Pakistan Expanding Nuclear Program

[Neo]

Pakistan is going to INCREASE its Plutonium capability from a measly 5 PU bombs a year to 50. KAHUTA has produced URANIUM nukes while the PAEC has always manufactured Pakistan's PLUTONIUM nukes since the late 80's.

Raptor, if that true I wonder why a Pu device was not tested in 1998, that was the best window we had. There won't be any testing for a very long time to come.
Was it due lack of design or something else?

 

[Neo]

US says Pakistan's new nuclear reactor not very powerful: press


WASHINGTON (AFP) - The nuclear reactor being built in Pakistan is much smaller than a private arms control group has claimed and could simply be a replacement for the Khushab reactor that makes two nuclear warheads a year, according to a report.
http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=_Nyn2kSO...3674.9073170.9840640.1442997/D=LREC/B=3875600
The US government's intelligence data shows that the new reactor is roughly the same size as the one functioning in Khushab, and not 20 times larger as the Institute for Science and International Security said in a technical assessment, goverment officials told The New York Times.

International observers reacted with alarm after the Washington Post on June 24 reported the reactor's existence, citing the US-based private arms-control group.

The group said satellite photos showed the heavy-water reactor could produce more than 200 kilogrammes (440 pounds) of weapons-grade plutonium a year. This would be enough to make 40-50 nuclear weapons every year.

"We have consulted with our experts and believe the analysis is wrong," National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones told the NYT. "The reactor is expected to be substantially smaller and less capable than reported."
Speaking on condition of anonymity, a senior intelligence official said the United States has been tracking the new reactor for years.

"This has been looked at for a long time and hasnt generated a lot of hand-wringing," the official said. "It could be a replacement," of Pakistan's existing nuclear reactor at Khushab.

Institute president David Albright said he was "confident in our evidence and calculations," and reminded the daily of the US government's poor track record in analyzing its own intelligence, inviting it to present "the reasons it thinks we're wrong."

The Times noted that the US government's more modest assessment could be in deference to Pakistan's role as a key US ally in the war against terrorism.
Pakistan remains at the heart of an investigtion into a nuclear blackmarket headed by its disgraced chief nuclear scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, who confessed in 2004 to passing atomic secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea.
Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri recently said the new nuclear reactor five years in the making was not a threat and would not spark an arms race with rival India.

"It's nothing new, the world knows about it, the world knows that it's safe in our hands," Kasuri told AFP in an interview Friday at Asia's top security forum in Kuala Lumpur.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060803/pl_afp/uspakistannuclear_060803155858

 

[Neo]

U.S. Disputes Report on New Pakistan Reactor

By WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER

Published: August 3, 2006

A dispute has broken out between federal officials and a private arms-control group over its claim that a new reactor being built in Pakistan is unusually large and could make fuel for up to 50 nuclear warheads a year.

“We have consulted with our experts and believe the analysis is wrong,” said Frederick Jones, a spokesman for the National Security Council. “The reactor is expected to be substantially smaller and less capable than reported.”
A large reactor could foreshadow a significant expansion of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, currently estimated at 40 to 50 nuclear weapons.

The report last week by the private group came amid debate over the Bush administration’s proposed nuclear deal with India and raised fears that Pakistan was trying to speed ahead in a South Asian arms race.
Yesterday, the group’s experts said they stood by their report, which is based mainly on the examination of commercial satellite images of the half-built reactor.

But in interviews, federal officials said their own intelligence indicated that the emerging reactor appeared to be roughly the same size as the small one Pakistan currently uses to make plutonium for its nuclear program, and said the new model might be intended to replace the old one. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because of prohibitions on the public discussion of secretive intelligence issues.

“This has been looked at for a long time and hasn’t generated a lot of hand-wringing,” a senior intelligence official said of the new reactor. “It could be a replacement.”

The episode underscores the uncertainties that often surround nuclear intelligence. In recent years, the government has come under fire for warnings of nuclear dangers that have turned out to be false, most notably in the case of Iraq’s efforts. Critics say the analyses are often subject to political spin.
Pakistan is a major ally of the United States in its effort to prevent terrorism, and Washington might conceivably try to mute criticism of Pakistan’s nuclear program.

