Pakistan expanding its nuclear capability

[batmannow]

yes , sure i will vote for more & more!

 

[HAIDER]

This is case building scenario....
First A.Q Khan interrogation demand
Following week, US satellite scan Pak nuke facilities.CIA briefing from no where. Had no time to bring this matter infront of senate hearing committee. Instead US audit the whole US aid delivery and US personal observe, where the aid is heading.Plus USAID program need lots of overhauling.
Next ????...But it might few warning shot. Do not spend US aid in any defence program. Pressure is on before aid delivery.

 

[Skeptic]

I have a question for my fellow members, and let me clarify at the outset that I am not being sarcastic or cute, that - What purpose would be achieved by developing more warheads. As per various estimations that I know of, Pakistan has somewhere between 60 - 150 N-Warheads. Correct me if I am wrong.

I fail to see even a doomsday scenario, where more than 4-5 warheads would ever be used and I am really thinking of the worst case scenario where a significant percentage of world population might be wiped out. Lets stretch it to 10 warheads being used and survival of this planet is in danger. Even if 50% of warheads are neutralized still the number is more than sufficient.

Deploying and distributing them among various divisions, also provides for more than that number for each of the three Forces - Land, Air and Navy.

My question is simple - whether it is actually a smart move to expand your N- arsenal which is a very money and resource extensive exercise. What does Pakistan gain. While on the contrary, there is lots to loose - more important than aid, I fear the world opinion and projection of Pakistan's image as a nation striving for peace and facing a massive civil war will suffer.

You can ofcourse choose to develop warheads till you have enough secure space and other nations (eg. US, India) are free to impose sanctions or apply diplomatic pressure to dissuade Pakistan.

So what are the benefits and do they outweigh the disadvantages which are part of the package?

PS: Please refrain from quoting number of warheads US / India / Israel has. I think it is a simple question which can be answered without bringing in other countries.

 

[HAIDER]

Human nature. When too many wild animals in jungle, then hunter look for full security. He try to keep many weapon as possible,even he knows standoff will be tough.
Or the other scenario soon West and US might push India and Israel to sign NPT,then Pakistan has no choice. These three countries are member of nuke club without signing the NPT. As far as the benefit, its NON. India is economic power and will emerge more after congress re-victory. Will be no disruption in economic policies. India is huge country and huge population ,advantage is already tilted in India side. But on the other hand Pakistan need to work more for its security for any type of adventure from India side. India has track record of armed interference in Pakistan, from Bangladash to Siachin.
Yes, but Pakistan strategic importance is increasing day by day. Its on the crossroad of economic prosperity of China,India,USA,Central asia,Afghanistan.
So, the threat is their, but the only deterrence Pakistan has " nuclear". Otherwise India would treat Pakistan like,Bhutan or Nepal.

 

[owais.usmani]

I think our country should forget about giving billions of dollars of military aid to Pakistan. Pakistan will be taken over by the Taliban, Al Qaeda or other Islamic extremists. It's time for us to go into Pakistan and snatch the nuclear weapons they possess.

Yeah sure, why don't you come?

But do remember to prepare your balls for some 170 million kicks.

 

[afpakwar]

The NYT headline is not warranted by the evidence presented:

"Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed the assessment of the expanded arsenal in a one-word answer to a question on Thursday in the midst of lengthy Senate testimony… he was asked whether he had seen evidence of an increase in the size of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal. 'Yes,' he said quickly, adding nothing, …" [NYT]

Clearly, the “Rapidly” is not justified by either the question, or the answer; nor has the New York Times made it easier for anyone who wishes to verify the accuracy of this tendentious article from the “lengthy” testimony, by mentioning who asked the question, and in what context.

More noteworthy is Ehud Barak's statement that Pakistan is a bigger threat to Israel than Iran.

For more relevant statements about Pakistan than the isolated remark that NYT cites, see the transcript of the early part of the Senate hearing.

[As this is my first post, I understand that I can't use URLs in my post! However, references to these last two statements are posted on my blog, afpakwar-dot-com -- with sincere apologies if refering this way is also against rules.]

