such dealing - glosies - then how come the CIA did not know? One theory is that they were just too lax.
This KRL stuff is no secret to anyone in the business. If there were people in Asia and Europe who knew about such dealing - glosies - then how come the CIA did not know? One theory is that they were just too lax.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
ABC News:
Black Market Nuke Trade
Black Market Nuke Trade
U.S. Knew of Pakistan Nuclear Dealings for at Least Seven Years
By Brian Ross
March 4 — The United States had knowledge of a network of black market nuclear proliferation from Pakistan to countries accused of supporting terrorists for at least seven years before it was publicly exposed, ABCNEWS has learned.
What U.S., British and U.N. investigators found was that a company in Pakistan was prepared to sell everything needed to make a nuclear bomb — plans, equipment and fuel — for $50 million, with no questions asked about how it might be used.
The one-stop nuclear package was even advertised at a Pakistani arms show in 2000, where the company handed out brochures to visitors, including a reporter for Jane's Defense Weekly.
"[The company] gave out two very glossy brochures, inside of which they promised to provide all of the components needed for a uranium-enrichment facility," reporter Andrew Koch said.
Behind it all: the now-infamous Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, who confessed last month to selling nuclear secrets to Iran, North Korea and Libya. Investigators say he made millions running the operation.
"I think that now we have to confront the reality that there's a nuclear black market, a Wal-Mart, in effect, of nuclear smuggling and it covers four continents, a dozen countries, lots of inventive behavior," said Graham Allison, director of Harvard University's Center for Science and International Affairs.
Officials say it was a far-flung operation. A factory in Malaysia was set up to make the high-speed gas centrifuge parts that are used to produce weapons-grade uranium. The son of Malaysia's prime minister was one of the factory's owners.
"I did not talk with him on this subject. It is entirely my son's business," said Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmed Badawi.
Network Extended to Investigators say Urs Tinner, one of the engineers, took the designs to the Malaysian factory and supervised manufacturing.
Tinner, who admits his father has been connected to Kahn for more than a decade, said he had no idea the work he did was connected to the nuclear black market.
"We make parts like, let's say, every other company in Switzerland," he told ABCNEWS. "Mechanical shops. It is always the same."
But U.S. officials say Tinner's operation was a lot more than just another Swiss machine shop.
"He was the key sparkplug to make sure that these 14 types of centrifuge components were made and then delivered. And then [he would] clean up the operation, take out all the centrifuge drawings," said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, D.C.
U.S. Knew for at Least Seven Years
It turns out that the United States has known about Khan's nuclear dealings for at least seven years.
Documents obtained by ABCNEWS show the U.S. had enough evidence in 1997 to put his company, Khan Research Laboratory, on a kind of U.S. blacklist for suspected illegal activity. The U.S. Commerce Department barred American companies from selling Khan's company any materials that might have nuclear or military applications.
The special restrictions raises the question now of how, since that time, Kahn was able to make nuclear deals with Libya and Iran without U.S. detection.
And Kahn's scientists, according to investigators, were also able to meet with Osama bin Laden without being detected by the United States.
Whatever the United States knew about Kahn, it clearly did not aggressively pursue him through both the Clinton and the Bush administrations.
Secretary of State Colin Powell said today: "I think we're learning a great deal more about the network, and we're tracing the network to all of [Khan's] various customers and all of the different parts of the network infrastructure. I think we have pretty much taken apart the network in the sense that it isn't going to be doing that much in the future, and we're going to work to pull up everything we know about it from the past."
But Albright considers it to be a big intelligence failure.
"I mean, if the intelligence community is charged with finding out this kind of information, then the United States intelligence failed," he said.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
THE reason why TSP is NOT getting socked.I think that now we have to confront the reality that there's a nuclear black market, a Wal-Mart, in effect, of nuclear smuggling and it covers four continents, a dozen countries, lots of inventive behavior
It involves countries like the Swiss, Germany, Belgium, etc
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
Or it could be one of total dominance. Which, incidentally, is BY FAR the more credible explanation.Letting the Pakistan army and Xerox Khan go scot free after all this proliferation could be a sign of slackening of US dominance.
Like I said, ask the FIVE WHYs of Total Quality Management.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
Thx Niranjan
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
First the bizarre Kunduz airlift and now the equally bizarre forgiveness and swift burial of the paki nuclear proliferation to rogue states can only mean one of two things:
1. Pakis exchanged whatever crown jewels they had for a large chunk of their army in light of the "bomb you back to the stone age" discussion and continue to have a gun barrel up their whazoo.
2. Pakis have something horrific on the US--something that the US can't afford anyone else, specially India, to know that the pakis are threating to squeal about.
I hope #1 is correct. Don't even want to think about what #2 might be. Just my paranoid 2 bits.
1. Pakis exchanged whatever crown jewels they had for a large chunk of their army in light of the "bomb you back to the stone age" discussion and continue to have a gun barrel up their whazoo.
2. Pakis have something horrific on the US--something that the US can't afford anyone else, specially India, to know that the pakis are threating to squeal about.
I hope #1 is correct. Don't even want to think about what #2 might be. Just my paranoid 2 bits.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
how about they have complete details on the dealings of republican pantheon with the saudis and the links of these saudis to al-keeda and other tabliqi nuts ?
saudis would be happy to supply the info because it protects them too.
saudis would be happy to supply the info because it protects them too.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
Tim,
That last post of yours has more holes than a chunk of swiss cheese but I am going to let it slide because I think my point has been made.
The best way to prevent nasty things from happening is to stop incentivizing them.
TSJ,
Thank you for your prompt reply.
That last post of yours has more holes than a chunk of swiss cheese but I am going to let it slide because I think my point has been made.
The best way to prevent nasty things from happening is to stop incentivizing them.
TSJ,
Thank you for your prompt reply.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
Someone here mentioned Palo Alto as a likely site of a JDAM sucker punch to the economy. It's possible, but the scenario simply doesn't have enough "fizz" to satisfy the Jehadi mind ( or whatever equivalent they have to human minds)
NY or Washington have much higher desirability IMO
...it's all abt location.
NY or Washington have much higher desirability IMO
...it's all abt location.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 02 Mar 2004
BTW, what is this "JDAM scenario"? I thought it referred to the nice things that convert runways to ploughed fields, while the Daisy Cutters convert IslamaGood to Parking Lot.
Rangudu, I am SHOCKED! I'll have u know that what I posted is (pretty-much) EXACT quotes from what I got on my official e-mail today.... I actually think Gen. Aziz (pbuh) replied to one of those, directly through the Diplomatic Pouch. Can u blame a rat for THAT? :whine:
Rangudu, I am SHOCKED! I'll have u know that what I posted is (pretty-much) EXACT quotes from what I got on my official e-mail today.... I actually think Gen. Aziz (pbuh) replied to one of those, directly through the Diplomatic Pouch. Can u blame a rat for THAT? :whine: