- Pakistani suggestions that the Americans are in search for an 'exit' from Afghanistan are self-deluding. In fact its quite the opposite - the Bush administration has come to terms with the fact that it needs to maintain a long term presence in Kabul and Eastern Afghanistan (a decision that has as much to do with Pakistan as Afghanistan). What it is looking for are viable ways to spread or lighten the burden given finite resources and many competing demands.
-BCCI died as an international bank almost 13 years ago - before the bulk of the proliferation *outwards* from Pakistan took place. The largest investor in BCCI by far was the Emir of Abu Dhabi, who was willing to prop up the bank at any cost. BCCI was never permitted to operate in Saudi Arabia, but some very influential Saudis like Ghaith Pharaon and Kamal Adham were major investors. Each of these investors saw BCCI as useful vehicle for their pet projects. In fact that was BCCI's strategy for attracting capital - catering to needs, however specialised, or illegal. AQ Khan's profits were something that they would have courted, but would have been small in comparison.
Pharaon used BCCI to secretly acquire banks in the US, while Adham, the founder and former head of the Mukhabarat used it as a channel to a number of Saudi Arabia's covert causes such as Iraq, Pakistan, etc.
In the aftermath of its death there were a number of public reports on BCCI's role in Pakistani nuclear procurement, and its use as a channel from 'stockholders' to Pakistan, and the role of Gulam Ishaq Khan as one of the chief Pakistani co-ordinators for financial and political matters (not unlike Shimon Peres in Israel).
While BCCI did have a very well paid team of lobbyists the chief reason it survived regulatory scrutiny in the 1980s was its role in moving funds for the big paramilitary programmes of the late cold war; Nicaragua, Afghanistan, etc. With the end of the cold war, there was no reason to prevent BCCI from collapsing under the weight of its own fraud and filth - despite the preference of the the Emirs and the Sheikhs had in continuing to prop it up. The Pakistanis were extremely unhappy about the collapse, and the role of Western governments. I remember newspaper commentaries that described it as a 'hindu-zionist conspiracy'.
BCCI did not always play the same role in every procurement deal. Quite often the procurer would reject the financing terms for a deal, and instead use another institution such as Habib bank, which had the advantage of being nationalised. BCCI might then act as a clearing bank if the recipient wanted to be paid in a place where Habib Bank lacked a presence.
Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
If (many and huge ifs)this story is true at all, credit certainly goes to Sunil S for having arrived at this conclusion, quite a while ago (before anyone else starts taking credit, no, he did not say this, on this boardOriginally quoted by Jrjrao
.
.
HEADLINE: AL-QA'IDAH SAID IN POSSESSION OF "NUCLEAR WEAPONS" OBTAINED IN UKRAINE
).Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
It depends on what you mean by a 'fall guy'.Originally posted by Calvin:
Johann - good points. What I continue to be unable to understand is *WHY* AQK was trotted out (obviously by US interests) as the fall guy (12/22) and why 6 weeks later he was pardoned unconditionally (2/5). What was achieved by this?
As a Pakistani AQ Khan could not have engaged in the range of activities that he did without the support of Pakistani authorities.
However, it seems clear that Khan was *the* leading advocate within the Pakistani establishment for such a policy, and he was the most committed to it for ideological as well as practical reasons. He was the one who did the most to build the relationships and mechanisms that made proliferation possible. However minimal his technical accomplishments, he did without doubt accumulate an enormous amount of power and respect within Pakistan.
If you do wish to gain control of the Pakistani nuclear establishment (and I mean personnel rather than weapons, materials or facilities) without military action, then breaking AQ Khan's power was essential in order to supress all that he stood for within Pakistan. Khan may not be in prison, but what has happened to him is very different from the ceremonial shunting in March of 2001. Internationalising the issue of Pakistan's outward proliferation gives Musharraf a very strong incentive to maintain compliance.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Johann: My point was that taking out AQK was necessary, but by no means *sufficient*.
Usually when you make a move on the king-pin, you try to make sure you take out all the primary and secondary nodes, and tertiary ones if possible. IN this case, it appears as though (at least publically) none of the other nodes are being affected - IOW, there is no purge of the Army or ISI in this regard.
Usually when you make a move on the king-pin, you try to make sure you take out all the primary and secondary nodes, and tertiary ones if possible. IN this case, it appears as though (at least publically) none of the other nodes are being affected - IOW, there is no purge of the Army or ISI in this regard.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
- It might help to think of this as a hostile takeover, rather than an attempt to smash. Neutralise the ideologues and those who resist most vigorously, and the opportunists will follow.
- People arent always let go for the official reasons stated. If you really do think that political stability is a priority that is being balanced along with WMD risk mitigation, why would you assume that matters are likely to end here, regardless of official statements?
- People arent always let go for the official reasons stated. If you really do think that political stability is a priority that is being balanced along with WMD risk mitigation, why would you assume that matters are likely to end here, regardless of official statements?
-
SunilMenon
- BRFite -Trainee
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 31 May 2002 11:31
- Location: Mtn view
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Did anyone watch CNN World News yesterday? It had a piece on the Paki nuclear benevolence, including an interview of Kasuri by Monita Rajpal.
She did good work. Kasuri seemed visibly flustered and agitated at being grilled by a yindoo chick (these damn yindoos and everywhere). Got him ****ed off and he totally lost the plot. To a question about if IAEA will look into Iraq and Libya episode, he goes on about H&D and how good the pakis are at painting missiles green and they will shortly demonstrate this with a 2000 km ding-dong.
She even ambushed him into admitting that the Pakis got the bomb through "black market and the underworld" (exact words).
Then when everything else failed he resorted to the time tested, SD approved "everything happened in the past when mushy was still a diaper wearing baby" excuse.
Interestingly the interview was not part of the piece next time they aired it.
I can't find the transcripts, if anyone else can, please post it here. Must be fun.
She did good work. Kasuri seemed visibly flustered and agitated at being grilled by a yindoo chick (these damn yindoos and everywhere). Got him ****ed off and he totally lost the plot. To a question about if IAEA will look into Iraq and Libya episode, he goes on about H&D and how good the pakis are at painting missiles green and they will shortly demonstrate this with a 2000 km ding-dong.
She even ambushed him into admitting that the Pakis got the bomb through "black market and the underworld" (exact words).
Then when everything else failed he resorted to the time tested, SD approved "everything happened in the past when mushy was still a diaper wearing baby" excuse.
Interestingly the interview was not part of the piece next time they aired it.
I can't find the transcripts, if anyone else can, please post it here. Must be fun.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Calvin and Johann,
BCCI is not merely a bank, it is the reflection of an attitude of permissiveness towards illegal activity. Such attitude is driven by the notion that profit can be made from illegal activity. You can replace BCCI by any other name with the appropriate credentials and you will see my statement start to make more sense. There is a strong incentive for people in D.C. to keep the past - in the past.
As there is no single source for information regarding this attitude of permissiveness, it is not possible to totally stamp out the news items related to it. In any case you have to expend effort to actually do the job of burying a source of politically damaging information. This takes up time and political capital. This political capital could have been used more productively to build a workable counter-terrorism policy, now it is going to go down the drain saving some politician's skin.
When the attacks of Sept 11 took place, I felt that a fundamental shift had occured in the US-Pakistan equilibrium. The Pakistanis were now somehow willing and able to assert themselves in a much stronger position and that after a show of strength, the US would have to ultimately acquiese to it. My only hope had been that the show of strength by the US would create irreparable fissures within Pakistani society and thus render the place unlivable. However due to the overreliance on Musharraf, this has not happened. The credit for pulling this Pakistani strategic victory against the US goes to Pervez Musharraf. We may never know if this was serendipity on his part or if this is the hallmark of a true criminal genius, but the devil (Pervez Musharraf) must be given his due, he has shackled the 8000 pound gorilla in adamantine chains and continues to do whatever is necessary to project and protect Pakistan's security.
I feel that the "oh its nothing really" tone from DC and the silence in London about A Q Khan is a sign that they are finally coming to grips with their place in the global scheme of things. The Pakistanis are well aware of US aims in Afghanistan, they only desire that the US acknowledge their strategic concerns in the region. Today the Pakistanis are in a position to dictate an accord from a position of strategic altitude.
On a larger canvas, the Islamists had declared war on everything that western civilization represents; Individual rights, democracy, tolerance and postive internationalism. Today I feel the Islamists are in a strategically comfortable position:
The US has had to restructure its laws to permit a greater infringement of individual rights. Other western nations have followed in suit.
The large volume of racial and sectarian sentiment that has surfaced from the bowels of public opinion to its forefront has eroded the claim of tolerance in western society. Even France today finds itself impinging on religious rights of minority communities.
Democracy itself took a back seat as the West had to explain to its own people why it must support a military dictator like Pervez Musharraf. Indeed if an election free from US influence were to be held in any Islamic country, I bet my shorts that an Islamist political formulation would rise to power. Now the US has to explain to people why it can't have an election in Iraq right now. As TS Jones routinely points out, if there is one more terrorist attack on the US, democracy as we know it in the US will not survive and a military government will take hold dumping the constitution. Even if that does not happen, I shudder to think what will come of more revelations connecting influential persons in Washington with illegal revenues from the nuclear black market.
Lastly, the US is actually quite isolated internationally. This was in evidence in that mess over Iraq, the failure to actually find Iraqi WMD there is adding to this isolation. As nations watch Pakistan go scot free for its violations of international non-proliferation norms, the entire gamut of US sponsorred international initiatives in this arena have lost their steam and their moral foundation. The US will no longer be seen as an honest partner in these arrangements. This is a massive erosion of US standing in the international arena and faith in the US is falling rapidly on the international level.
As you all realize by now this contributes to a slow but steady decay of the pre-eminence of the western civilization as its core values are being undermined in a systematic fashion and the Pakistanis are gaining in leverage.
I can't see any way to stem this tide of bad news. Perhaps as before somehow somewhere the West will demonstrate its famed capacity for rebounding, and perhaps the Islamists like all adversaries that the west has faced will somehow over extend themselves but I have yet to see this happening.
I am not writing the epitaph of western civilization I am merely sounding a warning. I do not know who will hear this call, much less heed it, but perhaps some good will accrue out of my having said this in plain words. It is also fair to note that in the past I have ended up feeling that I was the optimist, so it is possible that things could become a lot worse than what I percieve them to be.
BCCI is not merely a bank, it is the reflection of an attitude of permissiveness towards illegal activity. Such attitude is driven by the notion that profit can be made from illegal activity. You can replace BCCI by any other name with the appropriate credentials and you will see my statement start to make more sense. There is a strong incentive for people in D.C. to keep the past - in the past.
As there is no single source for information regarding this attitude of permissiveness, it is not possible to totally stamp out the news items related to it. In any case you have to expend effort to actually do the job of burying a source of politically damaging information. This takes up time and political capital. This political capital could have been used more productively to build a workable counter-terrorism policy, now it is going to go down the drain saving some politician's skin.
When the attacks of Sept 11 took place, I felt that a fundamental shift had occured in the US-Pakistan equilibrium. The Pakistanis were now somehow willing and able to assert themselves in a much stronger position and that after a show of strength, the US would have to ultimately acquiese to it. My only hope had been that the show of strength by the US would create irreparable fissures within Pakistani society and thus render the place unlivable. However due to the overreliance on Musharraf, this has not happened. The credit for pulling this Pakistani strategic victory against the US goes to Pervez Musharraf. We may never know if this was serendipity on his part or if this is the hallmark of a true criminal genius, but the devil (Pervez Musharraf) must be given his due, he has shackled the 8000 pound gorilla in adamantine chains and continues to do whatever is necessary to project and protect Pakistan's security.
I feel that the "oh its nothing really" tone from DC and the silence in London about A Q Khan is a sign that they are finally coming to grips with their place in the global scheme of things. The Pakistanis are well aware of US aims in Afghanistan, they only desire that the US acknowledge their strategic concerns in the region. Today the Pakistanis are in a position to dictate an accord from a position of strategic altitude.
On a larger canvas, the Islamists had declared war on everything that western civilization represents; Individual rights, democracy, tolerance and postive internationalism. Today I feel the Islamists are in a strategically comfortable position:
The US has had to restructure its laws to permit a greater infringement of individual rights. Other western nations have followed in suit.
The large volume of racial and sectarian sentiment that has surfaced from the bowels of public opinion to its forefront has eroded the claim of tolerance in western society. Even France today finds itself impinging on religious rights of minority communities.
Democracy itself took a back seat as the West had to explain to its own people why it must support a military dictator like Pervez Musharraf. Indeed if an election free from US influence were to be held in any Islamic country, I bet my shorts that an Islamist political formulation would rise to power. Now the US has to explain to people why it can't have an election in Iraq right now. As TS Jones routinely points out, if there is one more terrorist attack on the US, democracy as we know it in the US will not survive and a military government will take hold dumping the constitution. Even if that does not happen, I shudder to think what will come of more revelations connecting influential persons in Washington with illegal revenues from the nuclear black market.