But the United States also closely monitors Pakistan’s nuclear work because the government of President Pervez Musharraf is considered the most unstable of any nuclear power — and its relevant facilities are seen as prime targets for Islamic terrorists seeking nuclear weapons.

The reactor dispute began July 24 when the Institute for Science and International Security, based in Washington, issued a report publicly disclosing the reactor’s existence and estimating that, when completed, it would be quite powerful — about 1,000 megawatts. That would be a twentyfold increase over Pakistan’s current plutonium reactor, which arms analysts estimate at 40 to 50 megawatts and able to make fuel for about two warheads a year.
The group’s paper, first reported in The Washington Post, contained many caveats, including that its estimate of the new reactor’s power “remains uncertain.”

The two reactor sites are near each another south of Khushab, Pakistan, and can be seen on Google Earth near 32.015 degrees north latitude and 72.190 east longitude. In the satellite image, the old site is circular, and the new one square.

Both old and new reactors were said to require heavy water, a costly substance. But federal officials, including some specializing in nuclear intelligence, said they had seen no evidence in Pakistan of an ability to make the far larger amounts of heavy water that a big new plutonium reactor would require.

David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, defended the accuracy of his group’s report and noted the Bush administration’s poor record on nuclear intelligence.

“We’re confident in our evidence and calculations,” he said in an interview yesterday. “If the administration wants to produce the reasons it thinks we’re wrong, we’ll be happy to examine them with an open mind.”

Mr. Albright said that the circular reactor vessel of the new Pakistani reactor was clearly visible in satellite photos and that its diameter — about 16 feet — was similar to those of heavy-water reactors at the Savannah River plant in Aiken, S.C. Over the decades, the government used them to make plutonium for many thousands of nuclear arms.

But Thomas B. Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defence Councilin Washington, a private group that has long monitored atomic developments around the world, said Mr. Albright’s group had apparently misinterpreted the purpose of the circular object.
Rather than a reactor vessel, he said, it probably represented thick rings of metal and concrete shielding meant to block high heat and dangerous radiation from a reactor that will prove to be much smaller.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/world/asia/03pakistan.html?ref=asia

 

[Munir]

So now you have to US based orgs that start telling the opposite. The only fact is that Pak has plutonium nukes and it will continue making them. So Babur will indeed have nuclear option with long range...

 

[RAPTOR]

Raptor, if that true I wonder why a Pu device was not tested in 1998, that was the best window we had. There won't be any testing for a very long time to come.
Was it due lack of design or something else?

Well, the 6th test was conducted at a site different than Chagai. That tunnel was dug in the 80's during Zia's reign and that weapon was Plutonium based. Remember, China always invited a huge number of Pakistani Scientists and Generals to Lop Nor to witness China's own nuclear tests throughout the 80's. China ..for the most part has a Plutonium based arsenal . Now PAEC was responsible for creating Pakistan's Plutonium weapons although very small in number. Back during Bhutto's rule...when France was being extremely generous to him by selling Pakistan Agosta 70s, Atlantiques,Mirages,Sounding Rockets and exocets.....Bhutto infact was involved in a massive Nuclear deal with Saint Gobrellies for the trasfer of a Nuclear Reprocessing Plant as well as complete heavy water plants and weapons fabrication labs and Nuclear Power Reactors. Karachi already had a CANDU reactor up and running by that time that was supplied by Canada.
When Zia seized power and turned Pakistan into a backward islamic state stuck in the 14th century.......France cancelled all Nuclear sales ......but NOT before trasfering complete Blue Prints for the manufacture of a comprehensive Plutonium based Nuclear infrastructure that was not unlike Dimona in Israel or Bhaba in hindoostan.
So ..while AQ Khan worked on Kahuta (the Uranium Option) ....PAEC was tasked with the quest for a Plutonium based option. Also....Pakistan's Superweapon procurement Network preceeded AQ Khan by at least 8 years. The BCCI ...that $40 billion dollar mega empire....helped the Pakistani weapons network tremendously. So...the so called black market of Nuclear Weapons supposedly run by AQ Khan was in place far before he was even in the picture.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Ok, what do we know.

