Nuclear Threat From Pakistan : Boom or Bluff ?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Feb 2009 00:17

Op-Ed Pioneer, 13 Feb 2009

Dealing with an insane Pakistan

Shobori Ganguli

Indian intelligence may well have brushed the threat aside as “nothing new”, but the latest warning to India from Al Qaeda outlines the supremely diabolical make-up of an outfit which the world’s mightiest military power has been unable to defang. Al Qaeda’s military commander Mustafa Abu al-Yazid has threatened that “India should know that it will have to pay a heavy price if it attacks Pakistan. The Mujahideen will sunder your armies into the ground, like they did to the Russians in Afghanistan.” Defence Minister AK Antony promptly said, “Whatever threat coming from any quarter, our armed forces are always ready to face them.” Armed and ready it may be, but Mumbai starkly exposed the fact that terrorists will not strike at a time and place of India’s choice. Almost two months since that attack, India’s civilian population remains as vulnerable. Yazid’s reminder of India’s “humiliation” in Mumbai and his threat to repeat similar attacks only accentuates that vulnerability.

Yazid’s statement is significant for a number of reasons. One, the Indian establishment would do well to recognise where the threat is originating from and note its credibility. Yazid is no ordinary terror operative. He is Al Qaeda’s military commander in Afghanistan. While Pakistan had declared him dead last year for the benefit of American ears, his “resurfacing”, as also its timing, are ominous. He is an Egyptian militant whose track record on terror goes back to 1981 when he was implicated in Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s assassination for which he served three years in prison. More recently, he claimed responsibility for Benazir Bhutto’s killing, asserting he had exterminated the “most precious American asset” against jihad. Yazid’s name also figured in the 9/11 attacks as well as the 2008 bombing of the Danish Embassy in Islamabad. In the final analysis, Yazid’s statement cannot be dismissed as “nothing new” or routine. It speaks of Al Qaeda’s deepening resolve to exercise its “legitimate right” to bleed India, Russia and Israel.

Two, Yazid’s threat of retribution if India were to attack Pakistan underlines the fact that any military action from India against Pakistan will be met with terror on its home soil, that even before the Pakistani military can reply to an Indian attack, terrorists will. This brings us to the question: Who exactly is calling the shots in Pakistan? After a series of flip-flops on the Mumbai attack, the Pakistani establishment is yet to respond satisfactorily to India’s dossier on the culpability of Pakistani nationals. Clearly, neither President Asif Ali Zardari nor Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani is willing to admit Pakistan’s responsibility for fear of attracting jihadi wrath.

While many believe Army chief Ashfaq Kayani is Pakistan’s uncrowned king, Yazid’s reappearance only proves what the world has long believed — that Pakistan is in the vice-like grip of Al Qaeda ideology; that its so-called establishment’s posturing is directed and monitored by a non-state actor. As and when Pakistan responds to the Indian dossier it will come with the jihadi seal. Also, Yazid’s threat to the Indian establishment proves beyond doubt that Pakistan’s soil is being protected from external attack not only by its military but also by Al Qaeda.

Three, Yazid’s comments are significant for their timing. They come at a time when India is laboriously reiterating its “all options are open” policy and the United States is stepping up pressure on Pakistan to crack down on terror. While warning India of dire consequences, Yazid has also ensured that his comments receive due attention from Washington. To that end, he coincided the release of his video with the visit of US special envoy on Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke to the region.

Mr Holbrooke inaugurated his sub-continent visit with Pakistan, indicating the flight path of US President Barack Obama’s anti-terror policy. Determined to fight the ‘right war’, Mr Obama wants a winding down of America’s Iraq operations by taking the terror war to its original theatre, Afghanistan, and by extension Pakistan. In a clear shift from the Bush formula of using the US military to ‘establish’ credible democracies in scattered parts of the world, Mr Obama’s is a realistic approach, focused on the more concrete and indeed far more urgent task of weeding out international terror groups thriving in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

While the success of such an approach depends on how things unfold on the ground in these two countries, it is clear which way the US is headed. “We are not going to be able to rebuild Afghanistan into a Jeffersonian democracy,” Mr Obama has admitted and instead decided to “make sure that Afghanistan is not a safe haven for Al Qaeda”. He wants to “make sure that it is not destabilising neighbouring Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons”. Clearly, Mr Obama is aware of the Pakistani establishment’s fragile hold on the country’s nuclear arsenal and with the sudden release of nuclear smuggler AQ Khan the threat of it passing on to non-state actors has only become more credible.