Lastly, the US is actually quite isolated internationally. This was in evidence in that mess over Iraq, the failure to actually find Iraqi WMD there is adding to this isolation. As nations watch Pakistan go scot free for its violations of international non-proliferation norms, the entire gamut of US sponsorred international initiatives in this arena have lost their steam and their moral foundation. The US will no longer be seen as an honest partner in these arrangements. This is a massive erosion of US standing in the international arena and faith in the US is falling rapidly on the international level.
As you all realize by now this contributes to a slow but steady decay of the pre-eminence of the western civilization as its core values are being undermined in a systematic fashion and the Pakistanis are gaining in leverage.
I can't see any way to stem this tide of bad news. Perhaps as before somehow somewhere the West will demonstrate its famed capacity for rebounding, and perhaps the Islamists like all adversaries that the west has faced will somehow over extend themselves but I have yet to see this happening.
I am not writing the epitaph of western civilization I am merely sounding a warning. I do not know who will hear this call, much less heed it, but perhaps some good will accrue out of my having said this in plain words. It is also fair to note that in the past I have ended up feeling that I was the optimist, so it is possible that things could become a lot worse than what I percieve them to be.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Why is that bad news? What stake does India have in western 'civilization'?Originally posted by sunil s:
this contributes to a slow but steady decay of the pre-eminence of the western civilization as its core values are being undermined in a systematic fashion.....
I can't see any way to stem this tide of bad news.
If anything this is an opportunity, an opening for India...
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Nukes and poverty make an explosive combination
http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=153942004
http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=153942004
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Ananda
By the way, your post where you have said/talked about a stable Pakistan not in India's interest, makes lot of sense.
Added a minute later...
If you would kindly clarify, is this an opportunity only for India or for others like China too?If anything this is an opportunity, an opening for India...
By the way, your post where you have said/talked about a stable Pakistan not in India's interest, makes lot of sense.
Added a minute later...
There hardly is any country who has no stake in the good/well being of the western countries (at least now, and for some time to come). So why India is/would be an exception?What stake does India have in western 'civilization'?
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Who in the US in their right mind beleive a two-bit dictator's word pitted against President Bush and VP Cheney? BTW, various US admins, past and present, have done things far worse than a laundering a few millions through BCCI or whatever and still lived not only to tell the story but even got lucrative consulting and lobbying contracts with MNCs and foriegn govts.Originally posted by sunil s:
Hi,
I am slowly recovering from the shock of discovering that A Q Khan was actually putting money he was making on the nuclear black market into BCCI accounts.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
>> http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=153942004
...punishing ElBaradei’s actions...
...punishing ElBaradei’s actions...
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Timeline When? Who? What?
http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/misc/nk-nuke-timeline.html
Transcript: Jane Wallace Interviews Seymour Hersh [02.21.03]About a year ago...
JANE WALLACE: Thank you for joining us.
SY HERSH: Glad to be here.
JANE WALLACE: It might be safely said that the one country for whom the war on terror has been a bombless bonanza is Pakistan. In a matter of two weeks they went from being an international pariah, to being our new best friend.
The aid started flowing. It is flowing in the billions. Are they worthy of our friendship and our aid, the Pakistanis?
SY HERSH: In a perfect world, sure, it would be great if Musharraf, the head of the country can hold it together and they can become secular. And we can avoid having an Islamic republic with a lot of nuclear weapons. But it's dicey.
JANE WALLACE: What kind of dicey?
SY HERSH: I think it's a losing game. I think it's a losing game and I think there's a lot of evidence that Musharraf is certainly much more interested in his own survival than ours. I can't give you chapter and verse of things. He came to American when and when there was tremendous concern about the fate of Danny Pearl, the WALL STREET JOURNAL reporter.
And he was here about a week or so before it became known that Pearl was dead. And the whole time, we later learned, that he was here, when he was saying, you know telling us that he was doing everything he can. He was sure he was alive. He knew that Pearl was dead. We now know that. We knew he was deceiving us.
JANE WALLACE: How do we know that?
SY HERSH: Because--
JANE WALLACE: Time of death on Pearl?
SY HERSH: More than that. There's-- we were able to unravel a lot of information, WALL STREET JOURNAL reporters and others about when he died. And there was, if you remember, there's been a trial. And everything that showed up in the trial indicated that-- witnesses told about telling the government things-- weeks before we thought they had.
JANE WALLACE: There is a man facing death, facing hanging, Saeed Sheikh, in the murder of Daniel Pearl. Saeed Sheikh is reported, in various quarters, to have been an ISI Pakistani intelligence agent.
SY HERSH: Asset. Yeah.
JANE WALLACE: Do you believe that?
SY HERSH: This certainly is a case when he gave up, he turned himself in basically eventually to ISI and-- who-- not-- not right away, but pretty immediately. He turned a-- he was made available to the ISI and they debriefed him first.
JANE WALLACE: Why would he turn himself in to Pakistani intelligence as opposed to the police?
SY HERSH: There's no question he has some connection. There's no question he had some deep standing-- long standing connection to Pakistani intelligence.
JANE WALLACE: Now let me draw the picture ... If in fact he has a deep long standing connection to Pakistani intelligence, we are supporting a government that has some responsibility in the murder of an American reporter?
SY HERSH: What can you do?
JANE WALLACE: Let's talk about Konduz. During the war with Afghanistan--
SY HERSH: Great story.
JANE WALLACE: -- you reported that during a key battle our side in that battle had the enemy surrounded. There were a reported perhaps 8,000 enemy forces in there.
SY HERSH: Maybe even more. But certainly minimum that many.
JANE WALLACE: It's your story, take it.
SY HERSH: Okay, the cream of the crop of Al Qaeda caught in a town called Konduz which is near ... it's one little village and it's a couple hundred kilometers, 150 miles from the border of Pakistan. And I learned this story frankly-- through very, very clandestine operatives we have in the Delta Force and other very...
We were operating very heavily with a small number of men, three, 400 really in the first days of the war. And suddenly one night when they had everybody cornered in Konduz-- the special forces people were told there was a corridor that they could not fly in. There was a corridor sealed off to-- the United States military sealed off a corridor. And it was nobody could shoot anybody in this little lane that went from Konduz into Pakistan. And that's how I learned about it. I learned about it from a military guy who wanted to fly helicopters and kill people and couldn't do it that day.
JANE WALLACE: So, we had the enemy surrounded, the special forces guys are helping surround this enemy.
SY HERSH: They're whacking everybody they can whack that looks like a bad guy.
JANE WALLACE: And suddenly they're told to back off--
SY HERSH: From a certain area--
JANE WALLACE: -- and let planes fly out to Pakistan.
SY HERSH: There was about a three or four nights in which I can tell you maybe six, eight, 10, maybe 12 more-- or more heavily weighted-- Pakistani military planes flew out with an estimated-- no less than 2,500 maybe 3,000, maybe mmore. I've heard as many as four or 5,000. They were not only-- Al Qaeda but they were also-- you see the Pakistani ISI was-- the military advised us to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. There were dozens of senior Pakistani military officers including two generals who flew out.
And I also learned after I wrote this story that maybe even some of Bin Laden's immediate family were flown out on the those evacuations. We allowed them to evacuate. We had an evacuation.
JANE WALLACE: How high up was that evacuation authorized?
SY HERSH: I am here to tell you it was authorized — Donald Rumsfeld who — we'll talk about what he said later — it had to be authorized at the White House. But certainly at the Secretary of Defense level.
JANE WALLACE: The Department of Defense said to us that they were not involved and that they don't have any knowledge of that operation.
SY HERSH: That's what Rumsfeld said when they asked him but it. And he said, "Gee, really?" He said, "News to me." Which is not a denial, it's sort of interesting. You know,
JANE WALLACE: What did we do that? Why we would put our special forces guys on the ground, surround the enemy, and then-- fly him out?
SY HERSH: With al Qaeda.
JANE WALLACE: With al Qaeda. Why would we do that, assuming your story is true?
SY HERSH: We did it because the ISI asked us to do so.
JANE WALLACE: Pakistani intelligence.
SY HERSH: Absolutely.
JANE WALLACE: Yeah.
SY HERSH: Yeah. That's why. You asked why. Because we believe Musharraf was under pressure to protect the military men of — the intelligence people from the military, ISI, that were in the field. The Pakistanis were training the Taliban, and were training al Qaeda.
When the war began, even though this is-- again, you know, this is complicated. Musharraf asked, as a favor, to protect his position. If we suddenly seized, in in the field, a few dozen military soldiers, including generals, and put them in jail, and punished them, he would be under tremendous pressure from the fundamentalists at home.
So, to protect him, we perceive that it's important to protect him, he asked us-- this is why when I tell you it comes at the level of Don Rumsfeld, it has to. I mean, it does. He asked-- he said, "You've got to protect me. You've got to get my people out."
The initial plan was to take out the Pakistani military. What happened is that they took out al Qaeda with them. And we had no way of stopping it. We lost control. Once there planes began to go, the Pakistanis began-- thousands of al Qaeda got out. And so-- we weren't able to stop it and screen it. The intent wasn't to let al Qaeda out. It was to protect the Pakistani military.
SY HERSH: What else can you do? We need the idea of some sort of country as a bulwark to what's going-- look, Afghanistan is smoking today. You know if you want another reality, the reality that nobody wants to hear about is that probably from Khandhar to Jalalabad and all of the southern part of Afghanistan is cowboy and Indian territory.
It's ISI. It's Taliban. It's Pashtun. Some al Qaeda. You know you don't find our troops-- a little bit in-- on the coast near-- you know in the north-- the northern territories. We're-- it's-- we have un-- we're-- we're really at square one even in Afghanistan.
JANE WALLACE: Okay, I'm gonna slow you down because you know your material very well. The northwestern part of Pakistan--
SY HERSH: Right.
JANE WALLACE: --that borders on Afghanistan now is where the-- the al Qaeda forces are said to be regrouped?
SY HERSH: Along with Kashmir. They probably are there too.
JANE WALLACE: Yes. This is where some of our American troops-- we have about 8,000 left in Afghanistan, are facing some of the heaviest fighting they've seen in a year.
SY HERSH: The forces that are seeing heavy fighting are a few special forces that are there and some elite units from the 82nd Airborne. Most of our troops are just guarding bases. But we have some elite units in contact. Yes.
JANE WALLACE: What you're saying is that then part of the forces our guys are facing are forces that are being supported by or intermixed with Pakistan intelligence which is a government we support. And al Qaeda, which is supported by a government we support. In other words we're doing battle with ourselves to some degree?
SY HERSH: I'll make it better. We have reason to think, from intelligence-- I haven't written this that-- that the Saudi's are financing some of this all the way.
JANE WALLACE: Financing what?
SY HERSH: Saudi's put a lot of money into Pakistan to religious aspects. I'm not saying the Saudi's necessarily-- the Saudi government knows that the money they're putting in is ending up supplying the forces that are in contact with our forces in the northern territories. But the fact is the Saudi's are still a supplier of a great deal of funds to Pakistan. We've got a country that's teetering on the edge, we don't want Pakistan to go Islamic. We don't want the weapons to get out of control.
JANE WALLACE: How exactly did the Pakistanis acquire nukes?
SY HERSH: They stole the technology from Europe-- to-- basically-- they used enriched uranium, Enriched uranium makes as perfectly a good a bomb as plutonium without a big nuclear reactor that anybody can see and-- and get intelligence on. They began turning out warheads. We now know I-- as they say, we estimate up to 40-- and that's just a rough guess.
JANE WALLACE: Forty warheads means what in terms of destructive power?
SY HERSH: Well, it depends the average warhead probably-- takes out New York. A good chunk of New York.
JANE WALLACE: So forty warheads is a lot--
SY HERSH: Yeah.
JANE WALLACE: --for a country the size of Pakistan?
SY HERSH: I would say one isn't a lot if you can fire it. Yes, if you know how to do it and-- and-- it's a lot. They--
JANE WALLACE: So formidable, especially in a third-world country where we're not entirely sure--
SY HERSH: It could--
JANE WALLACE: --who's in charge of the switch?
SY HERSH: Well, we'd like to think that the military and Musharraf is in charge of the switch. That makes us very happy to think that. That's the whole issue. The issue is making sure and reinforce Musharraf being in charge of the switch, which--
JANE WALLACE: But the--
SY HERSH: It's--
JANE WALLACE: --on the--
SY HERSH: --it's a--
JANE WALLACE: -- issue--
SY HERSH: --it's a crap game. It's a roll of the dice. That's what it is.
JANE WALLACE: You reported recently that not only do the Pakistanis have the nukes, the international community knew that. That's why they were ostracized for many years, because they wouldn't stop developing their own nuclear program. So they were blackballed by the rest of the world. Forget it, we're not trading with them anymore.
