are there any details of the recent US-India accord on civillian nuclear and space research?
any of it dual use? if so, how easily?
Admin's note: Please move to the appropriate thread
Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 20 Feb 2004
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 20 Feb 2004
Now they want equal-equal treatment. India is a responsible nuclear state where as Pakis are an irresponsible, rougue nuclear state with every terrorist connection in the world leading to Terrorland.Originally posted by Rangudu:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3526969.stm
Is Pakistan's nuclear programme dying?
Analysis
By Paul Anderson
BBC correspondent in Islamabad
Double standards?
NPT touches another nerve. There's a widespread belief in Pakistan that it is being singled out for scrutiny while India's weapons programme is overlooked.
Take the recent hi-tech agreement between India and the United States, on cooperation in nuclear power and space technologies.
Samina Ahmed, from the International Crisis Group, believes it is a green light for proliferation.
"Transfers of dual-use technology, nuclear technology and space technology is violating a basic principle of the Non Proliferation Treaty," she says.
"It is dangerous and counterproductive.
"Dangerous because with some of the gaps in India's nuclear weapons programme being filled in with American support, that will encourage India to go ahead with its ambitious nuclear programme.
"And counter-productive because it will lead to other states playing catch-up."
Or if it does not, that the focus of attention is turned on what President Musharraf says is the real menace - the European companies which he says form the backbone of the nuclear black market.
So far though, there is little sign of that happening.
Ans now Mush says it is all the fault of Eurepoean companies which are selling.......
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 20 Feb 2004
I would encourage you to extend that thinking a bit further (it should be OK to do from Bangakore, Kerala)- to "nine-elebhen" and "The Statute of Limitations" to see more excellent reasons to "cover" the mushbutt - for a limited period.the Pakistani oligarchy and XXX have a lot more in common ...
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 20 Feb 2004
Sunil: There's a twist to that logic.
The message is "that's all in the past" all right.. and ... the purpose may be to "take the heat off" all right.
BUT... one still has to ask, as they say in "Kaizen" - "The Five Whys"
WHY are they trying to take the heat off?
WHY then did they simply not deny all the reports?
WHY DID they simply deny all the reports in the 1980s??
WHY should we assume that the basic purpose is different now than in 1980?
WHY, if there is any difference in purpose, are the same people still in the positions to control and disseminate (dis)information?
One always has to have faith in two entities:
1. TSP - to mess up.
2. N^3 news services: There is a PURPOSE to every rumor spread, and NO Rumor is spread Before Its Time
Try accepting the hypothesis that TSP's weapons WERE taken away in 2002 (or were never there after Dec. 2001 except for radioactive waste, as Raj says..)
NOW go back to the "Five Whys" and you see the answer: The purpose is to RE-INTRODUCE the weapons - because
*** The basic thinking and the people who do that thinking have not changed. ****
Forget about "India Shining" or "Brave New World Order" etc. The people I'm thinking about don't give a musharraf about those.
Thus, a year from now, they will be happy to report that
*THE PAKISTANI WEAPONS ARE UNDER STRICT CONTROL*
From our viewpoint, there is NO possible condition under which anything remotely radio-active can be allowed to exist in the Indus Valley neigbborhood. And that is why it is desperately important to point out the basic truth:
PAKISTAN IS NOOK-NOOD. HAS BEEN SINCE AT LEAST JUNE 2002. DON'T LET DUPLEECITY OR THE RED CHINESE GIVE THE NUKES BACK TO THEM, PLEASE!!!!!!
As the "do not smoke in bed" ad says:
If you do (let the jerks give the nukes back to the terrorist bigots, that is)
The message is "that's all in the past" all right.. and ... the purpose may be to "take the heat off" all right.
BUT... one still has to ask, as they say in "Kaizen" - "The Five Whys"
WHY are they trying to take the heat off?
WHY then did they simply not deny all the reports?
WHY DID they simply deny all the reports in the 1980s??
WHY should we assume that the basic purpose is different now than in 1980?
WHY, if there is any difference in purpose, are the same people still in the positions to control and disseminate (dis)information?
One always has to have faith in two entities:
1. TSP - to mess up.
2. N^3 news services: There is a PURPOSE to every rumor spread, and NO Rumor is spread Before Its Time
Try accepting the hypothesis that TSP's weapons WERE taken away in 2002 (or were never there after Dec. 2001 except for radioactive waste, as Raj says..)