This assessment informs Mr Holbrooke’s visit to the region. Mr Obama has said, “My bottom line is that we cannot allow Al Qaeda to operate. We cannot have those safe havens in that region. We’re going to have to work both smartly and effectively, but with consistency in order to make sure that those safe havens don’t exist.” To that end Mr Holbrooke has been mandated to “evaluate a regional approach”, and work out “a more effective coordination of our military efforts with diplomatic efforts, with development efforts, with more effective coordination with our allies in order for us to be successful”.

Admittedly, Mr Obama has his finger on the pulse. However, his prescription has not been put to the test yet. While he would like to proactively engage Pakistan in dealing with terrorism, and perhaps make it accountable for attacks like Mumbai, Pakistan on its part is bound to rake up tensions and disputes with India to justify its own ‘threat perceptions’ and claim victimhood. The Pakistani establishment has been bound to this diversionary rhetoric for decades and will remain so.

What is infinitely more disturbing is that Islamabad’s writ is shrinking alarmingly. Most of Pakistan stands brutally Talibanised today. This entity is reflected in videos like Yazid’s or that of a Polish engineer minutes before he is ruthlessly beheaded. This is not a Pakistan that can be engaged with diplomatically. This is a Pakistan that cannot be bought over with development work (the engineer was working on an infrastructure project). This Pakistan can brazen out a military attack. This Pakistan speaks the insane language of hate and terror. Unfortunately, means to successfully snuff this Pakistan out remain elusive.

All her analysis points out the key player is the TSPA which nurtures the jihadi terror apparatus. They are the problem and any plan to see them as a solution are bound to fail.

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 17 Feb 2009 02:52

Some interesting tidbits re: Paks nuclear weapons...towards the end...Unkil has "helped" them.

http://wikileaks.org/leak/crs/RL34248.pdf

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 17 Feb 2009 03:10

Guddu wrote:Some interesting tidbits re: Paks nuclear weapons...towards the end...Unkil has "helped" them.

http://wikileaks.org/leak/crs/RL34248.pdf

47 Kaushik Kapisthalam, “Guarding Pakistan’s Nuclear Estate,” Asia Times, April 6, 2005.
[http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GD06Df04.html]; Robert Windrem, “Pakistan’s
Nuclear History Worries Insiders,”

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 17 Feb 2009 06:06

Acharya wrote:
Guddu wrote:Some interesting tidbits re: Paks nuclear weapons...towards the end...Unkil has "helped" them.

http://wikileaks.org/leak/crs/RL34248.pdf
47 Kaushik Kapisthalam, “Guarding Pakistan’s Nuclear Estate,” Asia Times, April 6, 2005.
[http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GD06Df04.html]; Robert Windrem, “Pakistan’s
Nuclear History Worries Insiders,”

Thanks, here it is from the horses's mouth
http://www.partnershipforglobalsecurity ... _paper.pdf

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 17 Feb 2009 07:11

In regard to the Afghan conflict and growing Taliban influence over Pakistani territory, it is interesting to examine how the Americans use the spectre of "Nuclear Threat from Pakistan" these days.

For example, in the PBS Frontline documentary covering the subject in considerable detail, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... fing/view/ there is a chapter about Pakistan and the situation there. Baitullah Massood's triumphs are detailed, and we are told once more about the danger of Pakistan becoming a "failed state". Finally, at the end of the chapter, the very sobering voice of the narrator reminds us... "this would be a failed state with fifty nuclear weapons". Those words are left hanging as the picture fades out to a swell of ominous music.

So one has to wonder... what are the Americans playing at when they bring up "Nuclear Threat from Pakistan"? Seems to me that it is a double-edged sword. It can be used in both directions:

1) "The Pakis have nukes and if they fail the nukes might fall into Taliban hands. So we'd better support the Pakis at any cost no matter how badly they behave, even if it means recognizing their strategic depth over Afghanistan and accommodating the Taliban in Kabul".

2) "The Pakis have nukes.... and given the Afghan/Pak situation, those nukes are an unspeakable threat to Western civilization. We have to be prepared to do anything at all to prevent those nukes falling into Taliban/Al-Qaeda hands... invasion, regime change or even a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Pakistan!"

Now we know the truth, or at least we can guess at a reasonable range of truths.