They were in that position when 9/11 struck. Not only do they have these nuclear weapons, but then they go one further to put it in our face and start helping North Korea develop the same cheaper, more efficient warheads. What is that about? These are our new best friends?
SY HERSH: Well, this started before they became our new best friends. This isn't-- this started in '97. What I did is I wrote about an intelligence report that the White House had for, what, eight months before it became known.
I love the story that this administration does live in a sort of a web of it's own sort of stories. They-- the story they put out was last fall one of our guys goes to North Korea, the Pyongyang and-- and confronts the North Koreans. And they admit they have it. And we're stunned. They've admitted they have it. Something we've known they've had for a year.
What they did is in '97-- they buy missiles from North Korea. The North Korean government is insane. Half the people starve and meanwhile they have a tremendously efficient missile system. They-- they-- if-- if the leader of that country decided that he wanted to-- to get rid of the missiles and start spending money on-- on-- on food, they could all live. There's enough there. But it's-- it's a madness society.
And so the North-- the North Koreans are supplying missiles for-- for Pakistan for years. And in '97, Pakistan had some serious economic problems. And I can tell you right now i-- if nu-- if Pakistan's economy is-- is in the toilet, North Korea's deep in the sewer.
So here they are. North Korea's-- one of their great exports is missiles for cash and then they sell some missiles to the Paks. And the Paks come to the North Koreans in '97 and they say, "Hey guys, we can't pay. We got no money. We're broke too. But we've got something in kind. I'm giving you the most--" this is actually an interpretation the community-- intelligence community, same people in the American intelligence community.
And by the way, there's a lot of good people in our system. And awful lot. And they must be very frustrated with it, because I think things at the top-- it's a very strange world at the top of this government. It's a cocoon. And no bad information invited. I'm talking about in a-- in the-- in the leadership.
JANE WALLACE: What do you mean cocoon, no bad information invited?
SY HERSH: Oh, I just don't think it was hard-- I don't think they could sell this story of the-- the-- I don't think the intelligence community was-- was able to get the President and the Vice President and other people to focus on North Korea-- for a year before it became known. It was just-- they didn't wanna focus on it. They had other issues.
But the Paks then start giving the fruits of their 10, 15 years, 20 years of nuclear labor to the North Koreans. And you have to understand, to start with a centrifuge and some designs and get to the point where you can actually make bomb-grade material is a 12, 15 year process. The Paks--
JANE WALLACE: It's very sophisticated?
SY HERSH: Oh. The Paks cut it way down to a couple years, three, four, maybe five years.
JANE WALLACE: So you could really spin 'em out?
SY HERSH: You can kick it out. You can put it in high gear. They gave 'em prototypes of the centrifuges that they made. They gave 'em prototypes of the warheads. They gave 'em test data.
There's something called cold testing. You can actually test natural uranium in a warhead and it gives you a lot of information about the real stuff-- enriched stuff would work.
JANE WALLACE: So both third-world powers become more dangerous?
SY HERSH: To put it mildly.
JANE WALLACE: Colin Powell did not deny your story. He did go out of his way to say, the Secretary of State, that Musharraf has assured the State Department that this is not happening now.
SY HERSH: Right.
JANE WALLACE: That's all-- well, what do you make of that?
SY HERSH: It's the-- it's the-- it's the-- the three-card Monty we have going, which is that, "What are you going to do with this guy? Are you going to say--" it's clear that some of the help that Musharraf gave the North Koreans took place after 9/11. That is a continuum.
Musharraf's answer to us was a-- you know, "Oh my god. There's gambling on the premises?" You know shades of Casablanca. And, "I'll stop it right now." And we say, "Great." What else are we gonna do?
Are we gonna take a run at this guy and make it-- make him more vulnerable to his critics that are there already? The fundamentalists-- the Islamic-- the mujahadin? So we--
JANE WALLACE: Or are we gonna pretend it didn't happen or-- or at least it's stopped?
SY HERSH: We-- the rationalization for pretending it didn't happen or that it's stopped-- and it probably has stopped. The rationalization-- first of all, why shouldn't it stop? They've got what they need already?
The rationalization is that we can't jeopardize Musharraf. We've gotta keep him going. Prop him up as much as possible.
JANE WALLACE: This is getting to be a very costly prop up.
SY HERSH: Absolutely. But you know, let me give you another-- theory. Why do you think Pakistan has only helped North Korea with nuclear weapons? Why haven't they helped other countries?
JANE WALLACE: I don't know why.
SY HERSH: Well, the answer is, they probably have. They're interested in spreading it to the Third World. How much control does Musharraf have?
JANE WALLACE: Do you have any evidence?
SY HERSH: No, no. I'm just telling you-- heuristically, I'm just telling you-- I'm telling what I-- my instinct tells me that in a perfect world, if our editor of the world's newspaper, I would-- I would want to look at our-- is Pakistan-- I'd look at Pakistan and Iran, look at Pakistan and-- and Indonesia. Look at Pakistan even and Lebanon. There's a lot of ties that I'm interested in. Are they gonna be spreading nuclear technology into the Muslim world above and beyond their own country?
JANE WALLACE: If we were really going after the people who sponsored al Qaeda, wouldn't we be bombing Pakistan?
SY HERSH: Well, it'd be attacking Pakistan is not like attacking Afghanistan, or Iraq. They have an air force. They have nuclear weapons, of course. They have a-- very strong powerful Army. We're not gonna attack Pakistan. That would be-- that would be an impossible chore. If you said to me, "Are we better off in Pakistan or in Iraq in terms of beating terrorism?" I would say to you-- if you'd asked me that question, I would say, "No question. Let's forget about Iraq and let's focus on Pakistan and start doing-- the money we're gonna spend if we go to war there, even in moving troops, if we tried to use some of that money in-- in positive ways in Pakistan, we might be able to accomplish more than we are right now."
JANE WALLACE: The picture you are painting here is that we're dealing with the devil.
SY HERSH: It's not a perfect world.
http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/misc/nk-nuke-timeline.html
Transcript: Jane Wallace Interviews Seymour Hersh [02.21.03]About a year ago...
JANE WALLACE: Thank you for joining us.
SY HERSH: Glad to be here.
JANE WALLACE: It might be safely said that the one country for whom the war on terror has been a bombless bonanza is Pakistan. In a matter of two weeks they went from being an international pariah, to being our new best friend.
The aid started flowing. It is flowing in the billions. Are they worthy of our friendship and our aid, the Pakistanis?
SY HERSH: In a perfect world, sure, it would be great if Musharraf, the head of the country can hold it together and they can become secular. And we can avoid having an Islamic republic with a lot of nuclear weapons. But it's dicey.
JANE WALLACE: What kind of dicey?
SY HERSH: I think it's a losing game. I think it's a losing game and I think there's a lot of evidence that Musharraf is certainly much more interested in his own survival than ours. I can't give you chapter and verse of things. He came to American when and when there was tremendous concern about the fate of Danny Pearl, the WALL STREET JOURNAL reporter.
And he was here about a week or so before it became known that Pearl was dead. And the whole time, we later learned, that he was here, when he was saying, you know telling us that he was doing everything he can. He was sure he was alive. He knew that Pearl was dead. We now know that. We knew he was deceiving us.
JANE WALLACE: How do we know that?
SY HERSH: Because--
JANE WALLACE: Time of death on Pearl?
SY HERSH: More than that. There's-- we were able to unravel a lot of information, WALL STREET JOURNAL reporters and others about when he died. And there was, if you remember, there's been a trial. And everything that showed up in the trial indicated that-- witnesses told about telling the government things-- weeks before we thought they had.
JANE WALLACE: There is a man facing death, facing hanging, Saeed Sheikh, in the murder of Daniel Pearl. Saeed Sheikh is reported, in various quarters, to have been an ISI Pakistani intelligence agent.
SY HERSH: Asset. Yeah.
JANE WALLACE: Do you believe that?
SY HERSH: This certainly is a case when he gave up, he turned himself in basically eventually to ISI and-- who-- not-- not right away, but pretty immediately. He turned a-- he was made available to the ISI and they debriefed him first.
JANE WALLACE: Why would he turn himself in to Pakistani intelligence as opposed to the police?
SY HERSH: There's no question he has some connection. There's no question he had some deep standing-- long standing connection to Pakistani intelligence.
JANE WALLACE: Now let me draw the picture ... If in fact he has a deep long standing connection to Pakistani intelligence, we are supporting a government that has some responsibility in the murder of an American reporter?
SY HERSH: What can you do?
JANE WALLACE: Let's talk about Konduz. During the war with Afghanistan--
SY HERSH: Great story.
JANE WALLACE: -- you reported that during a key battle our side in that battle had the enemy surrounded. There were a reported perhaps 8,000 enemy forces in there.
SY HERSH: Maybe even more. But certainly minimum that many.
JANE WALLACE: It's your story, take it.
SY HERSH: Okay, the cream of the crop of Al Qaeda caught in a town called Konduz which is near ... it's one little village and it's a couple hundred kilometers, 150 miles from the border of Pakistan. And I learned this story frankly-- through very, very clandestine operatives we have in the Delta Force and other very...
We were operating very heavily with a small number of men, three, 400 really in the first days of the war. And suddenly one night when they had everybody cornered in Konduz-- the special forces people were told there was a corridor that they could not fly in. There was a corridor sealed off to-- the United States military sealed off a corridor. And it was nobody could shoot anybody in this little lane that went from Konduz into Pakistan. And that's how I learned about it. I learned about it from a military guy who wanted to fly helicopters and kill people and couldn't do it that day.
JANE WALLACE: So, we had the enemy surrounded, the special forces guys are helping surround this enemy.
SY HERSH: They're whacking everybody they can whack that looks like a bad guy.
JANE WALLACE: And suddenly they're told to back off--
SY HERSH: From a certain area--
JANE WALLACE: -- and let planes fly out to Pakistan.
SY HERSH: There was about a three or four nights in which I can tell you maybe six, eight, 10, maybe 12 more-- or more heavily weighted-- Pakistani military planes flew out with an estimated-- no less than 2,500 maybe 3,000, maybe mmore. I've heard as many as four or 5,000. They were not only-- Al Qaeda but they were also-- you see the Pakistani ISI was-- the military advised us to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. There were dozens of senior Pakistani military officers including two generals who flew out.
And I also learned after I wrote this story that maybe even some of Bin Laden's immediate family were flown out on the those evacuations. We allowed them to evacuate. We had an evacuation.
JANE WALLACE: How high up was that evacuation authorized?
SY HERSH: I am here to tell you it was authorized — Donald Rumsfeld who — we'll talk about what he said later — it had to be authorized at the White House. But certainly at the Secretary of Defense level.
JANE WALLACE: The Department of Defense said to us that they were not involved and that they don't have any knowledge of that operation.
SY HERSH: That's what Rumsfeld said when they asked him but it. And he said, "Gee, really?" He said, "News to me." Which is not a denial, it's sort of interesting. You know,
JANE WALLACE: What did we do that? Why we would put our special forces guys on the ground, surround the enemy, and then-- fly him out?
SY HERSH: With al Qaeda.
JANE WALLACE: With al Qaeda. Why would we do that, assuming your story is true?
SY HERSH: We did it because the ISI asked us to do so.
JANE WALLACE: Pakistani intelligence.
SY HERSH: Absolutely.
JANE WALLACE: Yeah.
SY HERSH: Yeah. That's why. You asked why. Because we believe Musharraf was under pressure to protect the military men of — the intelligence people from the military, ISI, that were in the field. The Pakistanis were training the Taliban, and were training al Qaeda.
When the war began, even though this is-- again, you know, this is complicated. Musharraf asked, as a favor, to protect his position. If we suddenly seized, in in the field, a few dozen military soldiers, including generals, and put them in jail, and punished them, he would be under tremendous pressure from the fundamentalists at home.
So, to protect him, we perceive that it's important to protect him, he asked us-- this is why when I tell you it comes at the level of Don Rumsfeld, it has to. I mean, it does. He asked-- he said, "You've got to protect me. You've got to get my people out."
The initial plan was to take out the Pakistani military. What happened is that they took out al Qaeda with them. And we had no way of stopping it. We lost control. Once there planes began to go, the Pakistanis began-- thousands of al Qaeda got out. And so-- we weren't able to stop it and screen it. The intent wasn't to let al Qaeda out. It was to protect the Pakistani military.
SY HERSH: What else can you do? We need the idea of some sort of country as a bulwark to what's going-- look, Afghanistan is smoking today. You know if you want another reality, the reality that nobody wants to hear about is that probably from Khandhar to Jalalabad and all of the southern part of Afghanistan is cowboy and Indian territory.