NOW go back to the "Five Whys" and you see the answer: The purpose is to RE-INTRODUCE the weapons - because
*** The basic thinking and the people who do that thinking have not changed. ****
Forget about "India Shining" or "Brave New World Order" etc. The people I'm thinking about don't give a musharraf about those.
Thus, a year from now, they will be happy to report that
*THE PAKISTANI WEAPONS ARE UNDER STRICT CONTROL*
From our viewpoint, there is NO possible condition under which anything remotely radio-active can be allowed to exist in the Indus Valley neigbborhood. And that is why it is desperately important to point out the basic truth:
PAKISTAN IS NOOK-NOOD. HAS BEEN SINCE AT LEAST JUNE 2002. DON'T LET DUPLEECITY OR THE RED CHINESE GIVE THE NUKES BACK TO THEM, PLEASE!!!!!!
As the "do not smoke in bed" ad says:
If you do (let the jerks give the nukes back to the terrorist bigots, that is)
I hope that point is very very clear. The "Five Whys" lead nowhere else.The glowing ashes that fall on the floor may be your own
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 20 Feb 2004
admin - my post above was in direct response to the previous quoted article where TSP'ians are trying to use the US-India link up excuse to justify proliferation, hence on this thread
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 20 Feb 2004
Sunil,
I guess I have a slightly different perspective. The military would not take over the American government. It is far less likely than the assumption that the military would take over the Indian government. Civil-military relations are so carefully ingrained in US society and particularly in the US military (which I work with daily) that I don't think it's a possibility.
However... The United States (broadly writ) suffered a surprise attack on its sovereign territory at Fort Sumter in 1861. The response was an unlimited war, aimed at completely overthrowing, conquering, and occupying the aggressor (in this case, the Confederate States of America - a secessionist movement).
In 1941, American territory (Hawaii) was attacked by surprise (followed promptly by the Philippines). The US response was to wage an unlimited war, aimed at completely overthrowing, conquering, and occupying the aggressor (in this case, Imperial Japan).
In 2001, New York City and Washington DC were attacked by surprise by terrorist forces closely linked to the Taliban - the Afghan regime. The US response was to wage an unlimited war, aimed at completely overthrowing, conquering, and occupying the nominal aggressor (in this case, Afghanistan).
I find that pattern reasonably compelling, and my conclusion about a nuclear attack becomes self-evident. To be fair, however, we did offer Taliban a chance to turn over Osama. It's possible that if it's a Pakistani nuke, we'll offer a chance to turn over the entire nuclear complex instead, as well as anybody associated with anything remotely associated with the group responsible. But this remains quite hypothetical, for the moment (one hopes).
Tim
I guess I have a slightly different perspective. The military would not take over the American government. It is far less likely than the assumption that the military would take over the Indian government. Civil-military relations are so carefully ingrained in US society and particularly in the US military (which I work with daily) that I don't think it's a possibility.
However... The United States (broadly writ) suffered a surprise attack on its sovereign territory at Fort Sumter in 1861. The response was an unlimited war, aimed at completely overthrowing, conquering, and occupying the aggressor (in this case, the Confederate States of America - a secessionist movement).
In 1941, American territory (Hawaii) was attacked by surprise (followed promptly by the Philippines). The US response was to wage an unlimited war, aimed at completely overthrowing, conquering, and occupying the aggressor (in this case, Imperial Japan).
In 2001, New York City and Washington DC were attacked by surprise by terrorist forces closely linked to the Taliban - the Afghan regime. The US response was to wage an unlimited war, aimed at completely overthrowing, conquering, and occupying the nominal aggressor (in this case, Afghanistan).
I find that pattern reasonably compelling, and my conclusion about a nuclear attack becomes self-evident. To be fair, however, we did offer Taliban a chance to turn over Osama. It's possible that if it's a Pakistani nuke, we'll offer a chance to turn over the entire nuclear complex instead, as well as anybody associated with anything remotely associated with the group responsible. But this remains quite hypothetical, for the moment (one hopes).
Tim
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 20 Feb 2004
Tim
A nuclear attack would be such an horrible act that, it is not possible for any of us to guess what would be the reaction of people wither in America or India. I hope it never comes to that situation when we have to find about that.
I hope George Bush administration is leveraging this Paki proliferation to contain them and weaken the hold of military and ISI on this failing nation. But I am afraid that they are using this opportunity to force Pakistan to co-operate in the capture of Bin Laden for purely helping the re-election effort of Bush.
