US has secret plans to safeguard Pakistan's nukes

[QADRI]

Washington: The United States has secret contingency plans to safeguard Pakistani nuclear weapons if they risk falling into the wrong hands, the Washington Post reported Sunday.

But US officials worry their limited knowledge about the location of the arsenal could pose a problem, it said, a week after Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency.

"We can't say with absolute certainty that we know where they all are," one unidentified former US official told the newspaper, adding that any US effort to secure Pakistan's nuclear arsenal "could be very messy."

Under a more optimistic scenario, the Pakistani military would help the United States in any intervention, the Post said. In other cases, that assistance might not be forthcoming, it cautioned.

The report said US officials would not discuss details of the classified plans, "but several former officials said the plans envision efforts to remove a nuclear weapon at imminent risk of falling into terrorists' hands."

US officials and lawmakers have voiced alarm that the Musharraf government could lose control over its nuclear arsenal amid the mounting political crisis there.

"I'm very concerned about it. Not immediately, but over the next year to two years," Senator Joseph Biden, a Democratic presidential contender, said on CNN.

Biden, chairman of the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee, said the United States needed to shore up anti-Musharraf moderates or risk seeing Pakistan go the way of Iran three decades ago.

"The Shah got overthrown and moderates got crushed by extremists," he said.

But Richard Armitage, who as deputy secretary of state led the US effort to get Musharraf on board the anti-terror struggle after the September 11 attacks of 2001, dismissed fears over the safety of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

"You know as well as I do that that nuclear arsenal is one, dispersed, and second, carefully guarded by the army," he told CNN.

"Now we have had, historically, discussions with the Pakistani army about the safeguarding of those nuclear weapons," the former official said.

"So I think in the short or even medium term, should things turn badly, we are not going to worry about nuclear weapons in the first instance."

Lieutenant General Carter Ham, director of operations with the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Wednesday that the Pentagon was keeping a close eye on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

"Any time there is a regime that has nuclear weapons and that experiences a situation like in Pakistan, of course there is a primary concern," he told reporters.

Islamabad, Washington's key ally in the fight against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, has amassed about 50 nuclear weapons since detonating its first atomic devices in May 1998 in a series of tit-for-tat tests with India.

Pakistan also is suspected of selling atomic secrets on a global black market headed by its disgraced chief nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan.

The Post recalled US allegations that two retired Pakistani nuclear scientists traveled to Afghanistan in August 2001 to brief Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden about how to make nuclear weapons.

Among US intelligence agencies, there is particular concern now over the cohesion of Pakistan's army if extremist violence and opposition protests against Musharraf escalate, the report said.

"If there is a collapse in the command-and-control structure -- or if the armed forces fragment -- that's a nightmare scenario," said John Brennan, a retired CIA official and ex-director of the National Counterterrorism Center.

"If there are different power centers within the army, they will each see the strategic (nuclear) arsenal as a real prize," he told the Post.

 

[fatman17]

what plans! they dont even know where our arsenal is located! they have admitted to this fact themselves.

 

[Spring Onion]

Washington: But US officials worry their limited knowledge about the location of the arsenal could pose a problem, it said, a week after Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency.

"We can't say with absolute certainty that we know where they all are," one unidentified former US official told the newspaper

So if the Super Power aka US and its thick head officials who are pouring this venom against Pakistan do not Know where these Nukes are ,
Than How will so-called extremists will find these ???????



Guys please watch the programme and listen to Hamiz Zaid sahab, he is speaking on the same threat from US to all of us and the dangerouse plans they are making for us in collaboration with extremists and some politicians.

 

[kidwaibhai]

this is just the US trying to tell the people that they have everything under controll even when they dont. do they really think that the army will give them the nuclear weapons just like that.

 

[su-47]

Washington: The United States has secret contingency plans to safeguard Pakistani nuclear weapons if they risk falling into the wrong hands, the Washington Post reported Sunday.

But US officials worry their limited knowledge about the location of the arsenal could pose a problem, it said, a week after Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency.

"We can't say with absolute certainty that we know where they all are," one unidentified former US official told the newspaper, adding that any US effort to secure Pakistan's nuclear arsenal "could be very messy."

Under a more optimistic scenario, the Pakistani military would help the United States in any intervention, the Post said. In other cases, that assistance might not be forthcoming, it cautioned.

The report said US officials would not discuss details of the classified plans, "but several former officials said the plans envision efforts to remove a nuclear weapon at imminent risk of falling into terrorists' hands."

US officials and lawmakers have voiced alarm that the Musharraf government could lose control over its nuclear arsenal amid the mounting political crisis there.

"I'm very concerned about it. Not immediately, but over the next year to two years," Senator Joseph Biden, a Democratic presidential contender, said on CNN.

Biden, chairman of the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee, said the United States needed to shore up anti-Musharraf moderates or risk seeing Pakistan go the way of Iran three decades ago.

"The Shah got overthrown and moderates got crushed by extremists," he said.

But Richard Armitage, who as deputy secretary of state led the US effort to get Musharraf on board the anti-terror struggle after the September 11 attacks of 2001, dismissed fears over the safety of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

"You know as well as I do that that nuclear arsenal is one, dispersed, and second, carefully guarded by the army," he told CNN.