It's ISI. It's Taliban. It's Pashtun. Some al Qaeda. You know you don't find our troops-- a little bit in-- on the coast near-- you know in the north-- the northern territories. We're-- it's-- we have un-- we're-- we're really at square one even in Afghanistan.
JANE WALLACE: Okay, I'm gonna slow you down because you know your material very well. The northwestern part of Pakistan--
SY HERSH: Right.
JANE WALLACE: --that borders on Afghanistan now is where the-- the al Qaeda forces are said to be regrouped?
SY HERSH: Along with Kashmir. They probably are there too.
JANE WALLACE: Yes. This is where some of our American troops-- we have about 8,000 left in Afghanistan, are facing some of the heaviest fighting they've seen in a year.
SY HERSH: The forces that are seeing heavy fighting are a few special forces that are there and some elite units from the 82nd Airborne. Most of our troops are just guarding bases. But we have some elite units in contact. Yes.
JANE WALLACE: What you're saying is that then part of the forces our guys are facing are forces that are being supported by or intermixed with Pakistan intelligence which is a government we support. And al Qaeda, which is supported by a government we support. In other words we're doing battle with ourselves to some degree?
SY HERSH: I'll make it better. We have reason to think, from intelligence-- I haven't written this that-- that the Saudi's are financing some of this all the way.
JANE WALLACE: Financing what?
SY HERSH: Saudi's put a lot of money into Pakistan to religious aspects. I'm not saying the Saudi's necessarily-- the Saudi government knows that the money they're putting in is ending up supplying the forces that are in contact with our forces in the northern territories. But the fact is the Saudi's are still a supplier of a great deal of funds to Pakistan. We've got a country that's teetering on the edge, we don't want Pakistan to go Islamic. We don't want the weapons to get out of control.
JANE WALLACE: How exactly did the Pakistanis acquire nukes?
SY HERSH: They stole the technology from Europe-- to-- basically-- they used enriched uranium, Enriched uranium makes as perfectly a good a bomb as plutonium without a big nuclear reactor that anybody can see and-- and get intelligence on. They began turning out warheads. We now know I-- as they say, we estimate up to 40-- and that's just a rough guess.
JANE WALLACE: Forty warheads means what in terms of destructive power?
SY HERSH: Well, it depends the average warhead probably-- takes out New York. A good chunk of New York.
JANE WALLACE: So forty warheads is a lot--
SY HERSH: Yeah.
JANE WALLACE: --for a country the size of Pakistan?
SY HERSH: I would say one isn't a lot if you can fire it. Yes, if you know how to do it and-- and-- it's a lot. They--
JANE WALLACE: So formidable, especially in a third-world country where we're not entirely sure--
SY HERSH: It could--
JANE WALLACE: --who's in charge of the switch?
SY HERSH: Well, we'd like to think that the military and Musharraf is in charge of the switch. That makes us very happy to think that. That's the whole issue. The issue is making sure and reinforce Musharraf being in charge of the switch, which--
JANE WALLACE: But the--
SY HERSH: It's--
JANE WALLACE: --on the--
SY HERSH: --it's a--
JANE WALLACE: -- issue--
SY HERSH: --it's a crap game. It's a roll of the dice. That's what it is.
JANE WALLACE: You reported recently that not only do the Pakistanis have the nukes, the international community knew that. That's why they were ostracized for many years, because they wouldn't stop developing their own nuclear program. So they were blackballed by the rest of the world. Forget it, we're not trading with them anymore.
They were in that position when 9/11 struck. Not only do they have these nuclear weapons, but then they go one further to put it in our face and start helping North Korea develop the same cheaper, more efficient warheads. What is that about? These are our new best friends?
SY HERSH: Well, this started before they became our new best friends. This isn't-- this started in '97. What I did is I wrote about an intelligence report that the White House had for, what, eight months before it became known.
I love the story that this administration does live in a sort of a web of it's own sort of stories. They-- the story they put out was last fall one of our guys goes to North Korea, the Pyongyang and-- and confronts the North Koreans. And they admit they have it. And we're stunned. They've admitted they have it. Something we've known they've had for a year.
What they did is in '97-- they buy missiles from North Korea. The North Korean government is insane. Half the people starve and meanwhile they have a tremendously efficient missile system. They-- they-- if-- if the leader of that country decided that he wanted to-- to get rid of the missiles and start spending money on-- on-- on food, they could all live. There's enough there. But it's-- it's a madness society.
And so the North-- the North Koreans are supplying missiles for-- for Pakistan for years. And in '97, Pakistan had some serious economic problems. And I can tell you right now i-- if nu-- if Pakistan's economy is-- is in the toilet, North Korea's deep in the sewer.
So here they are. North Korea's-- one of their great exports is missiles for cash and then they sell some missiles to the Paks. And the Paks come to the North Koreans in '97 and they say, "Hey guys, we can't pay. We got no money. We're broke too. But we've got something in kind. I'm giving you the most--" this is actually an interpretation the community-- intelligence community, same people in the American intelligence community.
And by the way, there's a lot of good people in our system. And awful lot. And they must be very frustrated with it, because I think things at the top-- it's a very strange world at the top of this government. It's a cocoon. And no bad information invited. I'm talking about in a-- in the-- in the leadership.
JANE WALLACE: What do you mean cocoon, no bad information invited?
SY HERSH: Oh, I just don't think it was hard-- I don't think they could sell this story of the-- the-- I don't think the intelligence community was-- was able to get the President and the Vice President and other people to focus on North Korea-- for a year before it became known. It was just-- they didn't wanna focus on it. They had other issues.
But the Paks then start giving the fruits of their 10, 15 years, 20 years of nuclear labor to the North Koreans. And you have to understand, to start with a centrifuge and some designs and get to the point where you can actually make bomb-grade material is a 12, 15 year process. The Paks--
JANE WALLACE: It's very sophisticated?
SY HERSH: Oh. The Paks cut it way down to a couple years, three, four, maybe five years.
JANE WALLACE: So you could really spin 'em out?
SY HERSH: You can kick it out. You can put it in high gear. They gave 'em prototypes of the centrifuges that they made. They gave 'em prototypes of the warheads. They gave 'em test data.
There's something called cold testing. You can actually test natural uranium in a warhead and it gives you a lot of information about the real stuff-- enriched stuff would work.
JANE WALLACE: So both third-world powers become more dangerous?
SY HERSH: To put it mildly.
JANE WALLACE: Colin Powell did not deny your story. He did go out of his way to say, the Secretary of State, that Musharraf has assured the State Department that this is not happening now.
SY HERSH: Right.
JANE WALLACE: That's all-- well, what do you make of that?
SY HERSH: It's the-- it's the-- it's the-- the three-card Monty we have going, which is that, "What are you going to do with this guy? Are you going to say--" it's clear that some of the help that Musharraf gave the North Koreans took place after 9/11. That is a continuum.
Musharraf's answer to us was a-- you know, "Oh my god. There's gambling on the premises?" You know shades of Casablanca. And, "I'll stop it right now." And we say, "Great." What else are we gonna do?
Are we gonna take a run at this guy and make it-- make him more vulnerable to his critics that are there already? The fundamentalists-- the Islamic-- the mujahadin? So we--
JANE WALLACE: Or are we gonna pretend it didn't happen or-- or at least it's stopped?
SY HERSH: We-- the rationalization for pretending it didn't happen or that it's stopped-- and it probably has stopped. The rationalization-- first of all, why shouldn't it stop? They've got what they need already?
The rationalization is that we can't jeopardize Musharraf. We've gotta keep him going. Prop him up as much as possible.
JANE WALLACE: This is getting to be a very costly prop up.
SY HERSH: Absolutely. But you know, let me give you another-- theory. Why do you think Pakistan has only helped North Korea with nuclear weapons? Why haven't they helped other countries?
JANE WALLACE: I don't know why.
SY HERSH: Well, the answer is, they probably have. They're interested in spreading it to the Third World. How much control does Musharraf have?
JANE WALLACE: Do you have any evidence?
SY HERSH: No, no. I'm just telling you-- heuristically, I'm just telling you-- I'm telling what I-- my instinct tells me that in a perfect world, if our editor of the world's newspaper, I would-- I would want to look at our-- is Pakistan-- I'd look at Pakistan and Iran, look at Pakistan and-- and Indonesia. Look at Pakistan even and Lebanon. There's a lot of ties that I'm interested in. Are they gonna be spreading nuclear technology into the Muslim world above and beyond their own country?
JANE WALLACE: If we were really going after the people who sponsored al Qaeda, wouldn't we be bombing Pakistan?
SY HERSH: Well, it'd be attacking Pakistan is not like attacking Afghanistan, or Iraq. They have an air force. They have nuclear weapons, of course. They have a-- very strong powerful Army. We're not gonna attack Pakistan. That would be-- that would be an impossible chore. If you said to me, "Are we better off in Pakistan or in Iraq in terms of beating terrorism?" I would say to you-- if you'd asked me that question, I would say, "No question. Let's forget about Iraq and let's focus on Pakistan and start doing-- the money we're gonna spend if we go to war there, even in moving troops, if we tried to use some of that money in-- in positive ways in Pakistan, we might be able to accomplish more than we are right now."
JANE WALLACE: The picture you are painting here is that we're dealing with the devil.
SY HERSH: It's not a perfect world.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
<a href="http://www.satribune.com/archives/feb8_ ... _state.htm" "target=blank" </a>State department (de)briefing 
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Cold warriors are still alive at BBC and are protecting Pakis, god only knows why.Originally posted by jrjrao:
FWIW.
BBC Monitoring International Reports
February 8, 2004
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Crossposting.
U.S. Terror Expert Warns of Dirty Bomb
U.S. Terror Expert Warns of Dirty Bomb
Black's comments follow recent revelations that the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, sold equipment related to centrifuges, used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons, to Iran, Libya and North Korea (news - web sites).
Experts say the same black market that enabled those countries to obtain nuclear weapons technology might also have supplied bomb components or plans to terrorists.
"If al-Qaida were to put together a radiological device, they're going to use it," Black said. "We know that they have the determination, they've killed large numbers before, their objective is to kill more, they're doing everything they can to acquire this type of weapon and we are working to try to prevent it."
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Interesting comment by APJ Abdul Kalam in the first press conference after the Shakti test series.
http://www.fas.org/news/india/1998/05/980500-conf.htm
Could he have been referring to the AQK story? Or was he just referring to China (probably not because China's proliferation was not for <B>commercial interests</B>).A: (K) - I have studied the issue of proliferation of nuclear weapons. The U.S. has some 10,000 warheads. Nuclear warheads are used for political and commercial purposes. <B>In our area we have seen proliferation for commercial interests.</B> Our developments have nothing to do with this. Our development is for our national security
http://www.fas.org/news/india/1998/05/980500-conf.htm
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Div, thanks...
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
After Pokaran-2 I remember Vajpayee made a statement that it was detected that TSP had a test in the works so India decided to test.
This was a speech given in Hindi. I suspect that if TSP had tested earlier there would have been no sanctions on it and India would have been left holding the ball.
Also is there any information about one Dennis Helms a director of BCCI, and son of Richard Helms of the CIA, and relative of Laila Helms.
Was he involved with AQ Khan?
This was a speech given in Hindi. I suspect that if TSP had tested earlier there would have been no sanctions on it and India would have been left holding the ball.
Also is there any information about one Dennis Helms a director of BCCI, and son of Richard Helms of the CIA, and relative of Laila Helms.
Was he involved with AQ Khan?
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
From the Scotsman article ...
British nuclear bomb tech went to India ?
This is the first time I've ever read anything like this...Of all the nuclear powers, only the US and France built bombs without borrowed technology. Klaus Fuchs passed American secrets on to the Russians, who in turn gave it to the Chinese, who then gave it to the Pakistanis. The Americans helped the British who helped India. The Israelis benefited from French and American help.
British nuclear bomb tech went to India ?
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Pakistan: ‘The crazy soup’
Pakistan: ‘The crazy soup’
Nuclear politics - and "The Islamic Bomb" By Robert Windrem
News Analysis
NBC News
In the past, U.S. officials worried about Pakistan’s nuclear forces in the context of a potential war with India, one that a U.S. Air Force study said could result in the deaths of 150 million people on the subcontinent.
Now, however, in the aftermath of 9/11, the fears have shifted to the possibility that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of al-Qaida and the loss of life would occur not in Bombay or Islamabad, but in New York and Washington. “It’s your worst nightmare,” said a senior U.S. intelligence official, describing the nexus of terror and nuclear weapons that Pakistan occupies.
The issue is very sensitive. Pakistan, or at least some elements of the Pakistani government, has been very helpful in the war on terror, but other elements of the Pakistani government have participated in single most dangerous proliferation of nuclear weapons in the atomic age.