Best case for the Pakis: they don't have enough nukes to destroy Western civilization, or even Brooklyn. What they do have could inflict terrible and unprecedented damage on a Western city if they were successfully smuggled out of Pakistan, into the target country, assembled, and detonated... but such a task wouldn't be nearly as easy as the scare-mongers seem to want everyone to believe.

Worst case for the Pakis: no nukes at all. Every last one of them is either in US hands, Chinese hands or under PAL lock.

So WHAT are the Americans playing at when they harp on that ominous statement? It seems they are using it for their own purpose, just as the Pakis use it to blackmail India. I'm wondering what that purpose is.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Feb 2009 07:12

Pakistan is a very massive failure on the part of the US. The good news is that the Taliban are now forcing the hand of the US. The US can no longer hide behind a made up fig leaf.

This is not a Pakistan that can be engaged with diplomatically.

Not sure what she means, but there is the TSPA to deal with, clearly there is no "civilian" entity - which should constitute the diplomatic face of that retched country.

On the threat to reboot a Mumbai type attack, IMHO, it should be up to India to wake up. The chai biscut from years ago is surfacing to impact decisions. The bad guys are moving faster in all respects that either GoI or the GOTUS!! Neither side can deal with a situation when one is in a reactive mode - the GOTUK is a great example - they have a way out: ads on local TV stations asking the Taliban to spare the UK!!!!!

I would think there is a price to pay - the question is when do we want to pay it. Swat has shown the model these yahoos would like to employ. It is coming. The question is are we ready or are we going to replay what the GOTPaki are doing.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Feb 2009 07:20

Rudradev,

The day is very fast approaching when we do not have to wonder. Swat is just a few hundred Kms from the crown jewel of the failed US SE Asia foreign policy. And, the US is bankrupt as far as I can tell. Even the most well meaning statement, even from a few weeks ago, has been made irrelevant by the events in Swat.

I am not sure how far this new deal will impact - into Balouch area I mean. The Pakis should have had some nukes in all that area - for sure. So, either they still are there or have been moved. But, moved where? No matter where they are moved the threat remains that a Swat will be repeated in a few more months and the nukes moved again.

The real question I have are India and US really ready for a collapse in PakiLand? Forget nukes for a moment. Is ND really ready in all respects or is it going to be reactive again?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 17 Feb 2009 07:56

NRao wrote:Pakistan is a very massive failure on the part of the US.

Any idea why the US is still persisting

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 17 Feb 2009 08:05

US can persist for a variety of reasons : TSP is its key to presence in AFG. Presence in AFG is key to prevent the geo-strategic coming together of RUS, PRC and Iran to the north of AFG around which of course then all the CAR will band together. Fall of AFG and TSP means that this alliance leads right up to the Gulf and breathes down Saudi necks. It could also link up with Egypt and the increasingly Islamized eastern Africa to form a continuous belt of Jihadi and allied forces that strecthes between the Mediterranean and the oil-sources. Apart from this US could also think that India is weak enough not be able to prevent fall before Jihad, in which case US presence and movement through TSP and AFG is vulnerable to flank attacks in depth.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 17 Feb 2009 08:07

NRaoji, if the nukes are basically on-loan from and maintained by PRC, then they are in Northern occupied Kashmir, no need to move yet. If needed PRC can do it quickly through the Karakorum highway.

Bhaskar · Post by **Bhaskar** » 20 Feb 2009 00:02

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/New ... 152586.cms

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 20 Feb 2009 00:14

Acharya wrote:Any idea why the US is still persisting

Sunk cost and inertia.

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 20 Feb 2009 08:07

Does anyone know, what is involved in storing/maintaining nukes?. Do they need frequent upkeep, can the pukes do this, are specialized tools needed ?. PALS is not a deterrent, unless its the US which has the codes.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 20 Feb 2009 14:11

i am willing to believe that the Pak-U-bum doesnt work, but the PRC-P-bum does. How many does TSPA have? Are they PAL controlled? By whom? Either way, the real threat of Pakistan actually being able to deliver a working warhead into India are very low. And India knows this.

however, i believe that they can indeed deliver radioactive materials by missile, air or JDAM. the 26/11 attacks are a case in point. The political fallout will be considerable. we're back to the black sherriff in blazing saddles gun to the head game.

the biggest factor holding back Indian retalliation i fear is Unkil not the Pak-e-bum - we are made to gubo to unkil's interests every time, the paks know this, and they time their attacks to ensure that unkil will hold us back since it will interfere with their interests.