The Los Alamos labs detected from ONE air sample collected by a U2 flight some Pu. However, through snoppy work, the sample was contaminated and the results could not be verified by another lab. At present, there's a 50-50 chance that Pu was at the 6th test.

HOWEVER, it is for certain that the 6th test was HEU. HEU dominates the other samples and those are confirmed.

It is theorized that Pu was used to enhanced the core. What exactly only the Paks would know.

Los Alamos originally thought the Pu was either Korean or Chinese. There was not enough time for the Paks to produce enough Pu for a Pu weapon. Since the revision of their original theory, they're now confident that the Pu was of Pak origins. However, this does mean that by Los Alamos estimates, the Paks don't have enough PU for more than one weapon as of right now.

The Lybian released papers that they've got from AQ Khan contained no materials concerning Pu weapons. They were all HEU data. And as of right now, the Chinese are extremely p!ssed off at AQ Khan. By extension, the Pakistanis. Nuclear weapons co-operation are at least reluctant.

And no, the Chinese have never exploded a Pak nuke. All their tests have been for their own usages and designs.

 

[RAPTOR]

Ok, what do we know.

The Los Alamos labs detected from ONE air sample collected by a U2 flight some Pu. However, through snoppy work, the sample was contaminated and the results could not be verified by another lab. At present, there's a 50-50 chance that Pu was at the 6th test.

HOWEVER, it is for certain that the 6th test was HEU. HEU dominates the other samples and those are confirmed.

It is theorized that Pu was used to enhanced the core. What exactly only the Paks would know.

Los Alamos originally thought the Pu was either Korean or Chinese. There was not enough time for the Paks to produce enough Pu for a Pu weapon. Since the revision of their original theory, they're now confident that the Pu was of Pak origins. However, this does mean that by Los Alamos estimates, the Paks don't have enough PU for more than one weapon as of right now.

The Lybian released papers that they've got from AQ Khan contained no materials concerning Pu weapons. They were all HEU data. And as of right now, the Chinese are extremely p!ssed off at AQ Khan. By extension, the Pakistanis. Nuclear weapons co-operation are at least reluctant.

And no, the Chinese have never exploded a Pak nuke. All their tests have been for their own usages and designs.

Never knew you were the Head of Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons project to produce your "claims and Stories" with such confidence on here. Any proof you can post on here to verify your statements?

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Never knew you were the Head of Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons project to produce your "claims and Stories" with such confidence on here. Any proof you can post on here to verify your statements?

1) You can't read, can you.
2) I gave you the proof. Google it.

 

[Owais]

Khushab nuclear complex 'grossly exaggerated': Pakistan


WASHINGTON (updated on: August 05, 2006, 12:44 PST): The new nuclear reactor could be used for 'military purposes' as well as for civilian power needs but will not lead to a massive increase in the country's nuclear arsenal, according to Pakistan's new ambassador to Washington, The Washington Times reported on Saturday. Ambassador Mahmud Ali Durrani, in an interview on Thursday with The Washington Times, dismissed a private Washington-based think tank's report on the reactor under construction at the Khushab nuclear complex as 'grossly exaggerated.'

He denied the report's estimate that the new plant could produce enough weapons-grade plutonium to boost Pakistan's production from an estimated two nuclear bombs a year to as many as 50.

But he gave the first official acknowledgement that the heavy-water reactor would bring at least some increase in Pakistan's military nuclear capability at a time of heightened fears of a South Asia arms race with India, the newspaper said in its online edition.

"The plutonium may certainly be used for military purposes, but it is simply not the case that it will increase our capability X-fold," Durrani was quoted as saying.

"I would love it to be 1,000 megawatts, because we certainly have the power needs," he was quoted as saying.

But the Khushab site has sparked international concerns as the United States and India move to ratify a nuclear co-operation deal that critics warn could allow India to greatly accelerate its own military nuclear program, The Washington Times noted.

