Times of India has a report quoting Sunday Times that the Pakistani Army had activated their nukes during Kargil and without the Prime Minister knowing that. This is based on first person account of Bruce Reidel in a forthcoming paper at Center for Advanced Study of India at Uty of Pennsylvania(upenn.edu)
Pak army activated nukes during Kargil
A link to the last BRF discussion on this subject is here: Nuke angle to Kargil crisis- BRF archive
Pak nukes activation during Kargil crisis - Discussion
Re: Pak nukes activation during Kargil crisis - Discussion
The Sunday Times report. The next time someone posts a report from a registration required site, please create a userid/password brakshak/rakshak123 so that everyone can use it. The websites that require subscription are NYT, Sunday Times, Chicago Tribune.
Pakistan made preparations for nuclear strike on India
Shyam Bhatia and Tom Walker
THE Pakistani army mobilised its nuclear arsenal against India in 1999 without the knowledge of its prime minister, a senior White House adviser at the time has disclosed.
As the Indian army pushed the Pakistani forces back across the so-called “line of control” dividing the disputed territory of Kashmir, Nawaz Sharif, the then Pakistani prime minister, asked for American intervention and flew to Washington.
In a paper to be published shortly by the University of Pennsylvania, Bruce Riedel, who was a senior adviser to Bill Clinton on India and Pakistan, recalls how the president was told that he faced the most important foreign policy meeting of his career. “There was disturbing information about Pakistan preparing its nuclear arsenal,” Riedel writes.
Riedel and other aides feared that India and Pakistan were heading for a “deadly descent into full-scale conflict, with a danger of nuclear cataclysm”. They were also concerned about Osama Bin Laden’s growing influence in the region.
Intelligence experts had told Riedel that the flight times of missiles fired by either side would be as little as three minutes and that “a Pakistani strike on just one Indian city, Bombay, would kill between 150,000 and 850,000 alone”.
He told Clinton not to reveal his intelligence hand in the opening talks with Sharif, in which the president handed the prime minister a cartoon that showed Pakistan and India firing nuclear missiles at one another. But in a second discussion, at which Riedel was the only other person present, “Clinton asked Sharif if he knew how advanced the threat of nuclear war really was. Did Sharif know his military was preparing their missiles?” he writes.
“The president reminded Sharif how close the US and Soviet Union had come to nuclear war in 1962 over Cuba. Did Sharif realise that if even one bomb was dropped . . . Sharif finished his sentence and said it would be a catastrophe.”
Riedel does not state in the paper how the Americans gathered their intelligence, nor what the mobilisation entailed. But John Pike, director of the Washington-based Global Security Organisation, said intelligence channels could have become aware of the trucks that carry Pakistan’s nuclear missiles being moved from their bases at Sargodha, near Rawalpindi.
“One scenario is that missile trucks were picked up parked in a convoy,” he said.
Pakistan’s uranium bombs are designed to be dropped by plane or carried by Ghauri missiles, while smaller plutonium warheads can be attached to Chinese-made M-11 missiles.
Clinton drove home the advantage that the intelligence coup had given him, Riedel recalls. “Did Sharif order the Pakistani nuclear missile force to prepare for action,” the prime minister was asked. “Did he realise how crazy that was?” Riedel describes how an “exhausted” Sharif “denied he had ordered the preparation and said he was against that, but worried for his life back in Pakistan”. Soon afterwards Sharif, who now lives in exile in Saudi Arabia, signed a document agreeing to pull back his forces.
If, as Riedel implies, Sharif was kept in the dark about his nuclear programme, he suffered a similar embarrassment to that of his predecessor, Benazir Bhutto, who is said to have asked the CIA for a briefing on Islamabad’s nuclear capability because that privilege was denied to her by her own generals.
A recent report by the CIA, Global Trends 2015, predicts that the threat of nuclear war will remain a serious regional issue for the next 15 years.
By next year Pakistan is thought likely to have between 50 and 75 nuclear warheads, while India will have between 75 to 100.
Riedel, a visiting member of the Royal College of Defence Studies in London, said that during the same meeting Clinton upbraided Sharif for his failure to rein in Bin Laden, who was known to be colluding with the Taliban with the connivance of the Pakistani intelligence service.
Pakistan made preparations for nuclear strike on India
Shyam Bhatia and Tom Walker
THE Pakistani army mobilised its nuclear arsenal against India in 1999 without the knowledge of its prime minister, a senior White House adviser at the time has disclosed.
As the Indian army pushed the Pakistani forces back across the so-called “line of control” dividing the disputed territory of Kashmir, Nawaz Sharif, the then Pakistani prime minister, asked for American intervention and flew to Washington.
In a paper to be published shortly by the University of Pennsylvania, Bruce Riedel, who was a senior adviser to Bill Clinton on India and Pakistan, recalls how the president was told that he faced the most important foreign policy meeting of his career. “There was disturbing information about Pakistan preparing its nuclear arsenal,” Riedel writes.
Riedel and other aides feared that India and Pakistan were heading for a “deadly descent into full-scale conflict, with a danger of nuclear cataclysm”. They were also concerned about Osama Bin Laden’s growing influence in the region.
Intelligence experts had told Riedel that the flight times of missiles fired by either side would be as little as three minutes and that “a Pakistani strike on just one Indian city, Bombay, would kill between 150,000 and 850,000 alone”.
He told Clinton not to reveal his intelligence hand in the opening talks with Sharif, in which the president handed the prime minister a cartoon that showed Pakistan and India firing nuclear missiles at one another. But in a second discussion, at which Riedel was the only other person present, “Clinton asked Sharif if he knew how advanced the threat of nuclear war really was. Did Sharif know his military was preparing their missiles?” he writes.
“The president reminded Sharif how close the US and Soviet Union had come to nuclear war in 1962 over Cuba. Did Sharif realise that if even one bomb was dropped . . . Sharif finished his sentence and said it would be a catastrophe.”
Riedel does not state in the paper how the Americans gathered their intelligence, nor what the mobilisation entailed. But John Pike, director of the Washington-based Global Security Organisation, said intelligence channels could have become aware of the trucks that carry Pakistan’s nuclear missiles being moved from their bases at Sargodha, near Rawalpindi.
“One scenario is that missile trucks were picked up parked in a convoy,” he said.
Pakistan’s uranium bombs are designed to be dropped by plane or carried by Ghauri missiles, while smaller plutonium warheads can be attached to Chinese-made M-11 missiles.
Clinton drove home the advantage that the intelligence coup had given him, Riedel recalls. “Did Sharif order the Pakistani nuclear missile force to prepare for action,” the prime minister was asked. “Did he realise how crazy that was?” Riedel describes how an “exhausted” Sharif “denied he had ordered the preparation and said he was against that, but worried for his life back in Pakistan”. Soon afterwards Sharif, who now lives in exile in Saudi Arabia, signed a document agreeing to pull back his forces.
If, as Riedel implies, Sharif was kept in the dark about his nuclear programme, he suffered a similar embarrassment to that of his predecessor, Benazir Bhutto, who is said to have asked the CIA for a briefing on Islamabad’s nuclear capability because that privilege was denied to her by her own generals.
A recent report by the CIA, Global Trends 2015, predicts that the threat of nuclear war will remain a serious regional issue for the next 15 years.
By next year Pakistan is thought likely to have between 50 and 75 nuclear warheads, while India will have between 75 to 100.
Riedel, a visiting member of the Royal College of Defence Studies in London, said that during the same meeting Clinton upbraided Sharif for his failure to rein in Bin Laden, who was known to be colluding with the Taliban with the connivance of the Pakistani intelligence service.
Re: Pak nukes activation during Kargil crisis - Discussion
"Pakistan’s uranium bombs are designed to be dropped by plane or carried by Ghauri missiles, while smaller plutonium warheads can be attached to Chinese-made M-11 missiles."
See how easily they slip in the damaging evidence in the news item. Khusab reactor went critical in October 1998 and the tests were in May 1998. Then how were plutonium based weapons tested for the M-11s? Or are they implying these are not tested? ANd were they from? Most experts(DC or Beltway bandits) talk only about the uranium based expertise that TSP built up over the years then where did these come from and are being acknowledged in a report with refs to high ex-officals of the US?
See how easily they slip in the damaging evidence in the news item. Khusab reactor went critical in October 1998 and the tests were in May 1998. Then how were plutonium based weapons tested for the M-11s? Or are they implying these are not tested? ANd were they from? Most experts(DC or Beltway bandits) talk only about the uranium based expertise that TSP built up over the years then where did these come from and are being acknowledged in a report with refs to high ex-officals of the US?
-
S Malwatkar
- BRFite -Trainee
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 27 Jul 2001 11:31
Re: Pak nukes activation during Kargil crisis - Discussion
Its a calculated leak to put pressure on India.
India threatens with strikes in PoK if infiltration does not stop, and US says look how close TSP was in nuking India. Just a pressure tactic.
We should disregard this report.
India threatens with strikes in PoK if infiltration does not stop, and US says look how close TSP was in nuking India. Just a pressure tactic.
We should disregard this report.
Re: Pak nukes activation during Kargil crisis - Discussion
I dont know about that. We already know that during Kargil India did activate its necessary deterrent. See teh BRF archive.