A nuclear attack would be such an horrible act that, it is not possible for any of us to guess what would be the reaction of people wither in America or India. I hope it never comes to that situation when we have to find about that.
I hope George Bush administration is leveraging this Paki proliferation to contain them and weaken the hold of military and ISI on this failing nation. But I am afraid that they are using this opportunity to force Pakistan to co-operate in the capture of Bin Laden for purely helping the re-election effort of Bush.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 20 Feb 2004
Cross-posted
US superspy briefs India
Pramit Pal Chaudhuri
New Delhi, 4 March
US superspy J. Cofer Black told Indian officials that Washington had no doubts about the Pakistani military's involvement in the nuclear black market operations of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb. However, the US felt this leverage was better employed to gain access to Khan's confessions for the US and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Black, ex-head of CIA counter-terrorism and now State Department coordinator for counter-terrorism, met RAW chief C.B. Sahay, the home secretary and other Indian officials on Monday and Tuesday. It was his first visit to India in his present capacity.
Black also said the leadership in Saudi Arabia, the cashbox of militant Islam, had accepted the need to take steps against the jehadi network on its soil. He outlined several steps Riyadh had taken.
Black also spoke of the so-called "spring offensive" being launched to flush out Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border areas. He indicated to Indian officials that while the bulk of the personnel involved would be Pakistani, there would be US military involvement in the operation.
While admitting US doubts about Pakistan, Black underlined to Indian officials the critical importance of General Pervez Musharraf's regime to the US-led war against terrorism.
Black was scheduled to visit India last year, but his trip had been postponed three times.
Terrorist hunter
J. Cofer Black is a legendary CIA officer who cut his teeth tracking down Carlos the Jackal. Two famous incidents:
Arlington face-off
On 9/11, CIA chief George Tenet asked staff to evacuate building. Black refused to move his people. Tenet said, "They could die." Black replied, "Sir, then they're just going to have to die." Black's team stayed
Thumping the Taliban
Two days after 9/11, CIA briefed Bush on what to do about Taliban. Black said "When we're through with them, they will have flies walking across their eyeballs." Bush later called him "flies on the eyeballs guy"
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_597757,0008.htm
US superspy briefs India
Pramit Pal Chaudhuri
New Delhi, 4 March
US superspy J. Cofer Black told Indian officials that Washington had no doubts about the Pakistani military's involvement in the nuclear black market operations of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb. However, the US felt this leverage was better employed to gain access to Khan's confessions for the US and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Black, ex-head of CIA counter-terrorism and now State Department coordinator for counter-terrorism, met RAW chief C.B. Sahay, the home secretary and other Indian officials on Monday and Tuesday. It was his first visit to India in his present capacity.
Black also said the leadership in Saudi Arabia, the cashbox of militant Islam, had accepted the need to take steps against the jehadi network on its soil. He outlined several steps Riyadh had taken.
Black also spoke of the so-called "spring offensive" being launched to flush out Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border areas. He indicated to Indian officials that while the bulk of the personnel involved would be Pakistani, there would be US military involvement in the operation.
While admitting US doubts about Pakistan, Black underlined to Indian officials the critical importance of General Pervez Musharraf's regime to the US-led war against terrorism.
Black was scheduled to visit India last year, but his trip had been postponed three times.
Terrorist hunter
J. Cofer Black is a legendary CIA officer who cut his teeth tracking down Carlos the Jackal. Two famous incidents:
Arlington face-off
On 9/11, CIA chief George Tenet asked staff to evacuate building. Black refused to move his people. Tenet said, "They could die." Black replied, "Sir, then they're just going to have to die." Black's team stayed
Thumping the Taliban
Two days after 9/11, CIA briefed Bush on what to do about Taliban. Black said "When we're through with them, they will have flies walking across their eyeballs." Bush later called him "flies on the eyeballs guy"
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_597757,0008.htm
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 20 Feb 2004
Tim,
> I guess I have a slightly different perspective. The military would not take over the American government. It is far less likely than the assumption that the military would take over the Indian government. Civil-military relations are so carefully ingrained in US society and particularly in the US military (which I work with daily) that I don't think it's a possibility.
I am not talking about an actual takeover of the government by the military, but rather that the voice of the military will become dominant in the conduct of government affairs and `security' becomes the dominant motif in US thinking. TSJ refers to this as the `US National Security Party' - I mistakenly paraphrased it as the `National Military Party'.