Not only was Khalid Sheik Mohammed grabbed in Rawalpindi, but Ramzi bin al-Shibh, the on-ground organizer of the Hamburg cell was grabbed in Karachi, Abu Zubaydah, the al-Qaida “dean of students” was grabbed in Faisalabad, and Khallad, the mastermind of the USS Cole bombing was grabbed in a Karachi suburb. And of course, the United States believes strongly that Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri are holed up in a remote area of south Waziristan, in Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier. Pakistani troops are searching for the two of them, although there are disputes as to how hard they are looking.
On the other side, U.S. officials have determined that Pakistan, or at least some elements of the Pakistani government, has supplied sensitive nuclear weapons technology, perhaps the most sensitive nuclear weapons technology, to at least North Korea, Iran and Libya and, say some officials, that list may have to be expanded to encompass a Pakistani plan to create a nuclear armed Islamic bloc or worse, a nuclear armed al-Qaida.
U.S. officials understand the combustible mix of terror, nuclear weapons and Islamic fundamentalism that is Pakistan. I have heard U.S. officials refer to Pakistan as a “crazy soup” of those elements, “the scariest place on earth”, and a place where “anything can happen and none it would be good."
The best example several cite: in August 1998, when the United States retaliated for the East Africa embassy bombings by bombing bin Laden’s camps, officials say most of the 20 or so killed that day were Pakistanis, sent by the Inter Services Intelligence [ISI] service for training with al-Qaida. There are even officials — and high ranking officials — who believe the ISI had tipped off bin Laden that day to an impending attack by U.S. cruise missiles.
One very senior CIA official told me, “I can imagine a scenario a decade from now or even sooner where the Indian Prime Minister would call the President of the United States and say, ‘Mr. President, we can no longer take it and we are going into Pakistan tomorrow’ and the President would respond, ‘OK’. “It’s a dangerous, dangerous place.”
The nuclear force
At the center of the fears is the Pakistani nuclear force. Conventional wisdom has always held that India, with its advanced industrial base and wealth of scientific knowledge and experience, has significantly more nuclear weapons than Pakistan. The reverse is true.
New U.S. intelligence analyses of nuclear weapons in South Asia indicates that Pakistan now has greater nuclear capability — both in terms of numbers of weapons and quality of delivery systems — than India. Moreover, its weapons are more secure, say people with knowledge of the two programs.
The numbers, if known with specificity, are classified, but a senior U.S. intelligence official said the Pakistanis have an “almost 2-1 margin” in nuclear weapons. The best guess is that Pakistan has about 40+ weapons with India having somewhere in the high 20’s.
When asked about frequent reports that India has between 25 and 100 nuclear weapons one U.S. intelligence official said that the Pakistanis “are more likely to have those numbers than the Indians.” The most frequently cited number for Pakistan had been around 15 nuclear weapons. Moreover, the official said that the number of nukes ready for use may be greater in Pakistan than in India. “I don’t think their [the Indians’] program is as advanced as the Paks’.”
Pakistan also has greater air and missile capability and both are “fully capable of a nuclear exchange if something happens.” the official added. Other officials noted that Pakistan’s air force, with its U.S. F-16’s and its French Mirage fighter bombers has some of the best penetrating fighter-bombers in the world.
In addition, it has around 30 missiles: the Chinese M-11 short range missile and its Pakistani variant, the Tarmuk, as well as the North Korean Nodong intermediate-range missile known locally as the Ghauri. India on the other hand has no nuclear-capable missiles and fewer and less capable MiG fighter bombers, although it has twice tested the Agni missile, an intermediate range missile that could provide the basis of an ICBM force. Current U.S. analysis is that the Agni will not be fielded with nuclear warheads for another 10 years. The Pentagon document states that Indian “research into missile warhead design probably is underway” but is not complete. Also underway but not complete is research into the miniaturization of nuclear weapons, critical for both warhead and other weapons design.
The location of the weapons, of course, is the most highly classified secret in Pakistan, but there were indications a significant number of them had been stored in the western desert of Baluchistan, near the Pakistani test site at Chagai and an F-16 base at Dalbandin. But that was before September 11.
’The Islamic Bomb’: But in whose service is the bomb?
Pakistan is aiming for a “nuclear armed Islamic bloc around the world” says a U.S. intelligence analyst who has followed the country’s program for more than a decade. A senior U.S. intelligence official agreed, saying it is “Islamic nationalism” more than any other factor that has guided Pakistani dispersal of nuclear technology around the world.
“I do not think that this could be just an issue of personal greed — of the bomb makers wanting to make a fast buck,” Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy, Pakistan’s leading anti-nuclear activist, agreed. “It’s got to be much more than that.”
“It is nationalist, the greater glory of Pakistan. It’s Islamist, I think that’s quite true,” says Robert Oakley, who was U.S. ambassador to Pakistan in the early 1990’s. “And it’s personal, ego, the man who thinks of himself as a towering figure. So it’s all those things plus money. I think it’s all of them together.”
The man, of course, is Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan’s atomic bomb, who has now admitted sending or offering weapons designs, uranium enrichment technology and his own rolodex of suppliers to virtually every nation on the U.S. list of state-sponsors of terrorism — ”the entire kit”, as the analyst put it.
He added that in addition to deals Khan made with Libya, Iran, and North Korea, similar offers were made to Syria and Iraq, but were declined. And there is at least one other Islamic nation who benefited from Khan’s largesse, he said. The senior intelligence official declined comment when asked if other Islamic nations beyond Iran and Libya had received nuclear technology from Pakistan. “I have nothing for you on that,” he said.
Moreover, according to the analyst, that not all the deals are one-way. Islamic nations have supplied money, training, equipment, expertise, etc. to the effort. Saudi has supplied money to Pakistan’s “Islamic bomb” over the past several decades and other states are at best looking the other way when materials are being transferred. He says another telling indicator is that subcomponents of the Pakistani centrifuges found in Libya were made in a fabrication facility in Malaysia. And Indonesia has employed Pakistanis in its nuclear research reactor.
“Their aim is to thwart what they see as the U.S nuclear hegemony. They want an Islamic bomb as a deterrent for the Islamic world to counter what they see as the Christian bomb, the Jewish bomb, the Hindu bomb,” the analyst added.
He pointed to historical quotes from Khan, as well as those of former Pakistani presidents and prime ministers. In particular, the analyst noted an interview the notoriously anti-American Khan gave to a journalist in 1984. Khan was reported to have said, “All western countries, including Israel, are the enemies not only of Pakistan, but in fact of Islam. Had any other Muslim country instead of Pakistan made this progress, they would have conducted the same poisonous and false propaganda about it. The examples of Iraq and Libya are before you.”
General Zia ul-Haq was military dictator of Pakistan during the 1980’s, when coincidentally or not Pakistan made its biggest strides in nuclear weaponry and was the paymaster of the U.S. war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. He told a journalist in 1986, “It is our right to obtain this technology. And when we acquire this technology, the entire Islamic world will possess it with us.”
Even the man Zia overthrew and had hanged, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was reported to have told then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in 1976 that with other civilizations having the bomb, “the Islamic civilization” should have one too.
The analyst also pointed to quotes this week from retired General Mirza Aslam Beg, head of the Pakistani army form 1988 to 1991 and the man most believe had overall charge of the nuclear weapons program. Beg told the New York Times that Muslim countries should not be asked to give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons until India and Israel destroyed their nuclear arsenals. “Why don’t you start from there?” General Beg asked. “This is the discrimination and duplicity which gives heartburn and humiliation to the Muslim world.”
The analyst rejected the spin that high government officials like Beg then or Musharraf now didn’t know about the nuclear transfers. He pointed to the one case not involving an Islamic state, that of North Korea.
“They traded nuclear technology, centrifuges and other things, for missiles, big missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. You don’t FedEx missiles. It involves shipping or aircraft delivery, integration of the missiles into your war plans. These are decisions made by governments."
"If Musharraf doesn’t know the details," he said, "there is a precedent and a dangerous one."
“Does he know? If he doesn’t that is even more frightening. Remember what happened in 1988 and 89, when Benazir Bhutto was prime minister. She said she didn’t know and when she started to ask questions, they dumped her, she lost control. That could happen to him.”
“The question is ‘is there a shadow government that runs the nuclear program?’ We keep hearing ‘oh, this is a rogue operation’. We have heard that for decades now. But we do know. The best intelligence we ever had on any weapons of mass destruction program was from Pakistan. We knew everything, but we chose to ignore it because we were in bed with these people on Afghanistan. Now we are in bed with them on terrorism. We can’t get out of bed with these people!”
As for Pakistani officials’ claims that the transfers of technology was driven by money, the official said that while he would not dismiss the possibility that money played a role — “you can never dismiss the role of money” — he and others believe that money was a “secondary consideration” to the overarching dream of arming Islam with a nuclear arsenal, saying instead it was Islamic nationalism, if not fundamentalism, driving the diversion, which he said didn’t just begin in the past few years. “It’s been going on for more than a decade,” he said.
The senior U.S. intelligence official agreed that the motivating factor in the dispersal of the technology has been “Islamic nationalism”. As for the money, “you might as well make some money while you’re doing this”.
The idea that Pakistani officialdom didn’t know about the leakage of nuclear secrets doesn’t make sense for Hoodbhoy either. “The bomb makers and the bomb factories and the enrichment plant and everything — was under the strictest possible control. It was a multi-tiered layer of security, all under the supervision of the army,” said Hoodbhoy.
“Nothing could get out from there without the army security knowing about it. No scientist, bomb maker or whoever could meet with anyone without that conversation being fully reported on. There’s no question of such people being allowed to travel overseas without the closest supervision at every point. And so there is complicity — complicity of the state. And that’s what nobody’s willing to talk about it.”
And why does the United States permit this to happen, why does it turn a blind eye to what is the greatest proliferation of nuclear weapons technology in modern times?
“Had the United States not been dependent on Pakistan, had a normal relationship and no war on terrorism then I’m sure there would be very tough American sanctions on Pakistan,” said Stephen Cohen, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies, at the Brookings Institution. “But the view in Washington is, rightly or wrongly, that we absolutely must have Pakistan’s support in the war on terrorism.”
Nuclear security
Leaving aside physical security, there is no nuclear arsenal as insecure as Pakistan’s is today. The litany of evidence is remarkable. Pakistan is more historically unstable than any other nuclear nation, regularly the subject of both violent and non-violent military coups. One democratically elected prime minister was overthrown and then hung. His daughter, who was elected to the same job, was overthrown and exiled. The man who overthrew her father was assassinated in the yet unexplained and unsolved sabotage of the presidential aircraft. Its current president, who overthrew a civilian Prime Minister, has been the subject of two assassination attempts in the last few months, both apparently inside jobs. Its top nuclear scientists have been selling key nuclear technology to terrorist states and most frightening of all, other nuclear scientists have even met with al-Qaida’s Osama bin Laden and the Taliban’s Mullah Omar to discuss “in academic terms” nuclear weapons.
How insecure? Musharraf ordered Pakistan’s military to move its nuclear arsenal to at least six new secret locations within two days after the terrorist attacks on the United States, senior Pakistani officials told The Washington Post in November 2001. The order supposedly stemmed from concern that foreign countries could try to strike the arsenal. Musharraf also wanted to move the weapons out of military locations from which the United States might attack Afghanistan, but U.S. officials believe the Pakistanis wanted to keep the weapons out of the hands of either al-Qaida or Pakistani military elements friendly with al-Qaida or the Taliban.
One knowledgeable Pakistani source stated that as of late 2001, he “was certain that none of the Pakistani nuclear weapons had Permissive Action Links”, the combination of hardware and software that permits only those with proper codes to arm a nuclear weapon for use. In some advanced PAL systems, like the kind used by the United States and Soviet Union, a weapon will automatically and permanently disarm if the wrong code is entered a certain number of times.
Since October 2001, when CIA Director George Tenet met secretly with Musharraf in Pakistan, the U.S. and Pakistan’s “Strategic Program and Development Cell” have met “every two to three months” to review the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, according to documents reviewed by NBC News. Musharraf agreed to the exchange after the U.S. provided him with intelligence on security concerns regarding the Pakistani weapons stockpile.
According to the documents, a U.S. “Liaison Committee” has had “a series of meetings” with Pakistani General Khalid Kidwai, whose responsibilities include both weapon security and the illegal transfer of nuclear technology. The same documents describe the meetings as a “fruitful exchange”. Among those who have traveled to Pakistan are representatives of the National Security Council, the D.O.E.’s National Nuclear Security Agency, the national weapons labs, the Office of Secretary of Defense and the CIA.
Specifically, say the documents, the United States and Pakistan have been “reviewing crypto and security requirements”, meaning the encryption of weapons authorization codes, aka the PAL’s, as well as the physical security of the weapons themselves. The United States has not supplied any equipment to the Pakistanis.