This 'leak' will not deter India from what it decides to do. Also Bruce Reidel is writing his memoirs and that is why the paper is coming out. BTW, India Abroad(May 4th issue had similar article by Shyam Bhatia)
The question is when and what was activated? Tipnis had concluded that air ops even in J&K would be considered escalatory and had activated all the air assets and that took the requiste time before the first strikes were flown. This was despite the IAF having just completed some annual exercises in early 1999. So did TSP activate around the first strikes or when they felt India might cross the IB in other areas or where they on first mode anyways in early May 1999 itself. If the Indians could tape the conversations of the Pak Army generals then they must have known about this item too.
All in all what this shows is that the October coup by Mushy was a mere formality as the Army always had control of the nukes. So they just removed the civilian facade.
If by any chance this is leak to pressure India it would serve to be reverse of its purpose. In no circumustance can any govt talk to such out of control rogues.
This 'leak' will not deter India from what it decides to do. Also Bruce Reidel is writing his memoirs and that is why the paper is coming out. BTW, India Abroad(May 4th issue had similar article by Shyam Bhatia)
The question is when and what was activated? Tipnis had concluded that air ops even in J&K would be considered escalatory and had activated all the air assets and that took the requiste time before the first strikes were flown. This was despite the IAF having just completed some annual exercises in early 1999. So did TSP activate around the first strikes or when they felt India might cross the IB in other areas or where they on first mode anyways in early May 1999 itself. If the Indians could tape the conversations of the Pak Army generals then they must have known about this item too.
All in all what this shows is that the October coup by Mushy was a mere formality as the Army always had control of the nukes. So they just removed the civilian facade.
If by any chance this is leak to pressure India it would serve to be reverse of its purpose. In no circumustance can any govt talk to such out of control rogues.
Re: Pak nukes activation during Kargil crisis - Discussion
ADV. SORRY FOR THE CAPSLOCK - MY KB PROBLEM.
THIS REPORT....IT IS NICE REPORT TO VINDICATE [PROOF OF VAJAPAYEES' TEAM INTELLIGENCE] - KUDOS FROM POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE. VICTORY AND GOOD SUBSTANTIATION FOR NEED OF INDIAN TESTS.. WE CAN NOW MAKE THINGS EVEN MORE CLEARER OUR THREATS, ON THE PAPERS.
BUT,
THIS REPORT....IT IS NICE REPORT TO VINDICATE [PROOF OF VAJAPAYEES' TEAM INTELLIGENCE] - KUDOS FROM POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE. VICTORY AND GOOD SUBSTANTIATION FOR NEED OF INDIAN TESTS.. WE CAN NOW MAKE THINGS EVEN MORE CLEARER OUR THREATS, ON THE PAPERS.
BUT,
SOUNDS LIKE MEDIA OR STRATEGIC SPINS..THIS REPORT SHOULD HAVE SAID, THOUGH INDIAN LOSS WOULD BE IN THAT RANGE, PAKI LOSSES WOULD BE ENTIRE "WIPE-OUT". IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS ONE-SIDED OR TO UNCLE, WE HAVE NOT YET PROVED OUR SECOND STRIKE CAPABILITIESthat the flight times of missiles fired by either side would be as little as three minutes and that “a Pakistani strike on just one Indian city, Bombay, would kill between 150,000 and 850,000 alone”.
-
Jash
Re: Pak nukes activation during Kargil crisis - Discussion
ramana, should we change title like "Pak Nuke during Kargil time", as current title "Pak Nuke in Kargil" sounds like Puki's have massed Nuke inside Kargil, for those westerners who are lurking here.Just my suggetion.
Re: Pak nukes activation during Kargil crisis - Discussion
GOTCHA! WHAO! LOOK AT THIS.. IN THE SAME WEB PAGE, WE HAVE ANOTHER REPORT THAT SAYS:
US to ask India to ease pressure on Pakistan
[SNIPS]
.....What’s cooking?
It’s the long-term, short-term outlook, that’s what.
..the nightmare scenario of a sub-continental nuclear war.
..aimed at persuading India to ease up the pressure on Pakistan
..Pakistani fighter planes armed with nuclear weapons ready to go[ARTICULATED WELL IN THE REPORT]
..situation in Pakistan spinning out of control..the upsurge in terrorist activity
..The US leverage has been further diluted because of an almost total withdrawal of its diplomatic corps from Pakistan in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks aimed at westerners.
..The danger in that reading though is that such an eventuality will further exposes the Musharraf regime to attack from the fundamentalist rabble
..Bush administration is asking India to stay its hand,..
[/SNIPS]
FROM THESE, IT LOOKS LIKE THE EARLIER REPORT OF NUKES IN KARGIL IS KIND OF A "FINNESE" MOVE UNCLE TRIED WITH US, SO THAT:
- WE WILL WITHDRAW OUR TROOPS FROM THE BORDERS
FOR THAT, THEY SAID:
- NO MORE TERRORISTS ARE CROSSING NOW...[EARLIER REPORT]
- MUSH IS DOING GREAT!..
- MUSH DOES THE TERRORISM ON FRENCH PEOPLE SO THAT IT MAKES IT TERRORIST ARE AGAINS MUSH AS WELL, NOT JUST ON INDIA.
- FAILURE REPORT ON MUSH TO CONTROL THESE TERRORISTS COMBINES WITH OTHER FACTS LIKE, EVEN USA CAN'T STOP BORDER CROSSINGS.. [LOAD OF SPINS].
- A LITTLE SOAP:
MUST BE:
- NO STATUS QUO ON BORDER FORCES
- FURTHER INTENSIFY ECONOMIC SANCTIONS
- HAND BACK THE 20 TERRORISTS
- CLOSE OUT THE TERRORIST CAMPS / ALLOW INDIA +/- USA TO RAID THEM.
- DISCUSS ABOUT DEMOCRACY RETURN TO PAKISTAN
- ACCEPT A NO-FIRST USE POLICY
US to ask India to ease pressure on Pakistan
[SNIPS]
.....What’s cooking?
It’s the long-term, short-term outlook, that’s what.
..the nightmare scenario of a sub-continental nuclear war.
..aimed at persuading India to ease up the pressure on Pakistan
..Pakistani fighter planes armed with nuclear weapons ready to go[ARTICULATED WELL IN THE REPORT]
..situation in Pakistan spinning out of control..the upsurge in terrorist activity
..The US leverage has been further diluted because of an almost total withdrawal of its diplomatic corps from Pakistan in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks aimed at westerners.
..The danger in that reading though is that such an eventuality will further exposes the Musharraf regime to attack from the fundamentalist rabble
..Bush administration is asking India to stay its hand,..
[/SNIPS]
FROM THESE, IT LOOKS LIKE THE EARLIER REPORT OF NUKES IN KARGIL IS KIND OF A "FINNESE" MOVE UNCLE TRIED WITH US, SO THAT:
- WE WILL WITHDRAW OUR TROOPS FROM THE BORDERS
FOR THAT, THEY SAID:
- NO MORE TERRORISTS ARE CROSSING NOW...[EARLIER REPORT]
- MUSH IS DOING GREAT!..
- MUSH DOES THE TERRORISM ON FRENCH PEOPLE SO THAT IT MAKES IT TERRORIST ARE AGAINS MUSH AS WELL, NOT JUST ON INDIA.
- FAILURE REPORT ON MUSH TO CONTROL THESE TERRORISTS COMBINES WITH OTHER FACTS LIKE, EVEN USA CAN'T STOP BORDER CROSSINGS.. [LOAD OF SPINS].
- A LITTLE SOAP:
============For a start, the administration has conveyed that it is strongly backing New Delhi’s efforts to conduct elections in Jammu and Kashmir and is counseling Pakistan not to sabotage India’s effort to bring about normalcy in the state.
MUST BE:
- NO STATUS QUO ON BORDER FORCES
- FURTHER INTENSIFY ECONOMIC SANCTIONS
- HAND BACK THE 20 TERRORISTS
- CLOSE OUT THE TERRORIST CAMPS / ALLOW INDIA +/- USA TO RAID THEM.
- DISCUSS ABOUT DEMOCRACY RETURN TO PAKISTAN
- ACCEPT A NO-FIRST USE POLICY
-
Raj Malhotra
- BRFite
- Posts: 997
- Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31
Re: Pak nukes activation during Kargil crisis - Discussion
Seems Its a leak to put pressure on India, rubbish bin along with Zinni comments.Originally posted by ramana:
"Pakistan’s uranium bombs are designed to be dropped by plane or carried by Ghauri missiles, while smaller plutonium warheads can be attached to Chinese-made M-11 missiles."
Re: Pak nukes activation during Kargil crisis - Discussion
"Pakistan’s uranium bombs are designed to be dropped by plane or carried by Ghauri missiles, while smaller plutonium warheads can be attached to Chinese-made M-11 missiles."
What is the difference in weight ?
You require 6 kg of Plutonium instead of 35 kg of Uranium.That is not a major difference.Are the triggering mechanisms different ie. the implosion that puts the nuclear material into critical stage.
I agree with the assessment that US might be putting up reports that PAk went nuclear alert during Kargil.Coming from Reidel a NSC officer it can easily put the political and babus into a paralysis.
If that happens then our leaders should be kicked especially the babus.The situation is similar to what we have been facing since 1988.
So we should have factored that type of scenario in our battle plans.
What I fear is the Chinese reaction to a PAkistan nuclear attack on a Indian forward formation.