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I have a question for my fellow members, and let me clarify at the outset that I am not being sarcastic or cute, that - What purpose would be achieved by developing more warheads. As per various estimations that I know of, Pakistan has somewhere between 60 - 150 N-Warheads. Correct me if I am wrong.

I fail to see even a doomsday scenario, where more than 4-5 warheads would ever be used and I am really thinking of the worst case scenario where a significant percentage of world population might be wiped out. Lets stretch it to 10 warheads being used and survival of this planet is in danger. Even if 50% of warheads are neutralized still the number is more than sufficient.

Deploying and distributing them among various divisions, also provides for more than that number for each of the three Forces - Land, Air and Navy.

My question is simple - whether it is actually a smart move to expand your N- arsenal which is a very money and resource extensive exercise. What does Pakistan gain. While on the contrary, there is lots to loose - more important than aid, I fear the world opinion and projection of Pakistan's image as a nation striving for peace and facing a massive civil war will suffer.

You can ofcourse choose to develop warheads till you have enough secure space and other nations (eg. US, India) are free to impose sanctions or apply diplomatic pressure to dissuade Pakistan.

So what are the benefits and do they outweigh the disadvantages which are part of the package?

PS: Please refrain from quoting number of warheads US / India / Israel has. I think it is a simple question which can be answered without bringing in other countries.

My layman's opinion on the Khusab Complex expansion is that plutonium based weapons are significantly smaller and lighter than the HEU based ones - hence the focus on greater Plutonium production.

The issue may not merely be one of significantly expanding the unconventional arsenal numerically, but of replacing part of it with a newer generation of plutonium based designs.

 

[Skeptic]

My layman's opinion on the Khusab Complex expansion is that plutonium based weapons are significantly smaller and lighter than the HEU based ones - hence the focus on greater Plutonium production.

The issue may not merely be one of significantly expanding the unconventional arsenal numerically, but of replacing part of it with a newer generation of plutonium based designs.

Thanks for the explanation, but is the right time and environment for the same? The general perception in India (atleast of those I know) is that Nuclear power is more potent as a defensive strategy tool than an offensive weapon. In current scenario, where even Mr. Zardari has stated that Taliban is clearly Pakistan's highest priority and I went through Musharraf's Interview where he mentions top 3 priorities for Pakistan as :

1. Economic revival and development
2. Demolition of extremist and militant Taliban
3. Political Stability

I know he does not possess a political position in Pakistan, but the man has been heading the country during the phase, which might be seen as a turning point in Pakistan's History. I don't see how the development of new weapons or upgradation of nuclear arsenal can be helpful in any of these. Just my 2 cents.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pakistan not using aid to make nukes: US
​

By Anwar Iqbal

Tuesday, 19 May, 2009 | 01:02 AM PST |

WASHINGTON: The US State Department indirectly confirmed on Monday that it too believed Pakistan was expanding its nuclear arsenal but said Islamabad was not using American aid to do so.

‘I'm not going to address the issue of whether or not the Pakistanis are increasing their nuclear capability,’ Acting Assistant Secretary Of State for Public Affairs Ian C. Kelly told a briefing in Washington. ‘I think Admiral Mullen addressed that, and so I'll defer to the Pentagon and to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.’

On Thursday, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman US Joint Chiefs of Staff, agreed with an American lawmaker who claimed that Pakistan was adding to its present arsenal of nuclear weapons.

At the State Department, Mr Kelly urged journalists not to connect the US aid to Pakistan to Islamabad’s efforts to make more nuclear weapons because these were ‘two separate issues.’

‘We shouldn't connect these dots, we shouldn't make this connection because this assistance package is for very specific purposes and we're going to work very closely with the government of Pakistan to meet our joint goal,’ he said.

‘We have a joint goal with our Pakistani partner here of helping them re-establish stability. I don't see necessarily a connection between the two,’ he said.

‘We're going to make sure that the package is well spent. We're going to work closely with the government of Pakistan to make sure that the money is spent for the specific purposes that the US Congress had in mind.’

Mr Kelly said that sufficient safeguards already existed to ensure that the US assistance to Pakistan, particularly the Kerry-Lugar package which seeks to triple the US aid, was not misused.