Former ambassador Oakley thinks this is a good thing. “Well I would watch the Kidwai thing,” said Oakley, who is as one U.S. official said “still wired”. “He’s been working very quietly, very slowly with us. But that’s why the president of the United States can speak with some confidence about the military side of the nuclear program and the fact that it is under control. And the chances of leakage are very, very slim and the chances of accidents are very slim."
“Whereas before, the chances of leakage or accident were greater than when they begin to work with us.”
As to where the weapons are located, there is little specific information. The belief has always been that the weapons and firing mechanisms are kept separate, except in times of crisis, but the question remains how close are the two. By one estimate, the weapons can be assembled “within hours” meaning they would have to be fairly close by. No nation is going to risk having to fly key components to a single location. Two knowledgeable U.S. sources say the U.S. does not have good intelligence on where the weapons are located.
However, a senior Pentagon official admits there are “contingency teams” ready to go if Musharraf is assassinated or if the U.S. determines the nuclear arsenal is at risk. Not everyone believes that is realistic. “They’re ready?” asked the analyst. “Do we even know where the weapons are? I’m not sure we do.”
Oakley said such plans fit into Pakistani nationalists’ worst fears … and could lead to some of our own being fulfilled. “Right after September the 11th they felt we might come sweeping in to seize their nuclear weapons which would have produced a holocaust because we never would have gotten them.”
Al-Qaida attempt to get to the nukes
The easiest way for al-Qaida to gain control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons would be for them or their allies, Jaish E Mohammed, to kill Musharraf and take over the country in a civil war or, more likely, have radical Islamic elements of the Pakistani army mount a coup. But there is ample evidence that al-Qaida has long been interested in Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons technology.
Sultan Bashiruddin Mehmood and Abdul Majid were two of the most important managers of the Pakistani nuclear program. Mehmood ran Khusab, the nuclear reactor where Pakistan produces its plutonium, Majid ran New Labs, where the bombs are actually manufactured. Both see themselves as Islamic nationalists as well as scientists and ran a pro-Taliban charity after they had resigned their posts in the late 1990s. The charity is viewed as so radical, so pro-al-Qaida that it has been placed on the U.S. black list of terrorist organizations.
But the links to bin Laden and the Taliban are much stronger than just the charity links. In August 2001, as the final plans for September 11 were being worked out and the last of the terrorists were arriving in the United States, the two scientists admit that they visited Kandahar in Afghanistan and met with Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar, and discussed nuclear issues, but only “in academic terms”.
So dangerous was the perception of that meeting that CIA Director George Tenet took it up with Musharraf in October 2001. Not long afterward, both were detained and questioned for weeks by U.S. and Pakistani officials about their links to al-Qaida and the Taliban. Still, at the end of the day, they were released, their meetings with the two terrorists described as inconsequential and evidence only of individual interest, not part of any larger scheme … much like the sale of weapons technology to North Korea, Iran and Libya are now portrayed.
Of the two, Mehmood was the more important, the more radical and the more unstable. In the 1980s he was ridiculed for putting forward a scientific method for calculating the temperature of hell and for suggesting that genies could be controlled and their energy harnessed, according to a BBC report.
He is the author of the book "The Mechanics of Doomsday: Life after death." IslamicBookstore.com, calls the book “a most interesting scientific analysis of the actual mechanics of Doomsday and the fate of the various planetary bodies, based on signs derived from statements in the Koran”. As strange as Mehmood sounds, he is typical of many of the key scientists in his devotion to Islamic fundamentalism.
“This meeting is a cause for concern,” admitted Hoodbhoy, but says it also speaks to the rationale behind the meeting. “It symbolizes the fact that there are many within the Pakistani nuclear establishment who do share the idea of a bomb for the Umma — for an Islamic bomb — and I think that that is indeed dangerous.
“Of course the question is: why is there such a strong impetus for this? And this then, brings us to the issue of the growing conflict between the United States and Muslims the world over. That’s a very, very significant conflict, and unless there’s something done about that, I don’t think that nuclear dangers or the dangers of terrorism can ever be done away with."
Pakistan: ‘The crazy soup’
Nuclear politics - and "The Islamic Bomb" By Robert Windrem
News Analysis
NBC News
In the past, U.S. officials worried about Pakistan’s nuclear forces in the context of a potential war with India, one that a U.S. Air Force study said could result in the deaths of 150 million people on the subcontinent.
Now, however, in the aftermath of 9/11, the fears have shifted to the possibility that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of al-Qaida and the loss of life would occur not in Bombay or Islamabad, but in New York and Washington. “It’s your worst nightmare,” said a senior U.S. intelligence official, describing the nexus of terror and nuclear weapons that Pakistan occupies.
The issue is very sensitive. Pakistan, or at least some elements of the Pakistani government, has been very helpful in the war on terror, but other elements of the Pakistani government have participated in single most dangerous proliferation of nuclear weapons in the atomic age.
Not only was Khalid Sheik Mohammed grabbed in Rawalpindi, but Ramzi bin al-Shibh, the on-ground organizer of the Hamburg cell was grabbed in Karachi, Abu Zubaydah, the al-Qaida “dean of students” was grabbed in Faisalabad, and Khallad, the mastermind of the USS Cole bombing was grabbed in a Karachi suburb. And of course, the United States believes strongly that Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri are holed up in a remote area of south Waziristan, in Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier. Pakistani troops are searching for the two of them, although there are disputes as to how hard they are looking.
On the other side, U.S. officials have determined that Pakistan, or at least some elements of the Pakistani government, has supplied sensitive nuclear weapons technology, perhaps the most sensitive nuclear weapons technology, to at least North Korea, Iran and Libya and, say some officials, that list may have to be expanded to encompass a Pakistani plan to create a nuclear armed Islamic bloc or worse, a nuclear armed al-Qaida.
U.S. officials understand the combustible mix of terror, nuclear weapons and Islamic fundamentalism that is Pakistan. I have heard U.S. officials refer to Pakistan as a “crazy soup” of those elements, “the scariest place on earth”, and a place where “anything can happen and none it would be good."
The best example several cite: in August 1998, when the United States retaliated for the East Africa embassy bombings by bombing bin Laden’s camps, officials say most of the 20 or so killed that day were Pakistanis, sent by the Inter Services Intelligence [ISI] service for training with al-Qaida. There are even officials — and high ranking officials — who believe the ISI had tipped off bin Laden that day to an impending attack by U.S. cruise missiles.
One very senior CIA official told me, “I can imagine a scenario a decade from now or even sooner where the Indian Prime Minister would call the President of the United States and say, ‘Mr. President, we can no longer take it and we are going into Pakistan tomorrow’ and the President would respond, ‘OK’. “It’s a dangerous, dangerous place.”
The nuclear force
At the center of the fears is the Pakistani nuclear force. Conventional wisdom has always held that India, with its advanced industrial base and wealth of scientific knowledge and experience, has significantly more nuclear weapons than Pakistan. The reverse is true.
New U.S. intelligence analyses of nuclear weapons in South Asia indicates that Pakistan now has greater nuclear capability — both in terms of numbers of weapons and quality of delivery systems — than India. Moreover, its weapons are more secure, say people with knowledge of the two programs.
The numbers, if known with specificity, are classified, but a senior U.S. intelligence official said the Pakistanis have an “almost 2-1 margin” in nuclear weapons. The best guess is that Pakistan has about 40+ weapons with India having somewhere in the high 20’s.
When asked about frequent reports that India has between 25 and 100 nuclear weapons one U.S. intelligence official said that the Pakistanis “are more likely to have those numbers than the Indians.” The most frequently cited number for Pakistan had been around 15 nuclear weapons. Moreover, the official said that the number of nukes ready for use may be greater in Pakistan than in India. “I don’t think their [the Indians’] program is as advanced as the Paks’.”
Pakistan also has greater air and missile capability and both are “fully capable of a nuclear exchange if something happens.” the official added. Other officials noted that Pakistan’s air force, with its U.S. F-16’s and its French Mirage fighter bombers has some of the best penetrating fighter-bombers in the world.
In addition, it has around 30 missiles: the Chinese M-11 short range missile and its Pakistani variant, the Tarmuk, as well as the North Korean Nodong intermediate-range missile known locally as the Ghauri. India on the other hand has no nuclear-capable missiles and fewer and less capable MiG fighter bombers, although it has twice tested the Agni missile, an intermediate range missile that could provide the basis of an ICBM force. Current U.S. analysis is that the Agni will not be fielded with nuclear warheads for another 10 years. The Pentagon document states that Indian “research into missile warhead design probably is underway” but is not complete. Also underway but not complete is research into the miniaturization of nuclear weapons, critical for both warhead and other weapons design.
The location of the weapons, of course, is the most highly classified secret in Pakistan, but there were indications a significant number of them had been stored in the western desert of Baluchistan, near the Pakistani test site at Chagai and an F-16 base at Dalbandin. But that was before September 11.
’The Islamic Bomb’: But in whose service is the bomb?
Pakistan is aiming for a “nuclear armed Islamic bloc around the world” says a U.S. intelligence analyst who has followed the country’s program for more than a decade. A senior U.S. intelligence official agreed, saying it is “Islamic nationalism” more than any other factor that has guided Pakistani dispersal of nuclear technology around the world.
“I do not think that this could be just an issue of personal greed — of the bomb makers wanting to make a fast buck,” Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy, Pakistan’s leading anti-nuclear activist, agreed. “It’s got to be much more than that.”
“It is nationalist, the greater glory of Pakistan. It’s Islamist, I think that’s quite true,” says Robert Oakley, who was U.S. ambassador to Pakistan in the early 1990’s. “And it’s personal, ego, the man who thinks of himself as a towering figure. So it’s all those things plus money. I think it’s all of them together.”
The man, of course, is Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan’s atomic bomb, who has now admitted sending or offering weapons designs, uranium enrichment technology and his own rolodex of suppliers to virtually every nation on the U.S. list of state-sponsors of terrorism — ”the entire kit”, as the analyst put it.
He added that in addition to deals Khan made with Libya, Iran, and North Korea, similar offers were made to Syria and Iraq, but were declined. And there is at least one other Islamic nation who benefited from Khan’s largesse, he said. The senior intelligence official declined comment when asked if other Islamic nations beyond Iran and Libya had received nuclear technology from Pakistan. “I have nothing for you on that,” he said.
Moreover, according to the analyst, that not all the deals are one-way. Islamic nations have supplied money, training, equipment, expertise, etc. to the effort. Saudi has supplied money to Pakistan’s “Islamic bomb” over the past several decades and other states are at best looking the other way when materials are being transferred. He says another telling indicator is that subcomponents of the Pakistani centrifuges found in Libya were made in a fabrication facility in Malaysia. And Indonesia has employed Pakistanis in its nuclear research reactor.
“Their aim is to thwart what they see as the U.S nuclear hegemony. They want an Islamic bomb as a deterrent for the Islamic world to counter what they see as the Christian bomb, the Jewish bomb, the Hindu bomb,” the analyst added.
He pointed to historical quotes from Khan, as well as those of former Pakistani presidents and prime ministers. In particular, the analyst noted an interview the notoriously anti-American Khan gave to a journalist in 1984. Khan was reported to have said, “All western countries, including Israel, are the enemies not only of Pakistan, but in fact of Islam. Had any other Muslim country instead of Pakistan made this progress, they would have conducted the same poisonous and false propaganda about it. The examples of Iraq and Libya are before you.”
General Zia ul-Haq was military dictator of Pakistan during the 1980’s, when coincidentally or not Pakistan made its biggest strides in nuclear weaponry and was the paymaster of the U.S. war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. He told a journalist in 1986, “It is our right to obtain this technology. And when we acquire this technology, the entire Islamic world will possess it with us.”
Even the man Zia overthrew and had hanged, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was reported to have told then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in 1976 that with other civilizations having the bomb, “the Islamic civilization” should have one too.
The analyst also pointed to quotes this week from retired General Mirza Aslam Beg, head of the Pakistani army form 1988 to 1991 and the man most believe had overall charge of the nuclear weapons program. Beg told the New York Times that Muslim countries should not be asked to give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons until India and Israel destroyed their nuclear arsenals. “Why don’t you start from there?” General Beg asked. “This is the discrimination and duplicity which gives heartburn and humiliation to the Muslim world.”
The analyst rejected the spin that high government officials like Beg then or Musharraf now didn’t know about the nuclear transfers. He pointed to the one case not involving an Islamic state, that of North Korea.
“They traded nuclear technology, centrifuges and other things, for missiles, big missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. You don’t FedEx missiles. It involves shipping or aircraft delivery, integration of the missiles into your war plans. These are decisions made by governments."
"If Musharraf doesn’t know the details," he said, "there is a precedent and a dangerous one."
“Does he know? If he doesn’t that is even more frightening. Remember what happened in 1988 and 89, when Benazir Bhutto was prime minister. She said she didn’t know and when she started to ask questions, they dumped her, she lost control. That could happen to him.”