Will they threaten us with nuclear attack if we blow up any major cities.It would be a paralysing moment for us.In reality I don't expect a Chinese move like that as India might balk but later on develop a Submarine attack capability by hook or crook.It would be a miscalculation of humoungous proportions by China.
I feel China refused to provide such a guarantee to Pakistan during Kargil that made Pakistan move out.The prima facie reason was that USA was supporting India and it would prompt the anti China lobby in USA to go hyper active.
Kargil is easily definable as an incursion that had strategic gains on the military front .The Indian infantry proved that a tenacious approach can dislodge an enemy having the heights.
India used air power in it's own territory and PAkistan could not support it's troops with air power.If PAF had been in action there would have been a larger war and India would have attacked in the Rajasthan Desert.In a war of more than 3 weeks India would have had the upper hand.
India made massive diplomatic pressure that led to a Pakistan withdrawal and loss of face.
Now with a war that is on the escalation ladder it is understandable that both countries would have their nuclear arsenals ready.
<B>I feel that it must have been India who must have given the nuclear alert scenario to USA[/b]
IT led to more US pressure on Pakistan , also Pak must have been scared of the proportions that the war was taking with Pakistan isolated.
India wanted a Pakistan withdrawal as it would have been the face saver for the Government caught napping.A total Indian clearance was not as impressive as a Pakistan withdrawal.An enemy withdrawing after a beating is better than an enemy pushed out .It made Pakistan unstable with Sharif and Musharraf going at each other's throats and Musharraf surviving.The military coup made Pakistan a bigger pariah in the world till we invited Musharraf to Agra.
So India must have raised the nuclear bogey privatey with US .
So the nuclear preparation was both a strategic requirement as well as a diplomatic trump card.
Pakistan must have put it's missiles on alert .And Pakistan must have had the Ghauri , they would have not started Kargil unless they could threaten Delhi and Mumbai.
I feel that China finally pulled of Pakistan threatening to pull out of the nuclear and missiles program.
Even now I feel that India is threatening with a larger war to put pressure on US to act in Pakistan .An offshoot of this theory could be that India is not all that ready to go to war.
But we can surprise Pakistan and US by staging couple of incursions along the IB.
All the missile alerts during Kargil must have led to US looking at Pakistan nuclear capability as a possible threat to US.Pakistan was supporting Muslim fanatics and terrorists who were on the same wavelength as Osama Bin Laden.
The net result of all Indian flexing of nuclear muscle privately and through missile tests is to put pressure on US to hatch plans to disarm Pakistan.
What is the difference in weight ?
You require 6 kg of Plutonium instead of 35 kg of Uranium.That is not a major difference.Are the triggering mechanisms different ie. the implosion that puts the nuclear material into critical stage.
I agree with the assessment that US might be putting up reports that PAk went nuclear alert during Kargil.Coming from Reidel a NSC officer it can easily put the political and babus into a paralysis.
If that happens then our leaders should be kicked especially the babus.The situation is similar to what we have been facing since 1988.
So we should have factored that type of scenario in our battle plans.
What I fear is the Chinese reaction to a PAkistan nuclear attack on a Indian forward formation.
Will they threaten us with nuclear attack if we blow up any major cities.It would be a paralysing moment for us.In reality I don't expect a Chinese move like that as India might balk but later on develop a Submarine attack capability by hook or crook.It would be a miscalculation of humoungous proportions by China.
I feel China refused to provide such a guarantee to Pakistan during Kargil that made Pakistan move out.The prima facie reason was that USA was supporting India and it would prompt the anti China lobby in USA to go hyper active.
Kargil is easily definable as an incursion that had strategic gains on the military front .The Indian infantry proved that a tenacious approach can dislodge an enemy having the heights.
India used air power in it's own territory and PAkistan could not support it's troops with air power.If PAF had been in action there would have been a larger war and India would have attacked in the Rajasthan Desert.In a war of more than 3 weeks India would have had the upper hand.
India made massive diplomatic pressure that led to a Pakistan withdrawal and loss of face.
Now with a war that is on the escalation ladder it is understandable that both countries would have their nuclear arsenals ready.
<B>I feel that it must have been India who must have given the nuclear alert scenario to USA[/b]
IT led to more US pressure on Pakistan , also Pak must have been scared of the proportions that the war was taking with Pakistan isolated.
India wanted a Pakistan withdrawal as it would have been the face saver for the Government caught napping.A total Indian clearance was not as impressive as a Pakistan withdrawal.An enemy withdrawing after a beating is better than an enemy pushed out .It made Pakistan unstable with Sharif and Musharraf going at each other's throats and Musharraf surviving.The military coup made Pakistan a bigger pariah in the world till we invited Musharraf to Agra.
So India must have raised the nuclear bogey privatey with US .
So the nuclear preparation was both a strategic requirement as well as a diplomatic trump card.
Pakistan must have put it's missiles on alert .And Pakistan must have had the Ghauri , they would have not started Kargil unless they could threaten Delhi and Mumbai.
I feel that China finally pulled of Pakistan threatening to pull out of the nuclear and missiles program.
Even now I feel that India is threatening with a larger war to put pressure on US to act in Pakistan .An offshoot of this theory could be that India is not all that ready to go to war.
But we can surprise Pakistan and US by staging couple of incursions along the IB.
All the missile alerts during Kargil must have led to US looking at Pakistan nuclear capability as a possible threat to US.Pakistan was supporting Muslim fanatics and terrorists who were on the same wavelength as Osama Bin Laden.
The net result of all Indian flexing of nuclear muscle privately and through missile tests is to put pressure on US to hatch plans to disarm Pakistan.
Re: Pak nukes activation during Kargil crisis - Discussion
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/article/0,,178-293770,00.html
Pakistan made preparations for nuclear strike on India
Shyam Bhatia and Tom Walker
THE Pakistani army mobilised its nuclear arsenal against India in 1999 without the knowledge of its prime minister, a senior White House adviser at the time has disclosed.
As the Indian army pushed the Pakistani forces back across the so-called “line of control” dividing the disputed territory of Kashmir, Nawaz Sharif, the then Pakistani prime minister, asked for American intervention and flew to Washington.
In a paper to be published shortly by the University of Pennsylvania, Bruce Riedel, who was a senior adviser to Bill Clinton on India and Pakistan, recalls how the president was told that he faced the most important foreign policy meeting of his career. “There was disturbing information about Pakistan preparing its nuclear arsenal,” Riedel writes.
Riedel and other aides feared that India and Pakistan were heading for a “deadly descent into full-scale conflict, with a danger of nuclear cataclysm”. They were also concerned about Osama Bin Laden’s growing influence in the region.
Intelligence experts had told Riedel that the flight times of missiles fired by either side would be as little as three minutes and that “a Pakistani strike on just one Indian city, Bombay, would kill between 150,000 and 850,000 alone”.
He told Clinton not to reveal his intelligence hand in the opening talks with Sharif, in which the president handed the prime minister a cartoon that showed Pakistan and India firing nuclear missiles at one another. But in a second discussion, at which Riedel was the only other person present, “Clinton asked Sharif if he knew how advanced the threat of nuclear war really was. Did Sharif know his military was preparing their missiles?” he writes.
“The president reminded Sharif how close the US and Soviet Union had come to nuclear war in 1962 over Cuba. Did Sharif realise that if even one bomb was dropped . . . Sharif finished his sentence and said it would be a catastrophe.”
Riedel does not state in the paper how the Americans gathered their intelligence, nor what the mobilisation entailed. But John Pike, director of the Washington-based Global Security Organisation, said intelligence channels could have become aware of the trucks that carry Pakistan’s nuclear missiles being moved from their bases at Sargodha, near Rawalpindi.
“One scenario is that missile trucks were picked up parked in a convoy,” he said.
Pakistan’s uranium bombs are designed to be dropped by plane or carried by Ghauri missiles, while smaller plutonium warheads can be attached to Chinese-made M-11 missiles.
Clinton drove home the advantage that the intelligence coup had given him, Riedel recalls. “Did Sharif order the Pakistani nuclear missile force to prepare for action,” the prime minister was asked. “Did he realise how crazy that was?” Riedel describes how an “exhausted” Sharif “denied he had ordered the preparation and said he was against that, but worried for his life back in Pakistan”. Soon afterwards Sharif, who now lives in exile in Saudi Arabia, signed a document agreeing to pull back his forces.
If, as Riedel implies, Sharif was kept in the dark about his nuclear programme, he suffered a similar embarrassment to that of his predecessor, Benazir Bhutto, who is said to have asked the CIA for a briefing on Islamabad’s nuclear capability because that privilege was denied to her by her own generals.
A recent report by the CIA, Global Trends 2015, predicts that the threat of nuclear war will remain a serious regional issue for the next 15 years.
By next year Pakistan is thought likely to have between 50 and 75 nuclear warheads, while India will have between 75 to 100.
Riedel, a visiting member of the Royal College of Defence Studies in London, said that during the same meeting Clinton upbraided Sharif for his failure to rein in Bin Laden, who was known to be colluding with the Taliban with the connivance of the Pakistani intelligence service.
Pakistan made preparations for nuclear strike on India
Shyam Bhatia and Tom Walker
THE Pakistani army mobilised its nuclear arsenal against India in 1999 without the knowledge of its prime minister, a senior White House adviser at the time has disclosed.
As the Indian army pushed the Pakistani forces back across the so-called “line of control” dividing the disputed territory of Kashmir, Nawaz Sharif, the then Pakistani prime minister, asked for American intervention and flew to Washington.
