Seymour Hersh Pakistan-US nuclear security plan

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

FACTBOX-Pakistan's nuclear weapons



Nov 10 (Reuters) - Pakistan is capable of ensuring the security of its nuclear arsenal and a report it is negotiating "understandings" for U.S. units to augment the weapons' safety was "absurd", a top Pakistani commander said.

The New Yorker magazine reported in its latest issue Pakistan and the United States were negotiating "highly sensitive understandings" that would allow specially trained U.S. units to augment security for the Pakistani weapons "in case of a crisis".

Here are some facts about Pakistan's nuclear programme:

BACKGROUND
Pakistan began a programme to obtain nuclear weapons after its defeat by India in a 1971 war that led to the division of the country and the creation of Bangladesh, then East Pakistan.

The army sees its nuclear weapons as essential to offset the conventional superiority of its much bigger neighbour.

India sees its own nuclear weapons as a deterrent against Pakistan and China, which defeated it in a border war in 1962.

NUCLEAR TESTS

Pakistan tested nuclear weapons in May 1998, shortly after India announced it had done so. Both countries faced international sanctions as a result, although India has since won effective recognition as a nuclear power following an accord negotiated with the United States. Neither Pakistan nor India have signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

NUCLEAR ARSENALS

Estimates vary on the size of Pakistan's and India's nuclear arsenals, although analysts suggest India has 70-120 nuclear weapons while Pakistan has 60-120. These can be delivered by aircraft, or by missiles, which both countries have been developing and testing.

Analysts believe the nuclear weapons have reduced the likelihood of a conventional war between India and Pakistan. At the same time, they have opened the way to unconventional proxy wars. India accuses Pakistan of using its nuclear umbrella as a cover for what it calls cross-border terrorism by Islamist militants, a charge Pakistan rejects.

DEPLOYMENT

Pakistan, which has fought three full-scale wars with India, including two over the former kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir, is believed to have prepared its warheads for deployment twice.

The first time was in 1999 during the Kargil conflict, fought in the mountains on the Line of Control, the ceasefire line dividing Jammu and Kashmir.

The second was during a military standoff between India and Pakistan in 2001/2002 which followed an attack on the Indian parliament in December 2001, blamed on Pakistan-based militants.

India has a policy of no first use of nuclear weapons but has made clear if it were hit by a nuclear bomb from Pakistan it would strike back in force. Pakistan has indicated it would use its weapons if it believed its existence were threatened in a conventional war. Recent growth in its nuclear programme has been seen as an attempt to develop a second strike capability.

SECURITY

Pakistan is believed to have worked closely with the United States to build elaborate security mechanisms to prevent Islamist militants from seizing nuclear material. The nuclear programme is controlled by the army and run by the Strategic Plans Division headed by retired Lieutenant-General Khalid Kidwai.

Pakistan has copied "best practice" on security from the United States, including on personnel vetting.

Analysts say Pakistan is believed to have developed its own Permissive Action Link system, modelled on one used in the United States, to electronically lock nuclear weapons. It also relies on a range of other measures including physical security, separation of warheads from missiles and warheads from explosive devices.

U.S. reassurances it is confident about the security of Pakistan's weapons have underpinned views that Washington has worked closely with Pakistan on this.

However, analysts also say Pakistan is likely to have kept at least some of its nuclear programme secret given its concerns that an outside power might try to neutralise its nuclear weapons in the event of war.

FACTBOX-Pakistan's nuclear weapons | Reuters

 

[Naradmuni]

And pardon me if I make a light hearted comment on pakistans knee jerk reaction to mega terror events in past. Considering the magnitude of attacks on 26/11 and 9/11. If pakistan's knee jerk response to 26/11 was to send DG ISI to India on the same day to face the wrath of angry Indians. I feel that for an event as serious as 9/11 (and the intimidation as serious as being bombed back to stone age), the least they could do was to send the DG pants down, or possibly allowing US to access sensitive details of pakistan's N weapons and therby assuring the americans about the control and safety of its strategic resources from terrorists.