Durrani, who presented his credentials to US President George W. Bush a month ago, said Pakistan had conveyed its "deep concerns" about the India accord to the Bush administration, while saying it was unlikely the deal could be derailed. "We know your administration is very keen for this deal, but we also don't want to see an imbalance with India that we would have to match," Durrani said.

 

[Neo]

Washington, Aug 5 (IANS) Pakistan has acknowledged that a major new Pakistani plutonium nuclear reactor under construction at Khushab could be used for 'military purposes', but claimed it will not lead to a massive increase in the country's nuclear arsenal.

This 'first official acknowledgment that the heavy-water reactor will bring at least some increase in Pakistan's military nuclear capability at a time of heightened fears of a South Asia arms race with rival India' came from Pakistan's new ambassador in an interview with the Washington Times Friday.

'The plutonium may certainly be used for military purposes, but it is simply not the case that it will increase our capability X-fold,' Mahmud Ali Durrani, a former top defence adviser to the Pakistani president and chairman of the country's military industrial complex for much of the 1990s, told the daily.


He declined to give production figures for the new plant, but said it would be far less powerful than the 1,000-megawatt estimate given last month by the Institute for Science and International Security. Pakistan's current reactor, located near the new one, is a 50-megawatt unit completed in 1998.


'I would love it to be 1,000 megawatts, because we certainly have the power needs,' he joked dismissing the private Washington-based think tank's report as 'grossly exaggerated'. He denied the new plant could produce enough weapons-grade plutonium to boost the country's production from an estimated two bombs a year to as many as 50.


Durrani's interview came just a day after the New York Times suggested that American officials are seeking to dispute the think tank's finding about Khushab's potential to make 50 nuclear warheads a year to mute criticism of a key ally.


The Khushab site has sparked international concerns as the US and India move to ratify a nuclear cooperation deal that critics warn could allow India to greatly accelerate its own military nuclear programme, the Washington Times noted.


Durrani said Pakistan had conveyed its 'deep concerns' about the India-US nuclear accord to the Bush administration, but acknowledged it was unlikely the deal could be derailed.


'We know your administration is very keen for this deal, but we also don't want to see an imbalance with India that we would have to match,' he said.

He frankly acknowledged that the case of Abdul Qader Khan - considered the father of Pakistan's atom bomb - who sold sensitive nuclear technology to rogue states such as Iran and North Korea before his smuggling ring was broken up in 2004, was 'an absolute, total, unmitigated disaster for my country,' raising doubts in Washington and other capitals about the reliability of Pakistan's non-proliferation controls.


'It pulled our image down very badly and it will take us time to get out of this mess,' Durrani said hoping to end what he called the 'yo-yo', up-and-down relationship his country has had with the US.


He rejected suggestions that the Pakistani army and intelligence services are less than fully committed to the war against Al Qaeda and global terrorism, saying the military 'is perhaps the most liberal institution in the country today'.

The army, Durrani noted, has suffered 600 deaths in the politically difficult campaign to flush out Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives in the country's tribal provinces on the border.


He said there were signs of rising Islamic fundamentalist activity in the region - a 'blowback' from continuing insecurity across the border in Afghanistan - but said US and Pakistani officials are planning special reconstruction zones as part of a campaign to undercut the appeal of extremists.


The ambassador said there was 'no sympathy' in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders, but he added it was more likely bin Laden was holed up on the less-populous Afghan side of the border.

'I think if he were in Pakistan, he would be caught by now,' he said.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/060805/43/66g1c.html

 

[KashifAsrar]

Further Discussion of the New, Large Khushab Reactor
David Albright and Paul Brannan
Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS)
August 4, 2006​

Since the release of our report on the Khushab site in Pakistan, we have received several comments and criticisms and we want to share our reaction and some additional information. Some people have pointed out that the footprint of the first Khushab reactor is similar in size to the one under construction, implying that the power of both reactors is similar. However, in examining reactors, particularly those for military production, the building size is a poor indicator of the reactor’s power. In addition, the reactor buildings and their associated surface facilities look noticeably different, so the new reactor does not appear to be a replica, and it is logical to assume it serves a different purpose than the first reactor.