In a paper to be published shortly by the University of Pennsylvania, Bruce Riedel, who was a senior adviser to Bill Clinton on India and Pakistan, recalls how the president was told that he faced the most important foreign policy meeting of his career. “There was disturbing information about Pakistan preparing its nuclear arsenal,” Riedel writes.
Riedel and other aides feared that India and Pakistan were heading for a “deadly descent into full-scale conflict, with a danger of nuclear cataclysm”. They were also concerned about Osama Bin Laden’s growing influence in the region.
Intelligence experts had told Riedel that the flight times of missiles fired by either side would be as little as three minutes and that “a Pakistani strike on just one Indian city, Bombay, would kill between 150,000 and 850,000 alone”.
He told Clinton not to reveal his intelligence hand in the opening talks with Sharif, in which the president handed the prime minister a cartoon that showed Pakistan and India firing nuclear missiles at one another. But in a second discussion, at which Riedel was the only other person present, “Clinton asked Sharif if he knew how advanced the threat of nuclear war really was. Did Sharif know his military was preparing their missiles?” he writes.
“The president reminded Sharif how close the US and Soviet Union had come to nuclear war in 1962 over Cuba. Did Sharif realise that if even one bomb was dropped . . . Sharif finished his sentence and said it would be a catastrophe.”
Riedel does not state in the paper how the Americans gathered their intelligence, nor what the mobilisation entailed. But John Pike, director of the Washington-based Global Security Organisation, said intelligence channels could have become aware of the trucks that carry Pakistan’s nuclear missiles being moved from their bases at Sargodha, near Rawalpindi.
“One scenario is that missile trucks were picked up parked in a convoy,” he said.
Pakistan’s uranium bombs are designed to be dropped by plane or carried by Ghauri missiles, while smaller plutonium warheads can be attached to Chinese-made M-11 missiles.
Clinton drove home the advantage that the intelligence coup had given him, Riedel recalls. “Did Sharif order the Pakistani nuclear missile force to prepare for action,” the prime minister was asked. “Did he realise how crazy that was?” Riedel describes how an “exhausted” Sharif “denied he had ordered the preparation and said he was against that, but worried for his life back in Pakistan”. Soon afterwards Sharif, who now lives in exile in Saudi Arabia, signed a document agreeing to pull back his forces.
If, as Riedel implies, Sharif was kept in the dark about his nuclear programme, he suffered a similar embarrassment to that of his predecessor, Benazir Bhutto, who is said to have asked the CIA for a briefing on Islamabad’s nuclear capability because that privilege was denied to her by her own generals.
A recent report by the CIA, Global Trends 2015, predicts that the threat of nuclear war will remain a serious regional issue for the next 15 years.
By next year Pakistan is thought likely to have between 50 and 75 nuclear warheads, while India will have between 75 to 100.
Riedel, a visiting member of the Royal College of Defence Studies in London, said that during the same meeting Clinton upbraided Sharif for his failure to rein in Bin Laden, who was known to be colluding with the Taliban with the connivance of the Pakistani intelligence service.
Re: Pak nukes activation during Kargil crisis - Discussion
Pakistan's Nukes? Who Controls them?
narayana
Member
Member # 4203
posted 12 May 2002 08:06 PM [Profile for narayana] [Edit/Delete Post] [Reply With Quote] "The question to be pondered about by the GHQ is that a scenario post-Operation Gebralter may once again be evolving, despite our deterrence now closely watched by the US who even knew in which streets and houses of Faisalabad and Lahore had 50 al-Qaeda activists taken refuge. If the Israelis can have US backing in aggressively killing the Palestinians on the pretext of its "legitimate security concerns" while defying the UN Security Council, why won't New Delhi be tempted, even though the analogy may be preposterous that even Raja Mohan of The Hindu considers "propitious" in the given international conditions."
Here is an interesting quote from Imitiaz Alam of Jang. Intelligent people read this bit of news as follows.
Imitiaz Alam is actually suggesting that Pakistani deterrence is under the physical supervision of the American forces. The indirect hint that Imitiaz Alam gives is that the streets and the house addresses of the Al Queda gangs who were captured was known to the US forces. Combining the unconnected two in one semantic sweep leads us to connect the meaning in the two. Knowing that most of Pakistani journos and columnists are well connected to ISI (to the point of being their agents), the word from Imitiaz Alam is interesting.
narayana
Member
Member # 4203
posted 12 May 2002 08:06 PM [Profile for narayana] [Edit/Delete Post] [Reply With Quote] "The question to be pondered about by the GHQ is that a scenario post-Operation Gebralter may once again be evolving, despite our deterrence now closely watched by the US who even knew in which streets and houses of Faisalabad and Lahore had 50 al-Qaeda activists taken refuge. If the Israelis can have US backing in aggressively killing the Palestinians on the pretext of its "legitimate security concerns" while defying the UN Security Council, why won't New Delhi be tempted, even though the analogy may be preposterous that even Raja Mohan of The Hindu considers "propitious" in the given international conditions."
Here is an interesting quote from Imitiaz Alam of Jang. Intelligent people read this bit of news as follows.
Imitiaz Alam is actually suggesting that Pakistani deterrence is under the physical supervision of the American forces. The indirect hint that Imitiaz Alam gives is that the streets and the house addresses of the Al Queda gangs who were captured was known to the US forces. Combining the unconnected two in one semantic sweep leads us to connect the meaning in the two. Knowing that most of Pakistani journos and columnists are well connected to ISI (to the point of being their agents), the word from Imitiaz Alam is interesting.
Re: Pak nukes activation during Kargil crisis - Discussion
most of you folks are missing what ramana garu is trying to put accross.
Pu devices are Chinese made ready to go nukes.
(Also the CIA initial released a report saying that it detected Pu over Chagai, the it withdrew that report, and the new scientist (of UK) came up with the absurd theory that PU from Pokhran vented and drifted into chagai!!).
implies that
China viloated all intl laws with uncle winking.
Pakis have failed with their U-235 devices.
Uncle is solely responsible for the S Asian proliferation, just like the present Al Qaeda seeds were sown in the WH of Regan when every tom **** and Harry from all Islamic nations were forged to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.
Now this tamasha of trying to put pressure on India.
We missed a golden opportunity in Kargil. Alas ABV and his co could have made history but then
"It is not because things are difficult we don't dare, It is because we don't dare that they are difficult" Seneca
Pu devices are Chinese made ready to go nukes.
(Also the CIA initial released a report saying that it detected Pu over Chagai, the it withdrew that report, and the new scientist (of UK) came up with the absurd theory that PU from Pokhran vented and drifted into chagai!!).
implies that
China viloated all intl laws with uncle winking.
Pakis have failed with their U-235 devices.
Uncle is solely responsible for the S Asian proliferation, just like the present Al Qaeda seeds were sown in the WH of Regan when every tom **** and Harry from all Islamic nations were forged to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.
Now this tamasha of trying to put pressure on India.
We missed a golden opportunity in Kargil. Alas ABV and his co could have made history but then
"It is not because things are difficult we don't dare, It is because we don't dare that they are difficult" Seneca
Re: Pak nukes activation during Kargil crisis - Discussion
As to who controls Pakistan’s Nuke’s is a million dolor question. As all of us know throughout its history Pakistan has been ruled/controlled by the AAA (Army, America, and Allah) troika. It is hard for me to believe that some how, America knows the location of all the Pakistani Nuke’s. I am sure America is keeping a watch on the Nuke’s to make sure they will not fall into the hands of people who might use them against the West or their allies.Originally posted by shiv:
Pakistan's Nukes? Who Controls them?
Here is an interesting quote from Imitiaz Alam of Jang. Intelligent people read this bit of news as follows.
Imitiaz Alam is actually suggesting that Pakistani deterrence is under the physical supervision of the American forces. The indirect hint that Imitiaz Alam gives is that the streets and the house addresses of the Al Queda gangs who were captured was known to the US forces. Combining the unconnected two in one semantic sweep leads us to connect the meaning in the two. Knowing that most of Pakistani journos and columnists are well connected to ISI (to the point of being their agents), the word from Imitiaz Alam is interesting.
However it is hard for any houseguest, regardless of their wealth, strength, and persuasive power to take total control of a house (in this case Pakistan) they are visiting. If Pakistan is willing to allow US troops to stay on Pakistani soil, crackdown on anti west fundamentalists, and hunt down the unwanted guests form Afghanistan, it has to get some thing in return.
In my view the return favor is US will not put lot of pressure on Pakistan vis-à-vis India. Just like the Indians blindsiding US with the 1998 nuclear tests, Pakistan also has the capacity to hoodwink US and conceal some of their nuclear weapons. Do not put to munch hope or faith on press reports from Pakistan, regarding their nuclear weapons. In a country where the elected PM’s don’t know as to what the Army is doing with the Nuke’s, the Pakistani press at the best can guess regarding their Nuke’s, with a big risk to their personal well being.