What's in it for Unkil? still lingering on to the hope that TSPA serves as the aircraft carrier off central asia... and a means of locking down the dragon in a joint embrace with the whore?

the time will come when unkil no longer needs the whore... the time is fast approaching as the talibs gain the upper hand. Kiyani needs to be very good poker player indeed for the next few months.

(forget 10%-i, he's the comical ali of the times)

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Apr 2009 14:36

another one, for the record.

SSridhar wrote:US can make sure Pak nukes are safe - Obama

Quite explicit that Pakistani nukes are under US control.

US President Barack Obama on Wednesday said Washington "can make sure that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is secure," even as he expressed grave concern over the deteriorating situation in the militancy-stricken country.

At a White House press conference to mark his first 100 days in office, Obama expressed confidence about US control over Pakistan's nuclear weapons, perhaps through military-to-military cooperation, in the face of extremist advances in the country. In the process, he also hinted that Washington had contingency plans to handle the situation if it went out of Islamabad's hands.

Asked if he could reassure the American people that, if necessary, America could secure Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and keep it from getting into the Taliban's hands, Obama replied: "I'm confident that we can make sure that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is secure, primarily, initially, because the Pakistani army, I think, recognizes the hazards of those weapons falling into the wrong hands."

The carefully calibrated reply referring to primary security appeared to suggest the US has secondary back-up plans in the event of any exigencies, something the intelligence analysts' community has long considered inevitable.

When the reporter followed up to seek a more precise answer, asking if in the worst case scenario, the US military could secure the nuclear weapons, Obama responded crisply: "I'm not going to engage in hypotheticals of that sort. I feel confident that that nuclear arsenal will remain out of militant hands. Okay?"

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 02 May 2009 06:15

Islamabad cuts nuclear budget, over 30 projects hit by crunch

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 May 2009 07:02

X-post...
What all the Pakiban advance will do is to consolidate the cheeni maal in a couple of locations instead of the wide dispersal to prevent falling of materials into wrong hands. So all that command and control stuff certified by the Italian wonks(Landau Institute) after 2003 is falling by wayside. So if TSPA doesn't behave they will get (Bra)h(am)osed.

Very soon they will have to agree to some peace terms with India or else the Wahabised Pakiban will take away their Deobandi maal. No H&D left but only H&C (head chopping). So what do they want?
A new GOI can offer terms to help the pain provided they return to Indian Islam and acknowledge Shahi Imam and Dar -ul- Uloom Deoband as their primary doctrinaire institution.

All the lurker take this message back.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 02 May 2009 07:35

Obama could be bluffing slightly about nuke control. They are more likely to have pressurized PRC to ensure that PRC nukes masquerading as TSP ones are secured.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 04 May 2009 03:22

Pakistan nuclear projects raise US fears

• Two reactors nearing completion at Khushab
• Report questions security of nuclear material

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 05 May 2009 17:07

One more indication that the US has a handle on TSP's nukes

Asked about the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, Mullen said that the United States had made significant monetary investments that have improved those safeguards "fairly dramatically" during the past three years, and that he was "comfortable" with the Pakistani military's capability to handle that challenge.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 May 2009 21:18

just think for a while what it means. the US has made 'significant investments that have improved the safeguards". This can mean they paid for holding facilities with access controls etc. But term safeguards is a peculiar to the control codes to trigger the weapons or render them useless. Its not used for proximity security of facilities.

To do such intrusive safeguards one most get into the electrical circuits of the weapons. How do we know there are no design improvements on the side? And how does US understand so well the PRC design that they can insert 'safeguards'?

At higher level it means if there is TSP strike on India overt or covert its with US understanding.

I would say US has become part of the TSP arsenal and has to be factored into the MND.

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 05 May 2009 21:26

Probably that is part of the Kissingerian (he is only a spokesperson for this elite western school of thought though) global population reduction agenda. Improve designs while making sure that they mislead India by claiming that nukes are secured.

Also if the former agenda is correct, then the gameplan is to assist pakistan in first-strike and ensure India's role is confined to retaliatory one. The chief reason being that maximum population control can be achieved only in this manner.

ok I could have a sick mind but opposite also could be true, all their actions are consistent with the above paradigms.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 05 May 2009 21:44

ramana wrote:just think for a while what it means. the US has made 'significant investments that have improved the safeguards". This can mean they paid for holding facilities with access controls etc. But term safeguards is a peculiar to the control codes to trigger the weapons or render them useless. Its not used for proximity security of facilities.