Moreover, construction of the new reactor started soon after the first began operations, undermining the argument that the second reactor is a one-to-one replacement of the first.
If, on the other hand, the first reactor had failed completely soon after starting, requiring a replacement reactor, then construction of the second reactor would have been expected to be rapid, which it isn’t, again undermining the argument.

We remain convinced that a better indicator of a reactor’s potential power is the size of the reactor vessel. The operating reactor vessel is significantly smaller than the vessel with a five-meter diameter under construction, according to knowledgeable sources who have examined imagery of both vessels.

The vessel in the reactor under construction is about the same size as the vessels or tanks of the production reactors at the Savannah River Production facility. These are reactors which started in the mid-1950s operating at a nameplate power of about 300 MWth. But the operators were soon able to increase their power to between 500 and 1000 MWth.

Given the expense of heavy water, Pakistan would be under pressure to use the vessel efficiently. With this assumption, it is straightforward to arrive at the estimate that the reactor is capable of operating in excess of 1000 MWth, according to an expert in building and operating heavy water production reactors. It is true that Pakistan could operate their reactor at less than its maximum potential power, but the capability remains and could be developed over time. In any case, this new reactor will provide Pakistan with a significant increase in annual plutonium production.

The most straightforward design would use heavy water as both a moderator and a cooling agent. Alternatively, if heavy water was in short supply, the design could use heavy water as a moderator and regular water as a coolant. This design would require about half as much heavy water, but would have a slight decrease in total power.
Thomas B. Chochran of the Natural Resources Defense Council suggested that the circular object is thick concrete and metal shielding meant to block high heat and dangerous radiation from a reactor that could be much smaller—implying that Pakistan would first construct the shield before the reactor vessel. However, reactors are typically not built in such a way. Rather, the reactor vessel itself is built first, and then the wall shielding heat and radiation is constructed around it afterwards. In the case of the
construction of the new Khushab reactor, there appears to be only one round metal object, thus signifying it as the reactor vessel. In addition, the metal rings comprising the new reactor vessel were originally seen piled outside the reactor building. They were then hoisted inside the building using a crane and welded together inside the building. The metal used in conjunction with concrete in a shield would be in the form of small pieces of wire and rebar. The round metal structure visible in the new reactor site at Khushab, appears to be more substantial and not very likely to be comprised of wire or rebar.

Therefore, Chochran’s speculation that the round object is shielding the reactor vessel and not the reactor vessel itself is in our opinion unlikely. On reflection, we believe our conclusion about the potential size of the reactor remains justified, based both on the available information and our calculations. We cannot know now what power this reactor will ultimately reach; however, this reactor is capable of providing Pakistan with a large supply of plutonium many times greater than its current annual output. We continue to welcome comments and encourage a full debate on this new reactor and its implications for regional and international security.

 

[Neo]

Last Updated: Monday, 7 August 2006

Pakistan nuclear report disputed



By Shahzeb Jillani
BBC News, Washington

Pakistan already has nuclear-tipped missiles

The United States and Pakistan have disputed a recent report by a nuclear monitoring institute which says that Pakistan is building a new reactor.

Last month, the US-based Institute for Science and International Security (Isis) published satellite images of the Khushab nuclear site.
The report said that it could produce enough plutonium to make 40 to 50 nuclear weapons a year.

The report sparked worldwide concerns, but both US and Pakistan downplayed it.
The US said the administration was aware of the developments at the nuclear complex.
And Pakistan's foreign ministry refused to comment on the charges, saying the Khushab nuclear site was well known.

Wrong analysis

But now for the first time the two governments have spoken out against the report.

Last week, The New York Times quoted the US National Security Council spokesman, Frederick Jones, as saying that Isis analysis was wrong.

"After assessing the Isis findings, the US government experts believe that the reactor is expected to be substantially smaller and less capable than reported," he said.
A day later, the US State Department spokesman, Edgar Matthews, said "the reactor will be over ten times less capable" than estimated.

Not true

Pakistan's ambassador to Washington, Mahmud Ali Durrani, also dismissed the report saying the Isis analysis was "grossly exaggerated".