Re: Pak nukes activation during Kargil crisis - Discussion
http://www.pugwash.org/september11/pakistan-nuclear.htm
5. Pakistani Nuclear Strategy
"Nuclear weapons are aimed solely at India. In case that deterrence fails, they will be used if
(a) India attacks Pakistan and conquers a large part of its territory (space threshold)
(b)India destroys a large part either of its land or air forces (military threshold)
(c)India proceeds to the economic strangling of Pakistan (economic strangling)9
(d)India pushes Pakistan into political destabilization or creates a large scale internal subversion in Pakistan (domestic destabilization)10"
We in turn asked Gen. Kidwai if he did not think that the above conditions for the use of nuclear weapons were at the same time too broad and too vaguely defined and how he considered the risk of inadvertent nuclear conflict in the subcontinent. The answer has been that there will be no risk of nuclear conflict assuming "rational decision making" by the interested parties. The example of the cold war, when no nuclear conflict was initiated, has been quoted few times to support the idea that India - and Pakistan - will stay clear of the nuclear threshold and restrain from an aggressive behavior that could trigger a nuclear reaction. Asked if Pakistan has prepared something like a ladder of nuclear escalation, Gen. Kidwai answered that of course there were options available in the nuclear response, but he re-emphasized few times that nuclear war will not happen since India and, for that matter, Pakistan will avoid getting close to the nuclear threshold. Also there has been no discussion about the possible consequences of Pakistan nuclear attack on India, namely on the effects of Indian nuclear retaliation. This possibility has been discarded again on the basis of the fact that rational decision making will keep both countries away from the nuclear brink. Anyway, Pakistan does not intend to develop (and make public) for the time being, a "nuclear doctrine" in a fashion analog to the nuclear doctrine defined by India.
Let us add now a brief comment of ours: it seems that the combination of the diversity and broadness of the motivations that may justify the use of nuclear weapons, on one side, and the use of the nuclear threat to enforce a rational decision making, i.e. a not too aggressive behavior, on the other side, is suggesting a vision of the type local doomsday machine for Pakistani nuclear weapons, that is far from reassuring. It is also clear that nuclear weapons are perceived in Pakistan as an instrument to countervail a manifest conventional inferiority11 vis a vis the Indian military force. Presumably Pakistan feels or will feel compelled to enlarge and diversify its nuclear arsenal so to increase the nuclear options12 and make the threat of nuclear retaliation more credible. If this diversification will move Pakistan away from a doomsday machine vision, it will also increase the likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons in a situation of crisis. Thus the Indian subcontinent may follow on a reduced scale (but not necessarily on a reduced risk) the pattern of the US-USSR nuclear race during the cold war. The alternatives may come from dialogue and the development of arms control negotiations directly between India and Pakistan on one side and from some kind of international constraint and pressure on the two nuclear programs in the subcontinent, on the other side.
In the IPRI meeting it has been pointed out that public discussion on nuclear strategy and, more generally, on all things pertaining to nuclear weapons, is scarce. The motivation for this has been directly ascribed to the existence of a military regime. The perception has been also expressed that the military regime is also responsible for the strict control over nuclear assets and nuclear scientists and for the fact that there has been no loss of either material or scientists.
5. Pakistani Nuclear Strategy
"Nuclear weapons are aimed solely at India. In case that deterrence fails, they will be used if
(a) India attacks Pakistan and conquers a large part of its territory (space threshold)
(b)India destroys a large part either of its land or air forces (military threshold)
(c)India proceeds to the economic strangling of Pakistan (economic strangling)9
(d)India pushes Pakistan into political destabilization or creates a large scale internal subversion in Pakistan (domestic destabilization)10"
We in turn asked Gen. Kidwai if he did not think that the above conditions for the use of nuclear weapons were at the same time too broad and too vaguely defined and how he considered the risk of inadvertent nuclear conflict in the subcontinent. The answer has been that there will be no risk of nuclear conflict assuming "rational decision making" by the interested parties. The example of the cold war, when no nuclear conflict was initiated, has been quoted few times to support the idea that India - and Pakistan - will stay clear of the nuclear threshold and restrain from an aggressive behavior that could trigger a nuclear reaction. Asked if Pakistan has prepared something like a ladder of nuclear escalation, Gen. Kidwai answered that of course there were options available in the nuclear response, but he re-emphasized few times that nuclear war will not happen since India and, for that matter, Pakistan will avoid getting close to the nuclear threshold. Also there has been no discussion about the possible consequences of Pakistan nuclear attack on India, namely on the effects of Indian nuclear retaliation. This possibility has been discarded again on the basis of the fact that rational decision making will keep both countries away from the nuclear brink. Anyway, Pakistan does not intend to develop (and make public) for the time being, a "nuclear doctrine" in a fashion analog to the nuclear doctrine defined by India.
Let us add now a brief comment of ours: it seems that the combination of the diversity and broadness of the motivations that may justify the use of nuclear weapons, on one side, and the use of the nuclear threat to enforce a rational decision making, i.e. a not too aggressive behavior, on the other side, is suggesting a vision of the type local doomsday machine for Pakistani nuclear weapons, that is far from reassuring. It is also clear that nuclear weapons are perceived in Pakistan as an instrument to countervail a manifest conventional inferiority11 vis a vis the Indian military force. Presumably Pakistan feels or will feel compelled to enlarge and diversify its nuclear arsenal so to increase the nuclear options12 and make the threat of nuclear retaliation more credible. If this diversification will move Pakistan away from a doomsday machine vision, it will also increase the likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons in a situation of crisis. Thus the Indian subcontinent may follow on a reduced scale (but not necessarily on a reduced risk) the pattern of the US-USSR nuclear race during the cold war. The alternatives may come from dialogue and the development of arms control negotiations directly between India and Pakistan on one side and from some kind of international constraint and pressure on the two nuclear programs in the subcontinent, on the other side.
In the IPRI meeting it has been pointed out that public discussion on nuclear strategy and, more generally, on all things pertaining to nuclear weapons, is scarce. The motivation for this has been directly ascribed to the existence of a military regime. The perception has been also expressed that the military regime is also responsible for the strict control over nuclear assets and nuclear scientists and for the fact that there has been no loss of either material or scientists.
Re: Pak nukes activation during Kargil crisis - Discussion
http://www.pugwash.org/september11/pakistan-nuclear.htm
Gen Aslam Beg in the FRIENDS meeting made some reference to keeping (in the future) the total number of devices bewteen 75 and 90 just to readdress the conventional balance vis a vis India that possesses an army three times as big as Pakistan, an air-force five times as big as Pakistan and a navy six times as big as Pakistan. The bombs have been declared by Gen. Musharraf to be in a "disassembled state", meaning probably that the fission core is kept separately from the non nuclear (ignition) components.
Gen Aslam Beg in the FRIENDS meeting made some reference to keeping (in the future) the total number of devices bewteen 75 and 90 just to readdress the conventional balance vis a vis India that possesses an army three times as big as Pakistan, an air-force five times as big as Pakistan and a navy six times as big as Pakistan. The bombs have been declared by Gen. Musharraf to be in a "disassembled state", meaning probably that the fission core is kept separately from the non nuclear (ignition) components.
Re: Pak nukes activation during Kargil crisis - Discussion
Well it is open knowledge (relesed by the GOI) that India had readied "3 Prithvis and 1 Agni" duringthe Kargil war. Have we forgotten? Surely their planned paylod could not have been flowers. If India readied its strategic forces, why not Pakistan?
Are we to believe that from 1999 to 2002 we sat around laboring under he impression that "India used its air power. India used its navy. India readied it missiles. Pakistan did nothing" I think it would seem logical that Pakistan got something ready.
I would agree with the general question reflected in some posts that asks about this report "Why now?"
To apply pressure on India?
eh?!!? What sort of pressure? Why should this non-news apply any kind of pressure on those who matter in India?
Could it be to apply pressure on Pakistan? "eh?" again
It could be to "smear" Pakistan as an unstable state in which control of nukes is not clear. Their much publicised "C&C" may belong to the same book of fiction as "1 Paki=10 Indian soldiers" or "In Jaipur for breakfast, in Delhi for lunch". Note the gradual change in the publicly mentioned ratios of Paki nukes vs Indian nukes. The whole report may be designed to rais public awareness and increase panic about Paki nukes. I am comfortable with such an intention.
But OTOH - the report could also be used to bolster Musharraf's support internally. Nawaz Sharif the weak beggar. Mushy the strong man, who readied his nukes and scared wannabe superpower India.
Let us look at the public domain statements available to us (typed from memory)
</font>
Apart from speculation - that is all the information available in teh public domain. If we are to reach "conclusions" - we have to reach conclusions only from the points that are known in the public domain. In the absence of any other information, everything else is pure speculation.
However, many of the poins above contradict each other. The "secure" C&C assertion versus the ignorance of Sharif. The 100 to 200% increase in nuke numbers over just 3-4 years.
Are Paki nukes under the control of the US?
We would love to believe this wouldn't we? A comforting thought. We (India) can rest easy. The omnipotent US has all undewr control. I would rubbish this theoy outright. Noproof. No no proof.
Pakistan has no nukes?
I don't believe this. No proof. Even if they have never built one, they have received nukes from elsewhere. Mathematically valid calculations (after removal of usual errors) in the BRM nuke paper show that whatever the yield of Indian nukes, Paki nuke tests were at least half that in yield This is clear and demonstrable.
So if Pokhran 2 was 45 kt, Chagai was at least 22 kt
Secure Command and Control?
Doubt it. Too many uncertainties. A statement that Paksiatn has a perfectly safe C&C mechanism in place is again a kind of psychologically pacifying thought that we (or the US) can be comfortable with. "Hey OK, The nukes are safe under the leader. If the leader is reasonable - no nuke use will occur" Too many uncertainties here. I would dismiss the "secure C&C" as another piece of well timed and well inserted RAPE/Army fiction designed (as usual) to show Pakistan as something that it is not. Designed to show Pakistan as a controlled, stable, almost democratic, progressive, if poor state continuously under threat - initially from india and the USSR and now from India and terrorism.