To do such intrusive safeguards one most get into the electrical circuits of the weapons. How do we know there are no design improvements on the side? And how does US understand so well the PRC design that they can insert 'safeguards'?

At higher level it means if there is TSP strike on India overt or covert its with US understanding.

I would say US has become part of the TSP arsenal and has to be factored into the MND.

Very good observation.
How come several leading publications do not describe these obvious open information in news report.

Are Indian public given false news or no news at all.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 05 May 2009 22:09

There is no evidence that the US has helped with PALs. Safeguards can refer to other measures (physical security).

From 2007
U.S. Secretly Aids Pakistan in Guarding Nuclear Arms

Over the past six years, the Bush administration has spent almost $100 million on a highly classified program to help Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s president, secure his country’s nuclear weapons, according to current and former senior administration officials.

A raft of equipment — from helicopters to night-vision goggles to nuclear detection equipment — was given to Pakistan to help secure its nuclear material, its warheads, and the laboratories that were the site of the worst known case of nuclear proliferation in the atomic age.

The American program was created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when the Bush administration debated whether to share with Pakistan one of the crown jewels of American nuclear protection technology, known as “permissive action links,” or PALS, a system used to keep a weapon from detonating without proper codes and authorizations.

In the end, despite past federal aid to France and Russia on delicate points of nuclear security, the administration decided that it could not share the system with the Pakistanis because of legal restrictions.

In addition, the Pakistanis were suspicious that any American-made technology in their warheads could include a secret “kill switch,” enabling the Americans to turn off their weapons.

Officials said Washington debated sharing security techniques with Pakistan on at least two occasions — right after it detonated its first nuclear arms in 1998, and after the terrorist attack on the United States in 2001.

The debates pitted atomic scientists who favored technical sharing against federal officials at such places as the State Department who ruled that the transfers were illegal under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and under United States law.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 06 May 2009 03:54

Most U.S. voters concerned about Pakistan's nukes: poll

Eighty-seven percent of U.S. voters are now at least somewhat concerned about the safety of nuclear weapons in Pakistan, a new poll found.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 May 2009 07:43

X-posted...

ramana wrote:Margoli(e)s quoted above

The big question in western capitals is: `are Pakistan's nuclear weapons safe?' Yes. For now. They are heavily guarded by crack army units and ISI, the military intelligence service, and will remain so unless the army splits in a power struggle. Pakistan's nukes cannot be armed without special security codes.

Even so, there is growing speculation in Pakistan and here in Europe that the US, possibly in league with India and or Israel, may attempt to seize or destroy Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
So the core message is that the TSPA is guarding the nukes and will do so till it splits. When will this happen? If the TSPA turns on its creation the Tali/Pakiban. And when will this happen? If the US forces them. Right now the excuse is scare of big bad India makes them keep troops on Indian border.

And read the red part. My guess was right. It can happen only if they understnad the CHIC-4 design electrical wiring.

Next point. YY are red herrings.Margolis knows its the US that is going to make a move and blame the other two for political cover.

India should do nothing and let those who created the monster clean after themselves.
------------
Prem, Richard Reeves is an old TSP hand reporting on TSP from the late 70s.

Him losing sleep means something is not right. and interesting that Margoli(e)s and Reeves are suggesting opposite plans. So there is a debate going on.

BTW, if India hadnt tested in 1998 the TSPA would still lie they have anything!!!

and

Rahul Shukla wrote:
ramana wrote:And read the red part. My guess was right. It can happen only if they understnad the CHIC-4 design electrical wiring.
Saar, this has been confirmed by the horse (Durrani) via his mouth himself. Re-posting from page 11 of the last martyred Pakistan thread...

'Terrorists will not get hold of Pakistan’s nukes' - Durrani (Hindu)

Pakistan’s nuclear weapons “are secure and safe” and they also remain beyond the reach of terrorists, according to General Mahmud Ali Durrani, former National Security Adviser to the Pakistani Prime Minister.

Holding out this “100 per cent” assurance during a question-answer sessionhere on Thursday, Gen. Durrani said the Pakistan government “is notassociated with (the) activities of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).” In fact, “there is no segment of the Pakistani establishment which wants to perpetuate jihad.”And, his punchline was that “we are literally fighting for our soul inPakistan.”