‘We are very scrupulous custodians of the US taxpayer's money,’ he said. The United States, he said, would make sure that the $400 million emergency aid package for Pakistan was not used for anything other than what it’s intended for.

Mr Kelly said the US president and secretary of state had already addressed the issue of the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. ‘We have confidence in their command and control.’

‘I draw a bright line between Pakistan and Iran,’ said Mr Kelly when a journalist asked why the US saw Iran’s nuclear programme as a threat to the world security and not Pakistan’s.

‘In Pakistan, we have an elected, democratic government who's our partner in dealing with extremism. And I wouldn't link them in the same sentence.’

The State Department spokesman also disagreed with the suggestion that by providing economic assistance to Pakistan, the US was indirectly helping its capability to make nuclear weapons.

‘I don't think I agree with that. And the reason why I don't agree with that is because we've designed a very specific package for very specific purposes,’ he said.

‘We take our responsibility as custodians of appropriated funds very seriously. We're going to work closely with the government of Pakistan to ensure that this money goes to the purposes to which they were intended.’

Pakistan’s nuclear programme is once again causing alarm bells in Washington, and this time the focus is on Islamabad’s alleged efforts to expand its arsenal.

The issue was first raised in the US Senate where Senator Jim Webb, a Virginia Democrat, told a Senate panel that Pakistan was adding to the nuclear weapons it traditionally had pointed towards India, and questioned whether US aid could be funding it.

Senator Webb noted reports that Pakistan ‘may be actually adding on their weapon systems and warheads’. ‘Do you have any evidence of that?’ he asked.

‘Yes,’ said Admiral Mullen, who appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday to defend the Obama administration’s new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

‘That strikes me as something we should be approaching with enormous concerns,’ Senator Webb responded.

‘We’re spending a lot of time talking about the potential that Iran might have nuclear-weapon capability and this is a regime that is far less stable. ... Do we have any type of control factors that would be built in, in terms of where future American money would be put in?’ he said.

In Islamabad, Information Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira denied that assertion that Pakistan is expanding its nuclear arsenal.

‘Pakistan does not need to expand its nuclear arsenal but we want to make it clear that we will maintain a minimum nuclear deterrence that is essential for our defense and stability,’ he told a US media outlet. ‘We will not make any compromise.’

Unlike some of his aides, US President Obama himself seems confident that the US, through the Pakistani military, has a handle on the situation and can ensure that Pakistan’s weapons do not fall into extremist hands. He has asserted this in several statements, and over the weekend, he proffered the view again in a Newsweek interview.

Asked if he was willing to keep the option alive to have American troops secure Pakistan’s nuclear weapons if the country gets less stable, Obama said, ‘I don't want to engage in hypotheticals around Pakistan, other than to say we have confidence that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is safe; that the Pakistani military is equipped to prevent extremists from taking over those arsenals.’

Despite such assurances, the US media continued to raise the issue.

Fox News claimed that the United States already has a detailed plan for infiltrating Pakistan and securing its mobile arsenal of nuclear warheads if it appears the country is about to fall under the control of the Taliban, al-Qaeda or other religious extremists.

The operation would be carried out by Joint Special Operations Command, the ‘super-secret’ commando unit headquartered at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, the report said.

The unit, which was instrumental in the assassination of al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab Zarqawi in Iraq, is the US military's chief terrorists hunting squad and has units now operating in Afghanistan on Pakistan's western border. But a secondary mission is to secure foreign nuclear arsenals - a role for which JSOC operatives have trained in Nevada, the report said.

‘We have plans to secure them (nuclear warheads) ourselves if things get out of hand; small units could seize them, disable them and then centralize them in a secure location,’ a source told Fox News.

According to Fox News, a secret Defence Intelligence Agency document first disclosed in 2004 said Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal of 35 weapons. The document said it plans to more than double the arsenal by 2020.

‘What makes the Pakistan mission especially difficult is that the military has its missiles on Soviet-style mobile launchers and rail lines.
US intelligence agencies, using satellite photos and communication intercepts, are constantly monitoring their whereabouts. Other warheads are kept in storage. US technical experts have visited Pakistan to advise the government on how to maintain and protect its arsenal,’ the report said.