This is the myth that we need to steadily break down - based on available facts, rather than hiding behind unverifiable fiction.
People who insist that Pakistan has no nukes (even if that is true) are doing Pakistan a great favour by publicly reducing its "risk value". If it is true, keep it private, and smear the buggers as the risk to humanity they are. People who imagine or state that Pakistan has a good C&C again are doing Pakistan a great favor. It is our job to smear Pakistan "to the hilt" and base it on publicly available facts rather than comforting pieces of fiction.
Are we to believe that from 1999 to 2002 we sat around laboring under he impression that "India used its air power. India used its navy. India readied it missiles. Pakistan did nothing" I think it would seem logical that Pakistan got something ready.
I would agree with the general question reflected in some posts that asks about this report "Why now?"
To apply pressure on India?
eh?!!? What sort of pressure? Why should this non-news apply any kind of pressure on those who matter in India?
Could it be to apply pressure on Pakistan? "eh?" again
It could be to "smear" Pakistan as an unstable state in which control of nukes is not clear. Their much publicised "C&C" may belong to the same book of fiction as "1 Paki=10 Indian soldiers" or "In Jaipur for breakfast, in Delhi for lunch". Note the gradual change in the publicly mentioned ratios of Paki nukes vs Indian nukes. The whole report may be designed to rais public awareness and increase panic about Paki nukes. I am comfortable with such an intention.
But OTOH - the report could also be used to bolster Musharraf's support internally. Nawaz Sharif the weak beggar. Mushy the strong man, who readied his nukes and scared wannabe superpower India.
Let us look at the public domain statements available to us (typed from memory)
</font>
- <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Benazir did not know about Pakistan's nuclear program</font></li>
- <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Nawaz Sharif was not fully informed about the Kargil intrusion and the "readying of nukes"</font></li>
- <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The Pakistani army initiated and knew about Kargil</font></li>
- <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Pakistan "by next year- 2003" will have 50-75 warheads</font></li>
- <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Until 2000-2001 - Pakistan had about 25 nuclear weapons.</font></li>
- <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Civilian "administrations" in Pakistan have little control over nuclear weapons</font></li>
- <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The Pakistani military probably controls Pakistani nuclear weapons</font></li>
- <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The Pakistani military has hardline factions, some of who support Islamic fundamentalism</font></li>
- <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Pakistan has a ready and working C&C system</font></li>
- <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Pakistan has nuclearized missiles
</font></li>
Apart from speculation - that is all the information available in teh public domain. If we are to reach "conclusions" - we have to reach conclusions only from the points that are known in the public domain. In the absence of any other information, everything else is pure speculation.
However, many of the poins above contradict each other. The "secure" C&C assertion versus the ignorance of Sharif. The 100 to 200% increase in nuke numbers over just 3-4 years.
Are Paki nukes under the control of the US?
We would love to believe this wouldn't we? A comforting thought. We (India) can rest easy. The omnipotent US has all undewr control. I would rubbish this theoy outright. Noproof. No no proof.
Pakistan has no nukes?
I don't believe this. No proof. Even if they have never built one, they have received nukes from elsewhere. Mathematically valid calculations (after removal of usual errors) in the BRM nuke paper show that whatever the yield of Indian nukes, Paki nuke tests were at least half that in yield This is clear and demonstrable.
So if Pokhran 2 was 45 kt, Chagai was at least 22 kt
Secure Command and Control?
Doubt it. Too many uncertainties. A statement that Paksiatn has a perfectly safe C&C mechanism in place is again a kind of psychologically pacifying thought that we (or the US) can be comfortable with. "Hey OK, The nukes are safe under the leader. If the leader is reasonable - no nuke use will occur" Too many uncertainties here. I would dismiss the "secure C&C" as another piece of well timed and well inserted RAPE/Army fiction designed (as usual) to show Pakistan as something that it is not. Designed to show Pakistan as a controlled, stable, almost democratic, progressive, if poor state continuously under threat - initially from india and the USSR and now from India and terrorism.
This is the myth that we need to steadily break down - based on available facts, rather than hiding behind unverifiable fiction.
People who insist that Pakistan has no nukes (even if that is true) are doing Pakistan a great favour by publicly reducing its "risk value". If it is true, keep it private, and smear the buggers as the risk to humanity they are. People who imagine or state that Pakistan has a good C&C again are doing Pakistan a great favor. It is our job to smear Pakistan "to the hilt" and base it on publicly available facts rather than comforting pieces of fiction.
Re: Pak nukes activation during Kargil crisis - Discussion
Looks like Kapil Vij's successor has started feeling his oats. Remember how Powell rushed to New Delhi after Gen Vij's Sunday school picnic to the Indira Canal?
Re: Pak nukes activation during Kargil crisis - Discussion
I think the Chinese have controll (at least partial) over TSP nukes for
1) They (chinese) have dispersed their own arsenel. (Like saddam sending his A/c to Iran during 1991)
2) They feel that TS Paki is the first front in keeping India quiet.
3) The frequent visits to China every time heat is turned on Pakistan by India.
The Pakis have Nukes no doubt about it but I feel they are all chinese made painted in TSP.
The americans would love to have controll but must have settled for quid pro quid after the 9-11. We will not touch your jewels as long as you keep showing every so often that you have with you in control and all accounted for.
1) They (chinese) have dispersed their own arsenel. (Like saddam sending his A/c to Iran during 1991)
2) They feel that TS Paki is the first front in keeping India quiet.
3) The frequent visits to China every time heat is turned on Pakistan by India.
The Pakis have Nukes no doubt about it but I feel they are all chinese made painted in TSP.
The americans would love to have controll but must have settled for quid pro quid after the 9-11. We will not touch your jewels as long as you keep showing every so often that you have with you in control and all accounted for.
Re: Pak nukes activation during Kargil crisis - Discussion
In simpler term what Ramana & Umrao John are telling is:Umrao John: most of you folks are missing what ramana garu is trying to put accross.
Pu devices are Chinese made ready to go nukes.
(Also the CIA initial released a report saying that it detected Pu over Chagai, the it withdrew that report, and the new scientist (of UK) came up with the absurd theory that PU from Pokhran vented and drifted into chagai!!).
implies that
China viloated all intl laws with uncle winking.
Pakis have failed with their U-235 devices.
Uncle is solely responsible for the S Asian proliferation, just like the present Al Qaeda seeds were sown in the WH of Regan when every tom **** and Harry from all Islamic nations were forged to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.
Now this tamasha of trying to put pressure on India.
1. China transferred not only Uranium based weapon design but also Plutonium based nuke design to Pakistan. Most blatent Proliferation by any nuclear power country.
2. Since Packees did not have any Plutonium generating capability at Kargil time, the Chinese also gave them Plutonium (material) to field lighter nukes on Chinese-M11 missile that it proliferated to Pakistan 7 years prior.
3. Given Pakistanis lack of Plutonium handling abelity (their Plutonium genarating Reactor was yet to go online, and it would be at least 6 to 18 months before they could start seperating the spent fuel to get Plutonium), the Chinese ALSO gave Pakistanis, either handful quantities of READY MADE Plutonium based nuke weapons OR readymade Plutonium cores for Pakistanis to assemble per Chinese blueprint of Pu based nuke.
This is BLATENET proliferation of the WORST KIND show totelly irresponsible behaviour of an other wise Nuclear state.
All the 3 above are grave hostile provocation by China against India, that demands India to pay tit for tat by arming Taiwan & Viatnam with Indian nuclaer ubrella (Indian Military base with nuclear weapon systems).
So shove it up those who made noises when George Fernandes said that China was the Number 1 security threat to India.
Re: Pak nukes activation during Kargil crisis - Discussion
Todays San Jose Mercury News carried this quarter page article.
This and the Kargil Nuke story appears orchestrated to show that US is having problem forcing Packees to the tow the line. Looks like TSP is forgetting that that only 6 months ago US had put gun on Packee Govt. head holdling them responsible for creating Taliban and attack on New York)e US reprive to an otherwise. The new US ambassodor need to remind and make clear the terms of US reprive.
Asking India to stand-down while Packees sending terrorists unabated into Kashmir, so that Musharraf can help US hunt down Al-Quaida in Pakistani-waziristan is just a lame excuse for available Packee troops not doing its job in Wazirstan. The problem is the lack of Pakistani WILL to be on the side of Anti-terrorist coelition, not the lack of troops on the western border.
Pakistan must realize that failing to acceed to cooperate with US in destroying Talibans hiding in Pakistan, the US can very well turn screws of the vice, with Indian forces ready on the Eastern front and US forces in Afganistan & Arabean sea.
The article will on paid archive after 1 week thus here is the whole artical from SJMN web site:
Pakistan reluctant, U.S. says: By Thomas E. Ricks and Kamran Khan, Mercury News Washington Bureau
Posted on Sun, May. 12, 2002
Pakistan reluctant, U.S. says
By Thomas E. Ricks and Kamran Khan
Mercury News Washington Bureau
U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded that the major remaining concentrations of Al-Qaida fighters are in western Pakistan, rather than in Afghanistan, but Pakistan has resisted American pressure to launch large-scale attacks against them, officials in Washington and Pakistan said.