The situations you have described are nothing like what will face the polity if Pakistan carries out its Jihadi Delivered Atomic Munition attack.
The political space for this `takeover' will be created as
1) the White House will lose all credibility,
2) a general sense of distaste for partisan politics common to the hill will emerge,
3) a growing anger with the `debating society' that dominates the US parliament,
4) a loss of confidence in liberal interpretations of the US constitution,
5) a rising tide of conservatism and even perhaps a more direct appeal to faith and the nation crowds into its churches and preachers attempt to soothe frayed nerves,
6) no political party will want to be held responsible for taking a decision at such a crucial juncture,
7) disorientation in the general public and
a desire to do something - anything.. just something.. - a sense of desperation in all wings of governments especially the Intelligence community and the Armed Forces.
So ever so gently a door will open that has not opened before and through it perhaps unheard and unseen at first but surely will step a new kind of American leader. A leader who dispenses with the ornate psuedo-liberal gibberish of the past and speaks directly to the suffering of the people, and soothes the nervous population and pragmatically makes decisions with minimum fuss. Such a leader will have to be someone who commands the total respect of the men at arms and strikes fear into the hearts of those political creatures who stand in his path (it will have to be a man, the US has never elected a woman president - so why change now).
> I find that pattern reasonably compelling, and my conclusion about a nuclear attack becomes self-evident. To be fair, however, we did offer Taliban a chance to turn over Osama. It's possible that if it's a Pakistani nuke, we'll offer a chance to turn over the entire nuclear complex instead, as well as anybody associated with anything remotely associated with the group responsible. But this remains quite hypothetical, for the moment (one hopes).
I am not debating whether the US will hit back in some symbolic way. Heck they may even drop a nuke on some useless piece of land somewhere and claim to have destroyed Osama Bin Laden's goat shed that was used to carry out this dastardly act.
But the question that will run through everyone's minds on the Hill at that time will be - what do we do to ensure that another nuke doesn't go off somewhere?.
This is the exact same thought process that the Japanese cabinet was undertaking after Hiroshima, and because they didn't reach an acceptable conclusion the US dropped the bomb on Nagasaki. The Pakistani have always assumed that any cabinet deliberating the issue will learn from Japan's mistakes and reach the same conclusion that the Japanese reached in 1945 in quicker time frame.
The answer to that question, given the limit of the State Department's, the Intelligence Community's and the Defence Department's abilities today, will be - "Make peace with Pakistan."
I stress this is Pakistan's seminal contribution to the deterrence thinking. Only the Pakistanis could have come up with something like this.
> I guess I have a slightly different perspective. The military would not take over the American government. It is far less likely than the assumption that the military would take over the Indian government. Civil-military relations are so carefully ingrained in US society and particularly in the US military (which I work with daily) that I don't think it's a possibility.
I am not talking about an actual takeover of the government by the military, but rather that the voice of the military will become dominant in the conduct of government affairs and `security' becomes the dominant motif in US thinking. TSJ refers to this as the `US National Security Party' - I mistakenly paraphrased it as the `National Military Party'.
The situations you have described are nothing like what will face the polity if Pakistan carries out its Jihadi Delivered Atomic Munition attack.
The political space for this `takeover' will be created as
1) the White House will lose all credibility,
2) a general sense of distaste for partisan politics common to the hill will emerge,
3) a growing anger with the `debating society' that dominates the US parliament,
4) a loss of confidence in liberal interpretations of the US constitution,
5) a rising tide of conservatism and even perhaps a more direct appeal to faith and the nation crowds into its churches and preachers attempt to soothe frayed nerves,
6) no political party will want to be held responsible for taking a decision at such a crucial juncture,
7) disorientation in the general public and
a desire to do something - anything.. just something.. - a sense of desperation in all wings of governments especially the Intelligence community and the Armed Forces. So ever so gently a door will open that has not opened before and through it perhaps unheard and unseen at first but surely will step a new kind of American leader. A leader who dispenses with the ornate psuedo-liberal gibberish of the past and speaks directly to the suffering of the people, and soothes the nervous population and pragmatically makes decisions with minimum fuss. Such a leader will have to be someone who commands the total respect of the men at arms and strikes fear into the hearts of those political creatures who stand in his path (it will have to be a man, the US has never elected a woman president - so why change now).