He was “not sure” whether a “lot” in the specifics of the latest terroristattack in Mumbai could be “attributed to LeT.” However, he confirmed that“some of the people who are in that (Mumbai attack) definitely belonged toLeT.”
On thedoubts about Islamabad’s benign view of militant jihad as commonlyunderstood in international circles, he said: “When we supported the(anti-Soviet) America's war in Afghanistan, or (when) we supported the war inKashmir, yes — but, not in the broader sense and not today. Not even thesethings today; it has changed.”
Gen. Durrani said: “I don’t thinkany terrorist is going to get hold of them. There are multi-layered securitysystems, and there are multiple safety systems in the nukes (themselves)..."
And then I posted...

Rahul Shukla wrote:Apart from his usual "we ain't jihadi" bull, he has now confirmed the existence of PAL's in Pakistani nuclear weapons. The only possible source of PAL's and other associated equipment is the United States. So CIA/Uncle knows where those crown jewels are kept and what to do if they are moved without permission.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 06 May 2009 13:20

technical question - for a PAL to work, shouldn't it have been designed into the trigger mechanism from the outset? it might be very difficult to retrofit it, at the risk of being bypassed?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 May 2009 13:29

Rahul Shukla wrote:Apart from his usual "we ain't jihadi" bull, he has now confirmed the existence of PAL's in Pakistani nuclear weapons. The only possible source of PAL's and other associated equipment is the United States. So CIA/Uncle knows where those crown jewels are kept and what to do if they are moved without permission.

CHIC-4 is an analog design and the PAL is a digital system. How is it possible for the Pakis to make this design without any help. Uncle could have done this for Pak and they know this design probably because they may have given it to China in 1967.

China could have transferred the CHIC-4 design in 1972 itself just right after 1971 Bangladesh war. No wonder that explains why China did not attack India in 1971 since it had done the
next best thing

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 06 May 2009 13:34

Acharya-ji - aren't there other factors to the Chinese non intervention in 71 also? The friendship treaty with the Soviet Union, the middle of winter, the looming presence of the Americans, etc.? Wouldn't the weapons transfer have occured afterwards when the Chinese saw that the IA's 2 week blitz had taken the americans out of the equation and negated the pre-war pressure?

Vishal_Bhatia · Post by **Vishal_Bhatia** » 06 May 2009 14:39

With regard to the above:

From what I know, Brezhnev was wanting for war. The Soviets planned to use 10 nukes and 2,00,000 troops to sweep Lop Nor and Beijing in 10 days.

The Chinese were literally shivering (anybody would I guess when you are facing the mightiest land army in the world) but they did not stand down (as in they did not go begging in front of the Soviets). They did not poke us because they did not want to give the Soviets a reason to attack.

Sorry if this is off-topic.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 06 May 2009 16:33

Uncle could have done this for Pak and they know this design probably because they may have given it to China in 1967.

So the US, which in 1964 considers nuclear strikes on China to stop its nuke program, turns around and gives them a nuke 3 years later? At the height of the Vietnam war? Presumably President Johnson wanted to ensure a grand reception and banquet for President Nixon? And this was all done with the grand design of screwing India?

The Americans have given aid for safeguarding. The Pakis claim they have some sort of PAL technology. How does this imply that the Americans have supplied PALs? And therefore they supplied the original design? Is it not more logical that the Chinese also supplied any PAL tech the Pakis are using? How does PAL tech advance the American CRE objectives?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 May 2009 18:44

Gerard wrote:

So the US, which in 1964 considers nuclear strikes on China to stop its nuke program, turns around and gives them a nuke 3 years later? At the height of the Vietnam war? Presumably President Johnson wanted to ensure a grand reception and banquet for President Nixon? And this was all done with the grand design of screwing India?

Relationship with Mao and En Lai goes back to 1920s. India was a side show until the split of Pakistan in 1971. Hindsight it looks like India Soviet treaty and split of Pakistan raised the alarm in Washington to the highest level. Weak defence of the west Pakistan created more worries. Nixon and Kissinger then supported the nuclear trade by China to Pakistan.

The Americans have given aid for safeguarding. The Pakis claim they have some sort of PAL technology. How does this imply that the Americans have supplied PALs? And therefore they supplied the original design? Is it not more logical that the Chinese also supplied any PAL tech the Pakis are using? How does PAL tech advance the American CRE objectives?