U.S. officials have pressed Pakistan to act against what they believe are groups of Al-Qaida fighters concentrated in the Waziristan area of western Pakistan, near the Afghan border.
``We know where there is a large concentration of Al-Qaida,'' one Pentagon official said last week, noting that there were several hundred members in one border town, which he asked not be identified. But, he added, ``Our guys haven't been getting the cooperation'' requested from the Pakistani government.
The Pakistani government's reluctance to go after the pockets of terrorists on its territory is the first major difference to surface in the U.S.-Pakistani alliance against terrorism, which has been surprisingly strong since September.
If the intense U.S. pressure to mount an offensive along the Pakistani side of the border succeeds, it would mark a major widening of the 8-month-old U.S. counteroffensive against terrorism, in which overt combat has taken place only in Afghanistan. Pakistani officials said it's possible the United States could decide to act unilaterally against the terrorist pockets.
Military moving slow
Defense officials said the Pakistani military had been moving very slowly, despite U.S. offers to provide intelligence, helicopters, special-operations troops or even conventional military units. For the past two weeks, one senior official said, ``We've been after them to attack, and we haven't made much progress.''
Another said, ``We are trying to encourage, wheedle, coerce, urge the Pakistanis to move more aggressively'' against Al-Qaida fighters. ``We've had some success, but movement is slow.''
Pakistani officials responded that with or without U.S. aid, they were reluctant for several reasons to launch the attacks. They said they feared an internal political backlash, both in the unruly border area and from Islamists across the nation. They said their military already is strained by the standoff with India.
In addition, they said, they lack confidence in U.S. intelligence reports about the supposed buildup of Al-Qaida forces on their territory.
``There can't be any such large-scale concentrations in any area of Pakistan,'' Pakistani Brig. Javed Iqbal Cheema, director of the Interior Ministry's crisis-management cell, said Friday. ``It isn't possible.''
Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, met with his top military commanders last week in Rawalpindi to consider how to deal with the U.S. push to begin wide-ranging military operations in the semiautonomous border area.
Pakistani officials disclosed that the military leaders concluded that no operation would be launched in the volatile border region -- known as the Tribal Areas -- without more specific intelligence that the Pakistani government deemed credible. Even then, they decided, U.S. military involvement in the area should be kept to a minimum.
A small number of U.S. special-forces personnel are already operating along the Pakistani side of the border, and covert U.S. patrols have crossed into Pakistan from Afghanistan. Friday night, a rocket was fired at a building in north Waziristan in which U.S. personnel are believed to be staying. It was the second rocket attack this month against U.S. forces in the area. No casualties were reported in either assault.
No large-scale moves
The commanders' meeting also concluded that the United States should be told that until tensions relax between Pakistan and India -- about 80 percent of Pakistan's forces are deployed on its eastern border, with India -- the Pakistani military cannot mount large-scale operations along its western border, with Afghanistan.
``There was almost a consensus during this meeting that extreme care be taken before launching any security operation in the tribal areas, and in the event of any such action, the involvement of foreign personnel be kept at the minimum level,'' said an official familiar with the conference proceedings.
A Pakistani security official also discounted the U.S. conclusion that several hundred Al-Qaida fighters had concentrated in two or three areas near the border. The U.S. intelligence, he said, is ``very general and lacks specifics.''
He said recent small-scale raids launched jointly by the United States and Pakistan in the Tribal Areas already had created a ``revolt-like situation'' there.
``The territory is hostile to the U.S. forces and sympathetic to Taliban and Arabs,'' a Pakistani military official agreed. He indicated that the United States should reconsider before pushing Pakistan ``to launch a military assault against thousands of well-armed, religiously motivated people.''
The frustration U.S. officials have expressed about Pakistan is especially striking because it comes after eight months in which the United States -- especially its military -- has been consistently pleased with the breadth and depth of Pakistani cooperation.
Even though the Pakistani government, and especially its intelligence service, had nurtured Afghanistan's Taliban movement, Pakistan agreed in September to support the U.S. attack on the Taliban. It permitted U.S. warplanes to fly over its territory and even allowed the Americans to base troops and aircraft at at least four locations on its territory. It also helped capture Taliban and Al-Qaida fighters: Close to half the detainees held at the U.S. naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, were originally in Pakistani custody.
The first hint of a change in the extent of Pakistan's cooperation came after its military failed to catch scores of Al-Qaida and Taliban fighters fleeing the Shah-e-Kot battle in March. The United States and its allies then staged the biggest ground attack of the war, against a large, heavily armed and dug-in opponent.
That failure was in sharp contrast to the Tora Bora fight in December, when swift action by the Pakistani army netted hundreds of suspected Al-Qaida fighters as they crossed into Pakistan.
A sparse offensive
Since Shah-e-Kot, results of the U.S.-led offensive on the Afghan side of the border have been sparse. Earlier this month, the U.S. military prepared to launch a major operation in southeastern Afghanistan. Preliminary movements by British and Canadian forces were intended to force enemy concentrations to fight or to move.
The Pakistani military was supposed to complement the attack by pushing Al-Qaida members back across the border into Afghanistan. Troops from the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne went on alert to reinforce any allied unit that became engaged in combat.
To the U.S. commanders' surprise, the sweeps by British and Canadian forces ran into almost no opposition. The Americans have concluded that most of the Al-Qaida opposition has relocated in small villages along the Pakistani side of the border.
``Given the choice of facing U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan, or nothing in the ungovernable provinces, where would you go?'' asked one U.S. official involved in the war.
Despite its resistance, the Pakistani government has indicated it understands that the United States ultimately may choose to bomb the pockets of enemy fighters unilaterally, especially if solid intelligence points toward the location of Osama bin Laden or other Al-Qaida leaders.
``We've made it very clear'' to tribal leaders that providing sanctuary to terrorists and their allies ``would bring great harm to them,'' Moeenuddin Haider, Pakistan's interior minister, told Washington Post reporters and editors Friday -- although he said he wasn't aware either of large groups of Al-Qaida in Pakistan or of U.S. pressure to do more against them.
This and the Kargil Nuke story appears orchestrated to show that US is having problem forcing Packees to the tow the line. Looks like TSP is forgetting that that only 6 months ago US had put gun on Packee Govt. head holdling them responsible for creating Taliban and attack on New York)e US reprive to an otherwise. The new US ambassodor need to remind and make clear the terms of US reprive.
Asking India to stand-down while Packees sending terrorists unabated into Kashmir, so that Musharraf can help US hunt down Al-Quaida in Pakistani-waziristan is just a lame excuse for available Packee troops not doing its job in Wazirstan. The problem is the lack of Pakistani WILL to be on the side of Anti-terrorist coelition, not the lack of troops on the western border.
Pakistan must realize that failing to acceed to cooperate with US in destroying Talibans hiding in Pakistan, the US can very well turn screws of the vice, with Indian forces ready on the Eastern front and US forces in Afganistan & Arabean sea.
The article will on paid archive after 1 week thus here is the whole artical from SJMN web site:
Pakistan reluctant, U.S. says: By Thomas E. Ricks and Kamran Khan, Mercury News Washington Bureau
Posted on Sun, May. 12, 2002
Pakistan reluctant, U.S. says
By Thomas E. Ricks and Kamran Khan
Mercury News Washington Bureau
U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded that the major remaining concentrations of Al-Qaida fighters are in western Pakistan, rather than in Afghanistan, but Pakistan has resisted American pressure to launch large-scale attacks against them, officials in Washington and Pakistan said.
U.S. officials have pressed Pakistan to act against what they believe are groups of Al-Qaida fighters concentrated in the Waziristan area of western Pakistan, near the Afghan border.
``We know where there is a large concentration of Al-Qaida,'' one Pentagon official said last week, noting that there were several hundred members in one border town, which he asked not be identified. But, he added, ``Our guys haven't been getting the cooperation'' requested from the Pakistani government.
The Pakistani government's reluctance to go after the pockets of terrorists on its territory is the first major difference to surface in the U.S.-Pakistani alliance against terrorism, which has been surprisingly strong since September.
If the intense U.S. pressure to mount an offensive along the Pakistani side of the border succeeds, it would mark a major widening of the 8-month-old U.S. counteroffensive against terrorism, in which overt combat has taken place only in Afghanistan. Pakistani officials said it's possible the United States could decide to act unilaterally against the terrorist pockets.
Military moving slow
Defense officials said the Pakistani military had been moving very slowly, despite U.S. offers to provide intelligence, helicopters, special-operations troops or even conventional military units. For the past two weeks, one senior official said, ``We've been after them to attack, and we haven't made much progress.''
Another said, ``We are trying to encourage, wheedle, coerce, urge the Pakistanis to move more aggressively'' against Al-Qaida fighters. ``We've had some success, but movement is slow.''
Pakistani officials responded that with or without U.S. aid, they were reluctant for several reasons to launch the attacks. They said they feared an internal political backlash, both in the unruly border area and from Islamists across the nation. They said their military already is strained by the standoff with India.
In addition, they said, they lack confidence in U.S. intelligence reports about the supposed buildup of Al-Qaida forces on their territory.
``There can't be any such large-scale concentrations in any area of Pakistan,'' Pakistani Brig. Javed Iqbal Cheema, director of the Interior Ministry's crisis-management cell, said Friday. ``It isn't possible.''
Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, met with his top military commanders last week in Rawalpindi to consider how to deal with the U.S. push to begin wide-ranging military operations in the semiautonomous border area.