> I find that pattern reasonably compelling, and my conclusion about a nuclear attack becomes self-evident. To be fair, however, we did offer Taliban a chance to turn over Osama. It's possible that if it's a Pakistani nuke, we'll offer a chance to turn over the entire nuclear complex instead, as well as anybody associated with anything remotely associated with the group responsible. But this remains quite hypothetical, for the moment (one hopes).
I am not debating whether the US will hit back in some symbolic way. Heck they may even drop a nuke on some useless piece of land somewhere and claim to have destroyed Osama Bin Laden's goat shed that was used to carry out this dastardly act.
But the question that will run through everyone's minds on the Hill at that time will be - what do we do to ensure that another nuke doesn't go off somewhere?.
This is the exact same thought process that the Japanese cabinet was undertaking after Hiroshima, and because they didn't reach an acceptable conclusion the US dropped the bomb on Nagasaki. The Pakistani have always assumed that any cabinet deliberating the issue will learn from Japan's mistakes and reach the same conclusion that the Japanese reached in 1945 in quicker time frame.
The answer to that question, given the limit of the State Department's, the Intelligence Community's and the Defence Department's abilities today, will be - "Make peace with Pakistan."
I stress this is Pakistan's seminal contribution to the deterrence thinking. Only the Pakistanis could have come up with something like this.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 20 Feb 2004
Sunil:
Let me offer my understanding of the American response mechanism: US allied with Soviets to overcome fascism; then with islamic fundamentalists to overthrow Soviets; now they are fishing for allies to fight the fundoos. This mechanism is consistent even at smaller scales: Aristide is propped up to solve a problem; when he becomes a liability, he gets hustled out. Need I belabor this further by talking about Saddam, Noreiga et al?
So the general method is to use a solution that is most expedient for the problem at hand, without worrying about the long term "karmic" repercussions of the means to achieve the end. Read what Tim has just posted in this light, and think about Mush in terms of the august company listed here. This is certainly not how India or Indians approach problems, but then, different strokes for different folks.
Let me offer my understanding of the American response mechanism: US allied with Soviets to overcome fascism; then with islamic fundamentalists to overthrow Soviets; now they are fishing for allies to fight the fundoos. This mechanism is consistent even at smaller scales: Aristide is propped up to solve a problem; when he becomes a liability, he gets hustled out. Need I belabor this further by talking about Saddam, Noreiga et al?
So the general method is to use a solution that is most expedient for the problem at hand, without worrying about the long term "karmic" repercussions of the means to achieve the end. Read what Tim has just posted in this light, and think about Mush in terms of the august company listed here. This is certainly not how India or Indians approach problems, but then, different strokes for different folks.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 20 Feb 2004
one must note all-time record attendances in churches after 9-11.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 20 Feb 2004
BTW great post Sunil. Hear the speech by Hamid Gul posted by Mohan Raju. He advocates three policy planks for Pakistan -Originally posted by sunil s:
I stress this is Pakistan's seminal contribution to the deterrence thinking. Only the Pakistanis could have come up with something like this.
Defiance, Deterrence and Dialogue.
They are in motion right now.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 20 Feb 2004
Sunil,
How do the Paks ensure that it is "Make peace with Pakistanis" and not "kill all Pakistanis"?
The US could, without much effort, burn the place down to bedrock and, incidentally, bury any inconvenient stuff that may otherwise come up at a future date.
So why wouldn't they? Also, if they don't, whats to stop N Korea or China sneaking a nuke to CONUS and playing the Pak game on a hyper level?
"Make peace with pakistanis" may be one throw of the die, but "kill all Pakistanis" is another - and possibly more likely. How could the Paks know which the US would choose?
How do the Paks ensure that it is "Make peace with Pakistanis" and not "kill all Pakistanis"?
The US could, without much effort, burn the place down to bedrock and, incidentally, bury any inconvenient stuff that may otherwise come up at a future date.
So why wouldn't they? Also, if they don't, whats to stop N Korea or China sneaking a nuke to CONUS and playing the Pak game on a hyper level?
"Make peace with pakistanis" may be one throw of the die, but "kill all Pakistanis" is another - and possibly more likely. How could the Paks know which the US would choose?
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 20 Feb 2004
It would be interesting to know the percentage of the current (or any) US administration (whitehouse, congress, senate) with a military record. Maybe national-security-party is here and now and its always been that way ??
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 20 Feb 2004
Assuming this is true, why is thie being leaked? It's really stupid, whoever leaked it.Originally posted by leonard:
US superspy briefs India