One reason for this deduction is that Pakistan establishment only sources western nuclear components for its program and nothing else. All the illegal nuclear trade is for western components only!

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 May 2009 19:41

Lalmohan wrote:Acharya-ji - aren't there other factors to the Chinese non intervention in 71 also? The friendship treaty with the Soviet Union, the middle of winter, the looming presence of the Americans, etc.? Wouldn't the weapons transfer have occured afterwards when the Chinese saw that the IA's 2 week blitz had taken the americans out of the equation and negated the pre-war pressure?

True. Weapon transfer probably was done after the war to boost the confidence of the demoralized Pakistan army leadership which was defeated in Dec 1971.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 06 May 2009 19:52

Lalmohan wrote:technical question - for a PAL to work, shouldn't it have been designed into the trigger mechanism from the outset? it might be very difficult to retrofit it, at the risk of being bypassed?

Just to calm your fears, (

)there are many references (say one here) fairly credible, US ICBM's silo's the 'maha secret unlock code' was set to (or an additional code remained) '00000000' (this was so till mid 70's)..

Feynman in his autobiography talks about fairly high percentage (more than 10%) of military safes post Manhattan project were able to be opened (they hired a locksmith as the original owner had left and/or forgot the combination etc) by 'factory set code' (even some of the big shots military people did not bother to set the code..).

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 06 May 2009 20:30

Acharya wrote:One reason for this deduction is that Pakistan establishment only sources western nuclear components for its program and nothing else. All the illegal nuclear trade is for western components only!

There is no 'illegal' Chinese trade because the Chinese either supply these things officially or don't control the sales from Chinese companies.
Some of the centrifuge equipment the Pakis bought probably ended up in China.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 May 2009 22:21

Vishal_Bhatia wrote:With regard to the above:

From what I know, Brezhnev was wanting for war. The Soviets planned to use 10 nukes and 2,00,000 troops to sweep Lop Nor and Beijing in 10 days.

The Chinese were literally shivering (anybody would I guess when you are facing the mightiest land army in the world) but they did not stand down (as in they did not go begging in front of the Soviets). They did not poke us because they did not want to give the Soviets a reason to attack.

Sorry if this is off-topic.

Any more details and pointers to links?

Thanks in advance,

ramana

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 May 2009 22:38

Please x-post TSP nuke stuff here also for data gathering.

Rahul Shukla wrote:Pakistan’s Nuclear Scenarios, U.S. Solutions (NY Times)

As the Pakistani military launched a new offensive against the Taliban in the country’s North-West Frontier Province, officials and former officials in Washington continued to discuss what the American response should be to the heightened conflict. How should the United States respond? And how secure are Pakistan’s nuclear weapons?

Michael E. O’Hanlon, Brookings Institution
Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, former Energy Department official
Karin von Hippel, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute
Ellen Laipson, Stimson Center
Parag Khanna, New America Foundation

Twice since the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. taken action to break up networks inside Pakistan’s nuclear establishment who were collaborating with outsiders in efforts to help them build bombs. In both cases, rogue senior officials and their cohorts in the nuclear establishment were not caught by Pakistan’s military, security and intelligence establishment.

The network run by the father of the Pakistani bomb, Abdul Qadeer Khan, channeled sensitive nuclear technologies to Libya, North Korea and Iran for years under the noses of the Pakistani establishment, before it was taken down in 2003.

The second case involved the Umma-Tameer-E-Nau, which was founded by Pakistani nuclear scientists with close ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. It was headed by Bashiruddin Mahmood, a retired senior Pakistan Atomic Energy Agency official who had headed Pakistan’s Khushab Atomic Reactor. He discussed Al Qaeda’s nuclear aspirations with Osama bin Laden.

So there was two-tier TSP transfer of knowledge states and non state actors!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 May 2009 22:43

There was an Indian Express/TOI group interview with Thomas Reed about the TSP weapons. Can anyone find it please? it made a point about the stuff tested at Chagai i.e. it was an off the shelf weapon that was tested 17 days after Indian tests and then he made a comparison to a US test in 1960 in similar timeframe in response to a FSU test.