My point being, America's obsession with pakistani nukes is because of its possible use against US if they are kept unchecked from radical elements either within and outside of the nuclear establishment. So is the obsession of Israel since it suspects its proliferation to Iran. And americas coerciveness to that effect is unchallenged, especially considering the fact that pakistan is economically dependent on american aid. so roughly, though out of unwillingness, pakistani establishment could have provided the US, some insight of its nuclear weapons program.

No offence meant !

 

[Windjammer]

Dare i say we to some extent have our selves to blame for these kind of belligerent accusations, A.Q.Khan is hero worshipped in Pakistan and for good reasons but then we have exposed him to the extent that the Western media often refers to him as the father of the Islamic bomb.!
Now for the same effort, can anyone of us name the parents of the Christian, the Hindu or the Jewish bomb.????????

 

[shravan]

but then we have exposed him to the extent that the Western media often refers to him as the father of the Islamic bomb.!

Z.A. Bhutto who coined the term “Islamic Bomb” in 78-79.

 

[Kaali]

IMHO, Pakistani nukes are safe. More safe than you would expect. They must have installed many automated alarming and protection systems along with human soldiers.

Difficulties in getting nukes start from locating them, finding them, recognizing them, getting hands on them them (tough one) and lastly, making them work.

This is something far out of reach for any terrorist organization. I doubt even they think of it right now.

till they do not have sympathizers within the same organization. And till they do not have the class of people supporting them for the sake of nuke America, nuke Israel, nuke India. For the above three causes people are not short within Pakistan who would love to provide them same tenderheartedly.

 

[XYON]

Dare i say we to some extent have our selves to blame for these kind of belligerent accusations, A.Q.Khan is hero worshipped in Pakistan and for good reasons but then we have exposed him to the extent that the Western media often refers to him as the father of the Islamic bomb.!
Now for the same effort, can anyone of us name the parents of the Christian, the Hindu or the Jewish bomb.????????

Christian + Jewish = Einstein and the German guy whose name slips my mind. This guy was also later declared a communist by the Americans!

Hindu - Homi Bhaba and to some extent Dr. Abu Kalam Azad

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

"http://thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=25453" says...

"Hersh quoted former President Musharraf, after an interview with him in London recently, saying that his government had held extensive discussions with the Bush Administration after 9/11 attacks, and had given State Department non-proliferation experts insight into the command and control of the Pakistani arsenal and its on-site safety and security procedures.

"



Maybe in a knee jerk reaction following 9/11, establishment may have ceded to American pressure and revealed some of its nuke secrets. Musharraf acknowledges this. Additionally, the establishment could have been possibly intimidated by the threat of being bombed back to stone ages, that pakistan shared the structure, number and command and control of its N assets to the US. The retired bush regime intel officials may have gone a long to far in revealing such classified business to Mr Hersh here. So it cannot just beignored out of embarressment and rubbished in prejudice.

It cant be denied that in past too pakistan has bowed down to US pressure. First and foremost example being parting ways from taliban that was created by pak and only acknowledged by it and Saudi Arab. Pakistan lost its strategic depth against India, to appease US in WOT which was primarily never a war of pakistan. Visibly, pakistan here acted against its own national interest in the region. And the latest example in this trend being the drone attacks.

My point here is simply that, American pressure works wonder in this part of the world, particularly in pakistan. So I am not surprised if such kind of dealing may have taken place.

Your inferences from Musharraf's comments are incorrect. Even the quotes Semour Hersh attributes to Musharraf are completely in line with the clarification issued by the CJCSC and the DG ISPR:

Mysharraf said: "his government had held extensive discussions with the Bush Administration after 9/11 attacks, and had given State Department non-proliferation experts insight into the command and control of the Pakistani arsenal and its on-site safety and security procedures."

CJCC said: "Pakistan’s engagement with other countries directly or through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was meant only to learn more about best practices for security of such assets.