“The question is ‘is there a shadow government that runs the nuclear program?’ We keep hearing ‘oh, this is a rogue operation’. We have heard that for decades now. But we do know. The best intelligence we ever had on any weapons of mass destruction program was from Pakistan. We knew everything, but we chose to ignore it because we were in bed with these people on Afghanistan. Now we are in bed with them on terrorism. We can’t get out of bed with these people!”
As for Pakistani officials’ claims that the transfers of technology was driven by money, the official said that while he would not dismiss the possibility that money played a role — “you can never dismiss the role of money” — he and others believe that money was a “secondary consideration” to the overarching dream of arming Islam with a nuclear arsenal, saying instead it was Islamic nationalism, if not fundamentalism, driving the diversion, which he said didn’t just begin in the past few years. “It’s been going on for more than a decade,” he said.
The senior U.S. intelligence official agreed that the motivating factor in the dispersal of the technology has been “Islamic nationalism”. As for the money, “you might as well make some money while you’re doing this”.
The idea that Pakistani officialdom didn’t know about the leakage of nuclear secrets doesn’t make sense for Hoodbhoy either. “The bomb makers and the bomb factories and the enrichment plant and everything — was under the strictest possible control. It was a multi-tiered layer of security, all under the supervision of the army,” said Hoodbhoy.
“Nothing could get out from there without the army security knowing about it. No scientist, bomb maker or whoever could meet with anyone without that conversation being fully reported on. There’s no question of such people being allowed to travel overseas without the closest supervision at every point. And so there is complicity — complicity of the state. And that’s what nobody’s willing to talk about it.”
And why does the United States permit this to happen, why does it turn a blind eye to what is the greatest proliferation of nuclear weapons technology in modern times?
“Had the United States not been dependent on Pakistan, had a normal relationship and no war on terrorism then I’m sure there would be very tough American sanctions on Pakistan,” said Stephen Cohen, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies, at the Brookings Institution. “But the view in Washington is, rightly or wrongly, that we absolutely must have Pakistan’s support in the war on terrorism.”
Nuclear security
Leaving aside physical security, there is no nuclear arsenal as insecure as Pakistan’s is today. The litany of evidence is remarkable. Pakistan is more historically unstable than any other nuclear nation, regularly the subject of both violent and non-violent military coups. One democratically elected prime minister was overthrown and then hung. His daughter, who was elected to the same job, was overthrown and exiled. The man who overthrew her father was assassinated in the yet unexplained and unsolved sabotage of the presidential aircraft. Its current president, who overthrew a civilian Prime Minister, has been the subject of two assassination attempts in the last few months, both apparently inside jobs. Its top nuclear scientists have been selling key nuclear technology to terrorist states and most frightening of all, other nuclear scientists have even met with al-Qaida’s Osama bin Laden and the Taliban’s Mullah Omar to discuss “in academic terms” nuclear weapons.
How insecure? Musharraf ordered Pakistan’s military to move its nuclear arsenal to at least six new secret locations within two days after the terrorist attacks on the United States, senior Pakistani officials told The Washington Post in November 2001. The order supposedly stemmed from concern that foreign countries could try to strike the arsenal. Musharraf also wanted to move the weapons out of military locations from which the United States might attack Afghanistan, but U.S. officials believe the Pakistanis wanted to keep the weapons out of the hands of either al-Qaida or Pakistani military elements friendly with al-Qaida or the Taliban.
One knowledgeable Pakistani source stated that as of late 2001, he “was certain that none of the Pakistani nuclear weapons had Permissive Action Links”, the combination of hardware and software that permits only those with proper codes to arm a nuclear weapon for use. In some advanced PAL systems, like the kind used by the United States and Soviet Union, a weapon will automatically and permanently disarm if the wrong code is entered a certain number of times.
Since October 2001, when CIA Director George Tenet met secretly with Musharraf in Pakistan, the U.S. and Pakistan’s “Strategic Program and Development Cell” have met “every two to three months” to review the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, according to documents reviewed by NBC News. Musharraf agreed to the exchange after the U.S. provided him with intelligence on security concerns regarding the Pakistani weapons stockpile.
According to the documents, a U.S. “Liaison Committee” has had “a series of meetings” with Pakistani General Khalid Kidwai, whose responsibilities include both weapon security and the illegal transfer of nuclear technology. The same documents describe the meetings as a “fruitful exchange”. Among those who have traveled to Pakistan are representatives of the National Security Council, the D.O.E.’s National Nuclear Security Agency, the national weapons labs, the Office of Secretary of Defense and the CIA.
Specifically, say the documents, the United States and Pakistan have been “reviewing crypto and security requirements”, meaning the encryption of weapons authorization codes, aka the PAL’s, as well as the physical security of the weapons themselves. The United States has not supplied any equipment to the Pakistanis.
Former ambassador Oakley thinks this is a good thing. “Well I would watch the Kidwai thing,” said Oakley, who is as one U.S. official said “still wired”. “He’s been working very quietly, very slowly with us. But that’s why the president of the United States can speak with some confidence about the military side of the nuclear program and the fact that it is under control. And the chances of leakage are very, very slim and the chances of accidents are very slim."
“Whereas before, the chances of leakage or accident were greater than when they begin to work with us.”
As to where the weapons are located, there is little specific information. The belief has always been that the weapons and firing mechanisms are kept separate, except in times of crisis, but the question remains how close are the two. By one estimate, the weapons can be assembled “within hours” meaning they would have to be fairly close by. No nation is going to risk having to fly key components to a single location. Two knowledgeable U.S. sources say the U.S. does not have good intelligence on where the weapons are located.
However, a senior Pentagon official admits there are “contingency teams” ready to go if Musharraf is assassinated or if the U.S. determines the nuclear arsenal is at risk. Not everyone believes that is realistic. “They’re ready?” asked the analyst. “Do we even know where the weapons are? I’m not sure we do.”
Oakley said such plans fit into Pakistani nationalists’ worst fears … and could lead to some of our own being fulfilled. “Right after September the 11th they felt we might come sweeping in to seize their nuclear weapons which would have produced a holocaust because we never would have gotten them.”
Al-Qaida attempt to get to the nukes
The easiest way for al-Qaida to gain control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons would be for them or their allies, Jaish E Mohammed, to kill Musharraf and take over the country in a civil war or, more likely, have radical Islamic elements of the Pakistani army mount a coup. But there is ample evidence that al-Qaida has long been interested in Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons technology.
Sultan Bashiruddin Mehmood and Abdul Majid were two of the most important managers of the Pakistani nuclear program. Mehmood ran Khusab, the nuclear reactor where Pakistan produces its plutonium, Majid ran New Labs, where the bombs are actually manufactured. Both see themselves as Islamic nationalists as well as scientists and ran a pro-Taliban charity after they had resigned their posts in the late 1990s. The charity is viewed as so radical, so pro-al-Qaida that it has been placed on the U.S. black list of terrorist organizations.
But the links to bin Laden and the Taliban are much stronger than just the charity links. In August 2001, as the final plans for September 11 were being worked out and the last of the terrorists were arriving in the United States, the two scientists admit that they visited Kandahar in Afghanistan and met with Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar, and discussed nuclear issues, but only “in academic terms”.
So dangerous was the perception of that meeting that CIA Director George Tenet took it up with Musharraf in October 2001. Not long afterward, both were detained and questioned for weeks by U.S. and Pakistani officials about their links to al-Qaida and the Taliban. Still, at the end of the day, they were released, their meetings with the two terrorists described as inconsequential and evidence only of individual interest, not part of any larger scheme … much like the sale of weapons technology to North Korea, Iran and Libya are now portrayed.
Of the two, Mehmood was the more important, the more radical and the more unstable. In the 1980s he was ridiculed for putting forward a scientific method for calculating the temperature of hell and for suggesting that genies could be controlled and their energy harnessed, according to a BBC report.
He is the author of the book "The Mechanics of Doomsday: Life after death." IslamicBookstore.com, calls the book “a most interesting scientific analysis of the actual mechanics of Doomsday and the fate of the various planetary bodies, based on signs derived from statements in the Koran”. As strange as Mehmood sounds, he is typical of many of the key scientists in his devotion to Islamic fundamentalism.
“This meeting is a cause for concern,” admitted Hoodbhoy, but says it also speaks to the rationale behind the meeting. “It symbolizes the fact that there are many within the Pakistani nuclear establishment who do share the idea of a bomb for the Umma — for an Islamic bomb — and I think that that is indeed dangerous.
“Of course the question is: why is there such a strong impetus for this? And this then, brings us to the issue of the growing conflict between the United States and Muslims the world over. That’s a very, very significant conflict, and unless there’s something done about that, I don’t think that nuclear dangers or the dangers of terrorism can ever be done away with."
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Rudra: Looks like Nukes may be at Dalbandin. Perhaps we should dig up articles about US forces taking over Dalbandin for a better understanding of what US Liaison Committee has been up to.
Gerald: Both the Scotsman and NBC articles appear to be psyops to either (a) prevent degradation of the Pakistani position or (b) create a justification for why the US should militarily address the Pakistanis while letting India be. Lots of carefully dropped clues:
Mudy: What were the dates of the visit? Searches have not revealed any dates, although one suggests he visited in March 2002 (interesting timing regarding KRL being blacklisted), and Nov 2001 at the time of the Kunduz airlift as part of his Humanitarian mission.
Finally, is the real reason for this proliferation the loss of the national crown jewels? IOW, the Pakistani NCA realizes that they have no weapons and development is pretty hard. Consequently, the only alternative is to adopt a variant of Spinster's "a nuke in every backyard" ideology as applied to Islamic nations.
Gerald: Both the Scotsman and NBC articles appear to be psyops to either (a) prevent degradation of the Pakistani position or (b) create a justification for why the US should militarily address the Pakistanis while letting India be. Lots of carefully dropped clues:
If the proliferation was not to Syria or Iraq or to the Saudi elephant that no one wants to talk about, who else would be a logical recipient? TURKEY? YEMEN?He added that in addition to deals Khan made with Libya, Iran, and North Korea, similar offers were made to Syria and Iraq, but were declined. And there is at least one other Islamic nation who benefited from Khan’s largesse, he said.
Mudy: What were the dates of the visit? Searches have not revealed any dates, although one suggests he visited in March 2002 (interesting timing regarding KRL being blacklisted), and Nov 2001 at the time of the Kunduz airlift as part of his Humanitarian mission.
Finally, is the real reason for this proliferation the loss of the national crown jewels? IOW, the Pakistani NCA realizes that they have no weapons and development is pretty hard. Consequently, the only alternative is to adopt a variant of Spinster's "a nuke in every backyard" ideology as applied to Islamic nations.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Quote from Article
----------------------------------------------
One very senior CIA official told me, “I can imagine a scenario a decade from now or even sooner where the Indian Prime Minister would call the President of the United States and say, ‘Mr. President, we can no longer take it and we are going into Pakistan tomorrow’ and the President would respond, ‘OK’. “It’s a dangerous, dangerous place.”
-----------------------------------------------
We will do the dirty work eventually. There is this nagging suspicion that Pakis have some nukes hidden away from Uncle. I doubt they would give all to them, they aren't that stupid. Uncle has gotten himself into a great little position here, screw Iraq, this is the quagmire from hell!
I dont know how they can trust anyone in that country, eventually they will have to realize what needs to be done. Maybe thats why India too is part of the Ballistic Missile Defense system, once that is in place I think it'll be more logical to swipe the slate clean once and for all.
----------------------------------------------
One very senior CIA official told me, “I can imagine a scenario a decade from now or even sooner where the Indian Prime Minister would call the President of the United States and say, ‘Mr. President, we can no longer take it and we are going into Pakistan tomorrow’ and the President would respond, ‘OK’. “It’s a dangerous, dangerous place.”
-----------------------------------------------
We will do the dirty work eventually. There is this nagging suspicion that Pakis have some nukes hidden away from Uncle. I doubt they would give all to them, they aren't that stupid. Uncle has gotten himself into a great little position here, screw Iraq, this is the quagmire from hell!
I dont know how they can trust anyone in that country, eventually they will have to realize what needs to be done. Maybe thats why India too is part of the Ballistic Missile Defense system, once that is in place I think it'll be more logical to swipe the slate clean once and for all.
-
Bhai George
- BRFite -Trainee
- Posts: 7
- Joined: 07 Feb 2004 12:31
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
The US has already tried to clean Pak up with some success. Pak was already bankrupt and a defaulter on international debt. The US has, through its aid, and pressure on Paki creditors, offered Pak considerable breathing space.Originally posted by nachiketa:
US will not clean up Pak any more than what is needed to keep it under its control. Their preferred style of maintaining control over client states is puppets like Mushy.Originally posted by shiv:
Pakistan has reached its current shape with all the help the US (and China) have given it for fiftyish years.