Also, there are rogue elements inside Pakistan's military and intelligence service who could quickly side with the extremists and make JSOC's mission all the more difficult, Fox News said.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Thanks for the explanation, but is the right time and environment for the same? The general perception in India (atleast of those I know) is that Nuclear power is more potent as a defensive strategy tool than an offensive weapon. In current scenario, where even Mr. Zardari has stated that Taliban is clearly Pakistan's highest priority and I went through Musharraf's Interview where he mentions top 3 priorities for Pakistan as :

1. Economic revival and development
2. Demolition of extremist and militant Taliban
3. Political Stability

I know he does not possess a political position in Pakistan, but the man has been heading the country during the phase, which might be seen as a turning point in Pakistan's History. I don't see how the development of new weapons or upgradation of nuclear arsenal can be helpful in any of these. Just my 2 cents.

Musharraf's 3 priorities are correct, but at the same time he also pointed out that Pakistan cannot ignore the Indian threat on the Eastern front so long as India maintains the posture he outlined.

This is not a zero-sum game - as Musharraf argued, there needs to be a balance. Modernizing or expanding Pakistan's nuclear arsenal does not automatically mean that there will be no focus on the three top priorities mentioned by Musharraf.

 

[sohailbutt]

Just to add my opinion, US has been a nuclear power for more than 70 years, I think if I'm not wrong, did anyone ever question why US has thousands of nuclear warheads, why Russia reportedly has more than 3000 nuclear warheads, for God's sake, if we are adding more to our nuclear arsenal what is the problem with that?

What difference will it make if we supposedly have more than 100 nukes compared to your mammoth nuke stocks!

The best US congress can do is strictly monitor the aid they give, that's the best they can do nothing much, I very well support building more nuclear weapons atleast it keeps the Indians alarmed!

US should think why are we building up nuclear arms before they just scare the **** out of their public and congress!

The US President speaks one time, that Pak nukes are safe, then after some hours, Mr. Admiral speaks out they are adding to their nukes, and someone else then speaks out about the security issues, what are you guys doing, you are acting like fools and confusing your own public, and also scaring the **** of the world!

This is not some banana state, as most people in US think, we are a responsible state, at least we donot arm our nukes and send em to Iraq and when they reach there Pentagon knows about it then, that the nuke that reached in Iraq is armed!

So, I think US should safe gaurd and have tighter controls on their own nukes and worry less for our's.

Now, these days when I visit US news website I see in headlines about the concern for PAK nukes, is this really a propaganda or something serious?

 

[ajpirzada]

i have a question. AM said plotinium based weapons are lighter. does this increase the range as well. i mean if it doesnt increase the range of missiles then wats the point?? lighter or heavier they are both gonna kill millions of ppl anyways.

 

[SparklingCrescent]

let me jus say, I have no knowledge of any nuclear wepons, or anythin... but Im pretty sure, the bombs dont have red bottons that u press and it launches, they arent toys.... they would obviosly carry sum electronic devise that asks for password and other stuff... and by the way, taliban are stupid retarded people, where do u think they get knowledge of how u use nuclear wepons... there are only a couple of scientists who have the knowledge to do so.....

 

[jeypore]

My layman's opinion on the Khusab Complex expansion is that plutonium based weapons are significantly smaller and lighter than the HEU based ones - hence the focus on greater Plutonium production.
The issue may not merely be one of significantly expanding the unconventional arsenal numerically, but of replacing part of it with a newer generation of plutonium based designs.

It will be a spiral that pakistan will lose out in more so economically, and eventually hurting Pakistan. This is my take, if Pakistan is increasing nuclear arsenal, india will not stand by and in so doing will recipricate it's nuclear arsenal, and that will equate to money spending towards that program. Because india will reciprocrate Pakistan is forced to follow eventually draining more of it's funds towards it. Leading to mismangement of allocation of funds to where it needs the most. My 2 pennies on the subject.

 

[SparklingCrescent]

And by the way... wat billions of dollars did U.S give to pakistan????? buddy, theyve been giving 96 billion dollars for afghanistan, we only got 1.5 billion... hellllooooooooooooooooooooooo.. wake upppp