The general said that these engagements were based on ‘two clearly spelt-out red lines – non intrusiveness and our right to pick and choose."

Information about Pakistan's command and control (ten man authority, two-man rule etc.), that Musharraf is said to have shared, is well known and open source information, it does not impact the security of Pakistan's nukes in any way.

Exchanging information on the 'security and on-site safety procedures' is again nothing to be concerned about, since, as the CJSC pointed out, engagement on those subjects is to learn from , and perhaps adopt, worldwide best practices. At the end of the day however, both Musharraf and the current CJSC have clearly indicated that the practices that are adopted, and their implementation, is solely Pakistan's responsibility.

I fail to see therefore how you can extrapolate from Musharraf's comments that any sensitive information was shared. All he said was that Pakistan engaged with other nations, including the US, to learn about their methods, policies and practices in securing their arsenal, and adopted those policies and practices that Pakistan saw applicable at home.

Finally, the premise of Seymour Hersh's suggestion of 'US teams protecting Pakistani assets' is absurd. This isn't Hollywood where Rambo or Arnie as Commando is going to take down 100+ baddies while firing his gun over his shoulder without aiming. There are no 'super soldiers' that can just be airdropped and karate chop and blast their way to 'secure the nukes'. Pakistani soldiers can perform the same tasks with the same efficiency that US special forces can, and we have a lot more of them (20,000 strong Nuclear Security Group), that are highly trained and carefully vetted.

 

[Windjammer]

Christian + Jewish = Einstein and the German guy whose name slips my mind. This guy was also later declared a communist by the Americans!

Hindu - Homi Bhaba and to some extent Dr. Abu Kalam Azad

I am sure a little google search will expose all the names but the point is like A.Q.Khan, are these household names.!!??

 

[Windjammer]

Z.A. Bhutto who coined the term “Islamic Bomb” in 78-79.

Well then one wonders why the Indian bomb is not refered to as,

"The smiling Budha".

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

And pardon me if I make a light hearted comment on pakistans knee jerk reaction to mega terror events in past. Considering the magnitude of attacks on 26/11 and 9/11. If pakistan's knee jerk response to 26/11 was to send DG ISI to India on the same day to face the wrath of angry Indians. I feel that for an event as serious as 9/11 (and the intimidation as serious as being bombed back to stone age), the least they could do was to send the DG pants down, or possibly allowing US to access sensitive details of pakistan's N weapons and therby assuring the americans about the control and safety of its strategic resources from terrorists.

My point being, America's obsession with pakistani nukes is because of its possible use against US if they are kept unchecked from radical elements either within and outside of the nuclear establishment. So is the obsession of Israel since it suspects its proliferation to Iran. And americas coerciveness to that effect is unchallenged, especially considering the fact that pakistan is economically dependent on american aid. so roughly, though out of unwillingness, pakistani establishment could have provided the US, some insight of its nuclear weapons program.

No offence meant !

First - the decision to send the DG ISI was allegedly Zardari's, but was changed after further consultation (some suggest the Army leadership was opposed to it) in that it would not offer anything constructive that a lower level delegation could not achieve, and given that Pakistan already had a very high level personality in India - her Foreign Minister, who could address any issues necessary.

The initial decision to send the DG ISI was also taken out of a sense of alleviating Indian concerns over the act itself, and coordinating a response to it, again issues that could be handled by the FM or a low level investigative team instead of the DG ISI.

Second, even if the DG ISI had gone, he would not have blurted out the locations of the nukes or given India any concessions on anything, it is not his brief to do so.

Now back to the time after 911, I believe the DG ISI at the time was present in the US, and did indeed have consultations with the US over Afghanistan, the potential invasion and what Pakistan was expected to do. But if one is to believe that the Army overruled Zardari on sending the DG ISI to India, why would it blurt out nuclear secrets when the man in charge of running the country was the COAS, Musharraf, at the time?