In an interview to The Washington Times, he acknowledged for the first time that the plutonium from the reactor could be used for civilian or military purposes. But, "it's simply not true that it will increase our capability X-fold", the newspaper quoted him as saying.

The institute says it stands by its findings.

In a fresh statement released on the Isis website the authors of the report, David Albright and Paul Brannan, said they remain convinced that the new reactor is capable of providing Pakistan plutonium "many times greater than its current annual output".

Experts differ

The expert opinion on the accuracy of the report and Pakistan's nuclear capability is divided.
Michael Krepon, South Asia security analyst and President Emeritus of the Henry L Stimson Center, says he finds the Isis claim "surprisingly high".

He is sceptical that anybody on the outside could claim to know more about a country's alleged nuclear activity than the many experts with direct access to sensitive classified information working for the government.

But Leonard Weiss, a prominent non-proliferation expert and former US senate staff member who helped author many US non-proliferation laws, told the BBC he is not surprised "that Pakistan may be picking up the pace on increasing its nuclear arsenal".
Isis is a well-known and highly regarded organisation within academic circles, specialising in nuclear proliferation.
The organisation - and the authors of the report - tend to be inclined against any form of proliferation around the world.

Under construction

The Isis report said that the construction of the reactor at Khushab could bring about a dramatic increase in the size of the Pakistani and Indian nuclear arsenals.

"The reactor under construction... could produce over 200kg of weapons-grade plutonium per year, assuming it operates at full power for a modest 220 days per year.

"At four to five kilograms of plutonium per weapon, this stock would allow the production of 40-50 weapons a year," the report said.

Isis published commercially available satellite photos which its analysts said appeared to show the plant under construction.
The Washington-based organisation said that work apparently began some time after March 2000, but "work does not appear to be moving quickly".

The report's authors said this could be because Islamabad is facing a shortage of reactor components or does not have the necessary weapons production infrastructure.
Experts believe that the timing of the release of the report is significant, because it raises fresh concerns about an arms race in South Asia at a time when the US is on the verge of ratifying a deal which would give India greater access to American civilian nuclear technology.

 

[Green Comrade]

it'll b better for pakistan to have best ever possile weapons fo the sake of balance of power

 

[TOPGUN]

We are building for energy which is needed really bad and i hope we build more so therfore let the haters just shut there stupid mouths and if we are buildng wepons who isnt these days build more lol hahah . GOD bless Pakistan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

Ok, what do we know.

The Los Alamos labs detected from ONE air sample collected by a U2 flight some Pu. However, through snoppy work, the sample was contaminated and the results could not be verified by another lab. At present, there's a 50-50 chance that Pu was at the 6th test.

HOWEVER, it is for certain that the 6th test was HEU. HEU dominates the other samples and those are confirmed.

It is theorized that Pu was used to enhanced the core. What exactly only the Paks would know.

Los Alamos originally thought the Pu was either Korean or Chinese. There was not enough time for the Paks to produce enough Pu for a Pu weapon. Since the revision of their original theory, they're now confident that the Pu was of Pak origins. However, this does mean that by Los Alamos estimates, the Paks don't have enough PU for more than one weapon as of right now.

so Los Alamos reversed their claims about the plutonium somehow floating all the way to the pakistani test sites? Livermore was more accurate with their analysis, pakistan did indeed test a plutonium device for the sixth test.

The Lybian released papers that they've got from AQ Khan contained no materials concerning Pu weapons. They were all HEU data. And as of right now, the Chinese are extremely p!ssed off at AQ Khan. By extension, the Pakistanis. Nuclear weapons co-operation are at least reluctant.

wrong, just shows how ignorant you are about our nuclear program. KRL did not even produce a single device. by the way, just to rub it in your face, the device found in Libya was an advanced miniaturised device. obviously means, our tests were successful.

And no, the Chinese have never exploded a Pak nuke. All their tests have been for their own usages and designs.

that's not what our buddies at central intelligence are saying. our scientists have been visiting Lop Nur since the 80's and even exploded our own device there in the early 90's.