Pakistani officials disclosed that the military leaders concluded that no operation would be launched in the volatile border region -- known as the Tribal Areas -- without more specific intelligence that the Pakistani government deemed credible. Even then, they decided, U.S. military involvement in the area should be kept to a minimum.
A small number of U.S. special-forces personnel are already operating along the Pakistani side of the border, and covert U.S. patrols have crossed into Pakistan from Afghanistan. Friday night, a rocket was fired at a building in north Waziristan in which U.S. personnel are believed to be staying. It was the second rocket attack this month against U.S. forces in the area. No casualties were reported in either assault.
No large-scale moves
The commanders' meeting also concluded that the United States should be told that until tensions relax between Pakistan and India -- about 80 percent of Pakistan's forces are deployed on its eastern border, with India -- the Pakistani military cannot mount large-scale operations along its western border, with Afghanistan.
``There was almost a consensus during this meeting that extreme care be taken before launching any security operation in the tribal areas, and in the event of any such action, the involvement of foreign personnel be kept at the minimum level,'' said an official familiar with the conference proceedings.
A Pakistani security official also discounted the U.S. conclusion that several hundred Al-Qaida fighters had concentrated in two or three areas near the border. The U.S. intelligence, he said, is ``very general and lacks specifics.''
He said recent small-scale raids launched jointly by the United States and Pakistan in the Tribal Areas already had created a ``revolt-like situation'' there.
``The territory is hostile to the U.S. forces and sympathetic to Taliban and Arabs,'' a Pakistani military official agreed. He indicated that the United States should reconsider before pushing Pakistan ``to launch a military assault against thousands of well-armed, religiously motivated people.''
The frustration U.S. officials have expressed about Pakistan is especially striking because it comes after eight months in which the United States -- especially its military -- has been consistently pleased with the breadth and depth of Pakistani cooperation.
Even though the Pakistani government, and especially its intelligence service, had nurtured Afghanistan's Taliban movement, Pakistan agreed in September to support the U.S. attack on the Taliban. It permitted U.S. warplanes to fly over its territory and even allowed the Americans to base troops and aircraft at at least four locations on its territory. It also helped capture Taliban and Al-Qaida fighters: Close to half the detainees held at the U.S. naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, were originally in Pakistani custody.
The first hint of a change in the extent of Pakistan's cooperation came after its military failed to catch scores of Al-Qaida and Taliban fighters fleeing the Shah-e-Kot battle in March. The United States and its allies then staged the biggest ground attack of the war, against a large, heavily armed and dug-in opponent.
That failure was in sharp contrast to the Tora Bora fight in December, when swift action by the Pakistani army netted hundreds of suspected Al-Qaida fighters as they crossed into Pakistan.
A sparse offensive
Since Shah-e-Kot, results of the U.S.-led offensive on the Afghan side of the border have been sparse. Earlier this month, the U.S. military prepared to launch a major operation in southeastern Afghanistan. Preliminary movements by British and Canadian forces were intended to force enemy concentrations to fight or to move.
The Pakistani military was supposed to complement the attack by pushing Al-Qaida members back across the border into Afghanistan. Troops from the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne went on alert to reinforce any allied unit that became engaged in combat.
To the U.S. commanders' surprise, the sweeps by British and Canadian forces ran into almost no opposition. The Americans have concluded that most of the Al-Qaida opposition has relocated in small villages along the Pakistani side of the border.
``Given the choice of facing U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan, or nothing in the ungovernable provinces, where would you go?'' asked one U.S. official involved in the war.
Despite its resistance, the Pakistani government has indicated it understands that the United States ultimately may choose to bomb the pockets of enemy fighters unilaterally, especially if solid intelligence points toward the location of Osama bin Laden or other Al-Qaida leaders.
``We've made it very clear'' to tribal leaders that providing sanctuary to terrorists and their allies ``would bring great harm to them,'' Moeenuddin Haider, Pakistan's interior minister, told Washington Post reporters and editors Friday -- although he said he wasn't aware either of large groups of Al-Qaida in Pakistan or of U.S. pressure to do more against them.
Re: Pak nukes activation during Kargil crisis - Discussion
Gentlemen, this warrants some detailed discussion over the next few weeks as it totally explodes the myth of a responsible Pak. Nuclear Command Authority.
I strongly suspect that the information about the nuclear mobilization came from India. Then the US satellites were brought into play.
India had begun uploading its warheads onto the 4 Prithvis and Agni and placed several Mirage 2Ks on alert after learning of this Pak mobilization.
I strongly suspect that the information about the nuclear mobilization came from India. Then the US satellites were brought into play.
India had begun uploading its warheads onto the 4 Prithvis and Agni and placed several Mirage 2Ks on alert after learning of this Pak mobilization.
Re: Pak nukes activation during Kargil crisis - Discussion
I think the Indian press reports have put a different spin on the Bruce Reidel report. He in essence says that the TSP Army activated its nuke forces wihtout the knowledge of the electd politcal authority - Nawaz Sharif. If this is not a rogue operation I dont know what is. It clearly shows that the control is solely with the military and nobody else. The October coup was to remove the political fig leaf. Also has grave implications for targetting policy.
However the Indian press has its own headlines including the fantastic one by Ind Exp. ‘Pak wanted to nuke India during Kargil, Clinton held Sharif back’
What can we say? Their headline doesnt support the body of the text and they want respect.
However the Indian press has its own headlines including the fantastic one by Ind Exp. ‘Pak wanted to nuke India during Kargil, Clinton held Sharif back’
What can we say? Their headline doesnt support the body of the text and they want respect.
Re: Pak nukes activation during Kargil crisis - Discussion
Indian Express had always been more of Sensational Express, even under Ramnath Goenka. Only National Enquirer is left to beat.
-
Amit Mitra
- BRFite -Trainee
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 21 May 1999 11:31
Re: Pak nukes activation during Kargil crisis - Discussion
This is exactly why we should have taken Pakistan and its nukes out when they were getting them (alternatively warned China that an a nuclear attack by Pakistan would be considered a nuke attack by China, and would invite nukes on both). If capability was in question it should have been built on an emergency basis. This is also the reason we should have done it when they had five nukes, 15 nukes and even today.
The risk keeps mounting, and the longer the delay, the higher the price and the higher the risk for citizens of India, and yes - even citizens of Pakistan.
Its time the govt focussed more on taking care of the problem in Pakistan and less on condoning murderers of its own citizenry in Gujerat.
The effect on China will also be salutary. Investment in China is directly proportionate to the risk investors perceive. Irresponsible nuke proliferation to stoke the fires against India will become counter productive and risky for the genltlemen across our North Eastern border, and being ever so practical we will see much mudlslinging followed by more tempered behavior and a more stabilizing policy towards this part of Asia. Our interests can then converge.
The risk keeps mounting, and the longer the delay, the higher the price and the higher the risk for citizens of India, and yes - even citizens of Pakistan.
Its time the govt focussed more on taking care of the problem in Pakistan and less on condoning murderers of its own citizenry in Gujerat.
The effect on China will also be salutary. Investment in China is directly proportionate to the risk investors perceive. Irresponsible nuke proliferation to stoke the fires against India will become counter productive and risky for the genltlemen across our North Eastern border, and being ever so practical we will see much mudlslinging followed by more tempered behavior and a more stabilizing policy towards this part of Asia. Our interests can then converge.
Re: Pak nukes activation during Kargil crisis - Discussion
Amit Mitra, well then in that case, are we ready break off from panchsheel? offensive is best form of defence!
-
Amit Mitra
- BRFite -Trainee
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 21 May 1999 11:31
Re: Pak nukes activation during Kargil crisis - Discussion
What do you think brother? Perhaps Panchsheel is the reason we are surrounded by hostile neighbors. Instead, had we done what we should have as the largest nation in this part of the world, Afghanistan and Pakistan might not have been hotbeds of terrorism, Iraq may have reflected on our military might before doing things that almost brought our economy to its knees 10 years ago, and indeed, we might have been leading the inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent and Afghanistan to a more prosperous future. Do you think Panchsheel has saved lives or destroyed them?
Re: Pak nukes activation during Kargil crisis - Discussion
Amit, panchsheel says everything between china and india with "mutual" being the word. I guess the 5th element is the one that says "peaceful co-existence" that is broken by supporting tsp by giving missiles and nukes.
We need emphatic proof of these supplies, documents, photo/video, etc. Then, watch how we(need a vote) drop chinese like a rotten egg.
We need emphatic proof of these supplies, documents, photo/video, etc. Then, watch how we(need a vote) drop chinese like a rotten egg.
Re: Pak nukes activation during Kargil crisis - Discussion
BRUCE RIEDEL'S - POLICY PAPER
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/casi/reports/RiedelPaper051302.htm
I think this report puts the onus on the US to secure Pakistani nukes. Otherwise US has no one to blame but herself.
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/casi/reports/RiedelPaper051302.htm
I think this report puts the onus on the US to secure Pakistani nukes. Otherwise US has no one to blame but herself.
Re: Pak nukes activation during Kargil crisis - Discussion
India-Pakistan were near nuclear war in 1999
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17398-2002May14.html
Logic dictates US share it's intelligence on these nukes and the conditions when they were put on launch alert with India.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17398-2002May14.html
Logic dictates US share it's intelligence on these nukes and the conditions when they were put on launch alert with India.