All this stuff about 'US is very persuasive' is speculative tripe - the US concern at the time was Afghanistan and eliminating AQ and the Taliban, and it obtained cooperation from Pakistan on that issue. There is nothing to suggest that the US received any information on Pakistani nukes beyond exchanges on improving security and safety.

 

[ironman]

Christian + Jewish = Einstein and the German guy whose name slips my mind. This guy was also later declared a communist by the Americans!

Hindu - Homi Bhaba and to some extent Dr. Abu Kalam Azad

Do some google search before showing your ignorance to the entire world.

Homi K Bhabha - Parsi

You meant APJ Abdul Kalam?

 

[Hulk]

Useless report. I do not see any danger to Pak nukes, we shoul stop wasting time on such news.

 

[Spring Onion]

Fantasies, falsehoods and a forewarning | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online


The Hersh Story: Fantasies, Falsehoods And A Forewarning



The most disturbing aspect of the piece - and also the most threatening, is his description of what the US plans are for Pakistan’s nukes.



By: Shireen M Mazari | Published: November 10, 2009

The Nation




ISLAMABAD, Pakistan— In Bob Woodward’s book, “Bush at War”, he recalls how when he (Woodward) quoted Hersh to Bush, the latter replied that Seymour Hersh was a liar!

Hersh’s article “Defending the Arsenal” in The New Yorker (November 16, 2009) has predictably caused a stir in Pakistan. But this always happens after the event; after foreign journalists have been given excessive access into the corridors of power in Pakistan. So it has been with Hersh. Now the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) claims Hersh has a well-known “anti-Pakistan” bias.


If that is the case, then did the MFA give an official perspective on how much access Hersh should have been given in Pakistan? Did they advise the President to avoid meeting this man or did they give any official brief to the President on what to say to him on sensitive issues? Clearly, the Zardari meeting with Hersh has no reflection of the MFA or any official Pakistani position. Instead, there is a reflection of ignorance with the President declaring that our army officers are “British-trained”!


However, leaving aside these minor issues, there are two aspects that reflect the speculative and often factually incorrect nature of the piece. First, let us look at some of the inaccuracies, if not outright falsehoods.

The manner in which Hersh has dealt with Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and his claims that Pakistan and the US began sensitive nuclear cooperation, reveal a preconceived mindset. The author set out to make certain points and then sought mostly unidentified sources to prove his point!


This is evident because the largest single interview cited is of “Colonel Imam” whom Hersh describes as “the archetype of the disillusioned Pakistani officer”! Now anyone who knows Col Imam knows he is a maverick, with his own idiosyncratic perspective and is certainly not typical of even disillusioned army officers - although how many of those Hersh has actually met is also questionable.

But for Hersh, Imam provides a logical development to his other theory, that it is not so much a Taliban seizure of the Pakistani nukes that is worrisome to the Americans but the fear of a “mutiny” within the army with extremists believing in the Hizbul Tahrir goal of setting up a Caliphate taking control of some nuclear assets or even diverting a warhead.


Talk about being far fetched given that there is no history of mutiny in the army and the organisational interest is always supreme. Also, to a large extent the prevailing culture within the army reflects, to a large extent, the leadership at any given time. Also to assume that extremism is rampant in the military because generals no longer serve alcohol to visiting journalists is a bit ridiculous. I had argued on this point long and hard with Hersh after his last visit to Pakistan, when we met abroad, but clearly when a point has to be made, it will be made despite evidence to the contrary and no matter how fanciful the “proof”!



On the nuclear security agreement also, some claims are debatable at least. For instance, he describes Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine as being based on a de-mating of the warheads from their triggers. This is absolutely false and nowhere has the military ever claimed this either in any reference to doctrine. In fact, the weapons are not de-mated at all but are simply not on hair trigger alert - which they do not need to be on in any case. So if his source of information is so incorrect, many of the other assumptions are also subject to doubt.


For instance his claim, and he cites a former US intelligence officer to prove his point, that the Pakistanis gave the US a virtual look at such sensitive information as number of warheads, some locations, and so on is bizarre since even within the nuclear community this knowledge is not known except by very few. As for giving them information about command and control, Pakistan is one of the few countries that has put out a detailed explanation of its command and control structure in the public space.