The "US cleaning Pakistan up" IMO is one of those fond things that many of us on this board refer to among those unfrigginbelievable superduper thoings that the US is supposed to be able to do.
The US cannot clean Pakistan up via the army - and in fact the US is doing us a great long term favor by supporting the Pakistani army and yet not arming those buggers to the teeth....
.
Shiv, I don't think the weapons will be removed (atleast we (India) will never know)... The ideal state for a foothold for the US is a dictatorship/kingdom etc, where they have to buy/control just a few men. These men will then do the dirty work of keeping the populace under control. I don't see afghanistan fitting the bill. On the other hand Pak with the PA and General Mush ruling is a perfect candidate.
This is no longer about trapped monkeys. The gorilla has entered the picture to sit on the monkey and now we have deal with a it instead of a puny monkey.
India:Pak::USA:USSR. We drove Pak broke the way the US drove the USSR near broke, which contributed to the USSR physically breaking up. Would Pak have also physically broken up(our best case scenario). I dont know. The issue is irrelevant now because the US stepped in and cleaned up. While this nuclear scandal is playing itself out Pak is working on its economy, and seeking to strenght itself.
US' cleaning up of Pak can occur in ways other than military cleanups. The cleaning up won't completely save Pak from its own internal demons, but it will(as it already has) prop Pak up, when it appears that Pak is in a state of near collapse. That is ultimately frusterating because India realized before Pak did that economics was a new battlefield through which defeats could be administered. Pak has woken up to that fact now.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
These jokers attempts at psyops is so transparent. From the MSNBC link above by Raahi:
India on the other hand has no nuclear-capable missiles and fewer and less capable MiG fighter bombers, although it has twice tested the Agni missile, an intermediate range missile that could provide the basis of an ICBM force. Current U.S. analysis is that the Agni will not be fielded with nuclear warheads for another 10 years. The Pentagon document states that Indian “research into missile warhead design probably is underway” but is not complete. Also underway but not complete is research into the miniaturization of nuclear weapons, critical for both warhead and other weapons design.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raahi:
[QB]Pakistan: ‘The crazy soup’
This is one of the best articles yet.
As a side note it also provides one possible explanation for the abort of Operation Parakaram:
"New U.S. intelligence analyses of nuclear weapons in South Asia indicates that Pakistan now has greater nuclear capability — both in terms of numbers of weapons and quality of delivery systems — than India"
"senior U.S. intelligence official said the Pakistanis have an “almost 2-1 margin” in nuclear weapons."
"the official said that the number of nukes ready for use may be greater in Pakistan than in India."
[QB]Pakistan: ‘The crazy soup’
This is one of the best articles yet.
As a side note it also provides one possible explanation for the abort of Operation Parakaram:
"New U.S. intelligence analyses of nuclear weapons in South Asia indicates that Pakistan now has greater nuclear capability — both in terms of numbers of weapons and quality of delivery systems — than India"
"senior U.S. intelligence official said the Pakistanis have an “almost 2-1 margin” in nuclear weapons."
"the official said that the number of nukes ready for use may be greater in Pakistan than in India."
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Those are quotes from the MSNBC article ..... The context also (IMO) is pacifying the rabid Paki H&D crowd. Though Pakiland may be nuke-nude, they once have better nukes than India.
R> Krithivas
R> Krithivas
Originally posted by Rye:
Ananda seems to be a troll of some sort. Has not bothered to make much sense send he meandered in.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Calvin,
Here is ----
http://www.gaddaficharity.org/previsite.htm
On December 8th 2001, the President of the Gaddafi International Foundation for Charity Associations Eng. Saif al Islam Muammar al Gaddafi paid an official visit to Pakistan.
During the visit he met with the Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, and Foreign Minister Abdsattar and Minister of Kashmir Affairs Abbas Sarfraz Khan.
Beside discussing issues of joint concern Eng.Saif al Islam has also conducted talks which focused on the release of the Arab Afghans and foreigners who have no relationship with Taliban and al Qaeda.
________________
http://www.khaleejtimes.co.ae/ktarchive/021202/subcont.htm
Libya to deposit some surplus in Pakistan, says Gaddafi's son
Here is ----
http://www.gaddaficharity.org/previsite.htm
On December 8th 2001, the President of the Gaddafi International Foundation for Charity Associations Eng. Saif al Islam Muammar al Gaddafi paid an official visit to Pakistan.
During the visit he met with the Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, and Foreign Minister Abdsattar and Minister of Kashmir Affairs Abbas Sarfraz Khan.
Beside discussing issues of joint concern Eng.Saif al Islam has also conducted talks which focused on the release of the Arab Afghans and foreigners who have no relationship with Taliban and al Qaeda.
________________
http://www.khaleejtimes.co.ae/ktarchive/021202/subcont.htm
Libya to deposit some surplus in Pakistan, says Gaddafi's son
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
An analysis to bring joy to a paki."New U.S. intelligence analyses of nuclear weapons in South Asia indicates that Pakistan now has greater nuclear capability — both in terms of numbers of weapons and quality of delivery systems — than India"
So India which first exploded a bomb thirty years ago and which has a well developed scientific and technological base (no need for malysian companies to machine parts or to purchase US civilian lithotripter components for use in warheads) is behind in nuke warhead tech.
Presumably all those scientists in BARC are using their supercomputers to play tetris.
India, which builds huge satellite launchers (whose strap on boosters alone are the size of civilian airliners ) and which has a advanced satellite fabrication ability is also behind in missile technology.
Presumably paki purchases of north korean missiles (north korea can't even launch a football into orbit, far less a satellite) provide this superior technology.
All those DRDO scientists watching ***** on the net instead of designing missiles..
And India has only Mig fighter bombers to deliver nukes...
IAF Jaguars, Mirages and Sukhois must be adorning various roundabouts...
All those IAF pilots busy downloading pirated MP3s instead of practicing nuke delivery.
Dream on....
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
We are talking about the same Pentagon/CIA that found WMDs in Iraq and sent the whole US forces to find them. Let them keep guessing. We need to keep quite. Let Pakistan have monopoly nukes that are 1000 to 1 compared to India. Let them have their advanced nukes up their TFTA. These are provocations, that India must just ignore. We have nuclear capable bullock-carts, slow but powerful... Al-Qaeda whom the US is sh!t scared of, isn't going to launch nukes with their highly advanced state of the art missile. They are just going to open a suitcase and fan the radiation with bamboo leaves.Originally posted by Rangudu:
These jokers attempts at psyops is so transparent. From the MSNBC link above by Raahi:
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Centrifugal fallout from Pakistan, By Yossi Melman
..
Reports about Libya's desire to obtain nuclear weapons from any possible source have appeared for the past three decades. As early as the mid-1970s, reports claimed that Muammar Gadhafi had made a secret proposition to the Pakistani prime minister at the time, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (who was executed in 1979). It was during Bhutto's term of office that Pakistan embarked on the course that led it to manufacture nuclear weapons. Gadhafi offered to fund Pakistan's nuclear project, which was then just getting off the ground; in return, he wanted Pakistan to supply him with a nuclear bomb.
A senior source in Pakistan confirmed the existence of the Gadhafi proposal to Haaretz a year ago, but claimed that Bhutto had pocketed the money himself, had deposited it in foreign bank accounts and had not "delivered the goods." However, it is now clear, and not only from the statement by Gadhafi's son, that Pakistan is the major disseminator of nuclear equipment, knowledge and technology, and that it has played a considerable role in the efforts of Iran, Libya and North Korea to obtain nuclear weapons.
....
..
Reports about Libya's desire to obtain nuclear weapons from any possible source have appeared for the past three decades. As early as the mid-1970s, reports claimed that Muammar Gadhafi had made a secret proposition to the Pakistani prime minister at the time, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (who was executed in 1979). It was during Bhutto's term of office that Pakistan embarked on the course that led it to manufacture nuclear weapons. Gadhafi offered to fund Pakistan's nuclear project, which was then just getting off the ground; in return, he wanted Pakistan to supply him with a nuclear bomb.
A senior source in Pakistan confirmed the existence of the Gadhafi proposal to Haaretz a year ago, but claimed that Bhutto had pocketed the money himself, had deposited it in foreign bank accounts and had not "delivered the goods." However, it is now clear, and not only from the statement by Gadhafi's son, that Pakistan is the major disseminator of nuclear equipment, knowledge and technology, and that it has played a considerable role in the efforts of Iran, Libya and North Korea to obtain nuclear weapons.
....
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
The way I look at it, there are four civilizational poles in the world: the West, Islam, India and China. India has been the victim of both the West and Islam. Now these two are again at each others' throats, engaged in a bloody embrace. Why is that bad for India? If it weakens the two of them all the better for the civilizations of the East. Unfortunately there are too many Indians, who cant imagine India as a civilizational pole. They are content to slavishly ride on western coattails, to ape them, to depend on them, to be at their service...Originally posted by raj singh:
If you would kindly clarify, is this an opportunity only for India or for others like China too?
There is too much of a tendency to exaggerate India's power vis a vis Pakistan on this board. Its delusional and dangerous. We need cold hard facts, not feel-good fantasies. The fact is Pakistan has a credible nuclear deterrent.Originally posted by Rangudu:
Ananda,
Care to explain your post above?
Its better to over-estimate your opponent than to under-estimate him. That makes you prepare better for the deadly encounter. Look at how the anglos go about talking up their enemies ...before they go in and smash them.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Ananda,
Care to give out some cold-hard facts that you tout? Like your country of origin for example...
Care to give out some cold-hard facts that you tout? Like your country of origin for example...
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Some psy-ops of our own...
Pak nuclear capability a big bluff?
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/484138.cms
Pak nuclear capability a big bluff?
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/484138.cms
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
dalbandin ach! I think you are right...its located right near chagai hills and very remote location 175miles west of quetta.
http://www.kalpoint.com/kalpoint/teledirectory/code/ver4.0/Baluchistan/baluchistan_m ap.htm
good set of data here.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/dalbandin.htm
I was wrong about karachi, looks like shamsi is
fourth base.
http://www.kalpoint.com/kalpoint/teledirectory/code/ver4.0/Baluchistan/baluchistan_m ap.htm
good set of data here.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/dalbandin.htm
I was wrong about karachi, looks like shamsi is
fourth base.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
The four locations chosen by the US are all intereting.
Dalbandin as we know has been suspected of having nukes.
Jacobabad is also close enough to the IB, and you might expect this to be a potential nuke location given that they may want to target A'bad or B'bay.
Pasni is interesting given the mountainous terrain and its distance from the Indian border, one might say that its probably a possible nuke location. Note the hangars are IN THE MOUNTAINS...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/pasni.htm
Gerard: Did anyone catch the phrase about the "advanced Mirages" that the Pakistanis fly. Forget about whether they are even able to carry a nuke and die of laughing when you put "advanced" next to a Mirage IIIs and Vs.
Dalbandin as we know has been suspected of having nukes.
Jacobabad is also close enough to the IB, and you might expect this to be a potential nuke location given that they may want to target A'bad or B'bay.
Pasni is interesting given the mountainous terrain and its distance from the Indian border, one might say that its probably a possible nuke location. Note the hangars are IN THE MOUNTAINS...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/pasni.htm
And finally Shamsi on teh Iranian/Afghan border was BUILT BY THE SAUDIS. One might legitimately wonder why the Saudis would build an airbase on the westernmost edge of Pakistan if Nukes weren't part of the equation...Pasni, one of the oldest airports in the region, was used by the Allied forces in the Second World War. The airfield can accommodate 737 Boeing jets. The airport provides natural camouflage, with aircraft hangars in the mountains near the airport. This airfield is about 10 miles (16 kilometers) from Pakistan's naval base at Omara on the Arabian Sea.
Gerard: Did anyone catch the phrase about the "advanced Mirages" that the Pakistanis fly. Forget about whether they are even able to carry a nuke and die of laughing when you put "advanced" next to a Mirage IIIs and Vs.
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
<a href="http://www.pakobserver.net/200402/09/view/?page=1&id=15" "target=blank" </a>Indian Link to proliferation - Puki Observer
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
Anybody saw the print edition of San Jose Mercury News Prespective? It has a political cartoon by Tom Toles of Mushy and AXK enacting Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction.
-----------------
Added later here is the link : Tom Toles cartoon dated 2/6/04
-----------------
Added later here is the link : Tom Toles cartoon dated 2/6/04
-
James Bund
- BRFite -Trainee
- Posts: 59
- Joined: 08 May 1999 11:31
Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/484138.cms
Pak nukes a bluff
Did Manoj Joshi read my comment posted yesterday re: there being no evidence that that Pak centrifuge technology does enrich isotopes to fission grade??
Pak nukes a bluff
Did Manoj Joshi read my comment posted yesterday re: there being no evidence that that Pak centrifuge technology does enrich isotopes to fission grade??