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 06 May 2009 22:48

ramana wrote:There was an Indian Express/TOI group interview with Thomas Reed about the TSP weapons. Can anyone find it please? it made a point about the stuff tested at Chagai i.e. it was an off the shelf weapon that was tested 17 days after Indian tests and then he made a comparison to a US test in 1960 in similar timeframe in response to a FSU test.

Is this the article you are looking for :
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/china ... rt/406243/

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 May 2009 22:58

No. But I found an equivalent story.

http://www.paperarticles.com/2009/01/fi ... nazir.html

First N-bomb was built under Benazir govt: ex-US official
Saturday, January 03, 2009 | pakistan, United States of America USA | 0 comments »

WASHINGTON, Jan 2: Pakistan built its first functioning nuclear weapon when the late prime minister Benazir Bhutto was in power, says former US Air Force secretary Thomas Reed.

Mr Reed, a trained weapons designer, made this claim in a book — The Nuclear Express: A Political History of the Bomb and Its Proliferation — which he coauthored with Danny Stillman, a former director of the technical intelligence division at America’s Los Alamos National Laboratory.

In an interview to the US News and World Report, published on Friday, Mr Reed argues that China’s assistance to Pakistan was ‘shocking’ but not ‘shortsighted’ as it helped protect China’s interests in the region. Mr Reed does not explain whether Pakistan’s first functioning nu clear weapons was made during Ms Bhutto’s first or the second tenure.

“We believe that during Benazir Bhutto’s term in office, the People’s Republic of China tested Pakistan’s first bomb for her in 1990,” he says “There are numerous reasons why we believe this to be true, including the design of the weapon and information gathered from discussions with Chinese nuclear experts.” Mr Reed claims that the Pakistanis were so quick to respond to the Indian nuclear tests in 1998 because the Chinese had already prepared them for a response.

“It only took them two weeks and three days,” he notes. “When the Soviet Union took the United States by surprise with a test in 1961, it took the US seventeen days to prepare and test, a device that had been on hand for years.” According to Mr Reed, the Pakistani response makes it clear that the gadget tested in May 1998 was a carefully engineered device in which they had great confidence.

The Chinese assistance to Pakistan, says Mr Reed, “can be explained by a balance of power: India was China’s enemy and Pakistan was India’s enemy.” Mr Reed claims that the Chinese did a massive training of Pakistani scientists, (just like the Russians had done for them) brought them to China for lectures, even gave them the design of the CHIC-4 device, which was a weapon that was easy to build a model for export.

“There is evidence that Dr. A. Q. Khan used Chinese designs in his nuclear designs,” he writes. “Notes from those lectures later turned up in Libya, for instance. And the Chinese did similar things for the Saudis, North Koreans, and the Algerians.” The author also argues that sharing nuclear knowhow is not unique to China.

“The United States conducted nuclear tests in Nevada openly and with full disclosure in the 1990s on behalf of our UK allies. We speculate on Israeli access to the US test results … the South Africans also apparently worked with the Israelis on a nuclear test in the South Pacific in 1979.” In the wake of the Suez crisis in 1956, the French and the Israelis initiated a joint nuclear weapons programme that resulted in a test in the Algerian desert. At that test in 1960, the two countries went nuclear with one shot, the author notes.

US experts say that China played a major role in the development of Pakistan’s nuclear infrastructure, especially when increasingly stringent export controls in western countries made it difficult for Pakistan to acquire materials and technology elsewhere.

According to a 2001 US Department of Defence report, China has supplied Pakistan with nuclear materials and expertise and has provided critical assistance in the construction of Pakistan’s nuclear facilities.

In the 1990s, China designed and supplied the heavy water Khushab reactor, which plays a key role in Pakistan’s production of plutonium. A subsidiary of the China National Nuclear Corporation also contributed to Pakistan’s efforts to expand its uranium enrichment capabilities by providing 5,000 custom made ring magnets, which are a key component of the bearings that facilitate the high-speed rotation of centrifuges.

According to Anthony Cordesman of the Centre for Strategic International Studies, Washington, China is also reported to have provided Pakistan with the design of one of its warheads, which is relatively sophisticated in design and lighter than the US and Soviet designed first generation warheads.

China also provided technical and material support in the completion of the Chashma nuclear power reactor and plutonium reprocessing facility, which was built in the mid1990s. The project had been initiated as a cooperative programme with France, but Pakistan’s failure to sign the NPT and unwillingness to accept IAEA safeguards on its entire nuclear programme caused France to terminate assistance.

So India was the last one as usual!