So what one can assume is the intelligence officer is confusing the briefing given to some journalists - foreign and Pakistani - about command and control, the programme and so on as a “virtual look”! That briefing is impressive and on seeking an explanation to the Hersh claim from SPD (Strategic Plans Division), the answer was that this is the only briefing that could have created the false impression.


Coming to the Mullen news conference of 4th May where Hersh claims the Admiral spoke openly about increased cooperation on nuclear security between the US, Mullen did note that the US had worked with the Pakistanis to improve the security of their nuclear arsenal. Of course even this limited access to the US military is too much from the point of view of our arsenal’s security, but it does not imply “highly sensitive understanding” of the US “with the Pakistani military”. T

here is also little proof that ongoing consultations on nuclear security between Washington and Islamabad intensified after Obama’s ****** policy - especially since the ****** idea got a cold reception in Islamabad. Finally, the most far-fetched claim, citing an American official, in Hersh’s piece is that the army is controlled by the Punjabis who cannot get along with the Pushtuns, so somehow that creates a simmering undercurrent within the military, creating a veritable goldmine for mutiny! He really needs to look more carefully into the Pakistan army and its composition as well as its culture.


Moving on from the actual factual inaccuracies, even falsehoods, to an equally important issue raised by the article is the question of access. Why do we allow these people so much access in this country - right from the President down? President Musharraf talks openly of the supposedly secret tunnels and so on. Others are equally prone to spilling their guts out to inquisitive foreign journalists. Why? And why must we abuse each other through these journalists? Incidentally, this time round Hersh did not seek the official version from the MFA; nor did he seek an interview with General Kidwai of SPD. He told me Hersh had sought access but could not get it, but on checking I found he did not send in any written request.

Finally, a most disturbing aspect of the piece - and also the most threatening, is his description of what the US plans are for Pakistan’s nukes. That is what the game is all about - a unilateral US plan to have a force in Pakistan to attempt to take out the triggers and thereby decapitate the nukes. Is that why we are seeing so many covert US personnel coming into Pakistan? There is no deal; but there is a threatening unilateral US agenda. That Hersh has explained most vividly!

 

[Khajur]

Christian + Jewish = Einstein and the German guy whose name slips my mind. This guy was also later declared a communist by the Americans!

Hindu - Homi Bhaba and to some extent Dr. Abu Kalam Azad

Dr. Abdul Kalam Azad is known as the "missile man" in india .
He was a rocket scientist, never worked in the nuclear field.
Though he was the scientific advisor to indian pm during the 98 nuclear test and part of the core group that oversaw that nuclear test.

Its Dr Raja Ramanna who was head of BARC during the 74 nuclear test widely acknowledged as the father of indian nuclear bomb.

 

[Khajur]

From the original article : Defending the Arsenal
by Seymour M. Hersh

During my stay in Pakistan—my first in five years—there were undeniable signs that militancy and the influence of fundamentalist Islam had grown. In the past, military officers, politicians, and journalists routinely served Johnnie Walker Black during our talks, and drank it themselves. This time, even the most senior retired Army generals offered only juice or tea, even in their own homes. Officials and journalists said that soldiers and middle-level officers were increasingly attracted to the preaching of Zaid Hamid, who joined the mujahideen and fought for nine years in Afghanistan. On CDs and on television, Hamid exhorts soldiers to think of themselves as Muslims first and Pakistanis second. He claims that terrorist attacks in Mumbai last year were staged by India and Western Zionists, aided by the Mossad. Another proselytizer, Dr. Israr Ahmed, writes a column in the Urdu press in which he depicts the Holocaust as “divine punishment,” and advocates the extermination of the Jews. He, too, is said to be popular with the officer corps.

Interesting...it looks like is Zaid Hamid far more successful as a propaganda monger than what we previously thought or that acknowledged by the pakistani friends here.