"Now we have had, historically, discussions with the Pakistani army about the safeguarding of those nuclear weapons," the former official said.

"So I think in the short or even medium term, should things turn badly, we are not going to worry about nuclear weapons in the first instance."

Lieutenant General Carter Ham, director of operations with the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Wednesday that the Pentagon was keeping a close eye on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

"Any time there is a regime that has nuclear weapons and that experiences a situation like in Pakistan, of course there is a primary concern," he told reporters.

Islamabad, Washington's key ally in the fight against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, has amassed about 50 nuclear weapons since detonating its first atomic devices in May 1998 in a series of tit-for-tat tests with India.

Pakistan also is suspected of selling atomic secrets on a global black market headed by its disgraced chief nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan.

The Post recalled US allegations that two retired Pakistani nuclear scientists traveled to Afghanistan in August 2001 to brief Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden about how to make nuclear weapons.

Among US intelligence agencies, there is particular concern now over the cohesion of Pakistan's army if extremist violence and opposition protests against Musharraf escalate, the report said.

"If there is a collapse in the command-and-control structure -- or if the armed forces fragment -- that's a nightmare scenario," said John Brennan, a retired CIA official and ex-director of the National Counterterrorism Center.

"If there are different power centers within the army, they will each see the strategic (nuclear) arsenal as a real prize," he told the Post.

And by 'safeguarding' , do they mean destroying pak nukes?

Have to say the plan is pretty meat-headed, considering they dont know the location of the nukes.

 

[Spring Onion]

when a nation despite being super power becomes insecure and its innocent and peace-loving people are looted by unable leaders in shape of forcing them to pay heavy taxes, than leaders and so-called officials of such nations do resort to such kinds of BS.

What pitty they had also made flawed their own democracy too by luring electorate through such statesman.

Now i dont see any difference between their democracy and the one in Sub-continent (which i dont consider a democracy at all)

 

[Neo]

US has no good option in a Pakistan nuclear 'nightmare' ​

by Lachlan Carmichael
Wed Nov 14, 2007

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US armed forces are virtually powerless to prevent Pakistan's nuclear arsenal from falling into Islamist hands if the political crisis in Islamabad spins out of control, analysts warned.

Instead, they said, Washington can do little but help to resolve the crisis and preserve its strong ties with Pakistan's pro-Western military elite, whether or not General Pervez Musharraf stays in power.

"There's no good military option at all," Daniel Markey, a former US government policy planner for South Asia, told AFP on Tuesday in Washington.

It would be an "incredibly ugly scenario," he said, for US forces to try to find and secure the nuclear sites in the event of an Islamist takeover because they lack the intelligence needed to do so in such a large country.

"Having some certainty of finding them is just, I think, out of the realm of reality," said Markey, a former State Department official who is now at the Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank.

Averting such a "nightmare scenario," he added, "means having a good working relationship" with the army, as has been the case for years.

"We shouldn't kid ourselves that we can work with Pakistan without working with their army and that doesn't mean we have to back a dictator."

If the US government decides to drop Musharraf, he warned, it will have to be careful to avoid burning ties with the institution he heads. "That's the difficult balancing act."

Musharraf's deputy in the army, General Ashfaq Kiyani, would be his obvious successor but the analyst said it is not certain that such a transition would go smoothly, even though he has reasonably good ties with Washington.

Musharraf, who seized power in a 1999 bloodless coup and who became a frontline US ally in the war on terrorism after the September 11, 2001 attacks, insists there is nothing to worry about.

In an interview Tuesday with Fox News radio, Musharraf said Pakistan's nuclear weapons are under "total custodial controls," citing security measures in place since 2000.

"We created a strategic planning division and we have a national command authority which is overall organization institution into development and employment of strategic assets," he said.

Pakistan has amassed an estimated 50 nuclear weapons since detonating its first atomic devices in May 1998.

Leonard Spector, deputy director of the James Martin Center for Non-Proliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California, doubted there was much of a military option.

"The idea that somehow we're going to step in, I think that's a very remote possibility," Spector said from his office in Washington.

And for now, he said, the US government is probably seeking reassurance from Musharraf that his chain of command is in order or that it endures if there is an orderly transfer of power.

"Only if there's a complete breakdown in society, would there be an issue. Even then, I think you'll find a cadre, a very loyal military who protect the assets because it's the patrimony of the country," he said.

Andrew Koch, a defense and security analyst with the consulting firm Scribe Strategies and Advisors, said Pakistan's atomic weapons are for now in the hards of a "very professional, pro-Western elite" operating a secure network.

The Taliban and Al-Qaeda, which are making inroads in northwestern Pakistan, would have trouble seizing materiel in a raid because the fissile weapons cores are held separate from the weapons, he said.

"You'd have to knock down two facilities to get both parts," he added.

The military personnel involved in the nuclear program are also closely vetted for sympathies with the Islamists, he added.

However, he said some scientists associated with the nuclear program are suspected of harboring extremist sentiments and could leak secrets to terrorists or anti-Western regimes, even if they do not smuggle out weapons.

Such a risk would increase the longer political instability lasts, he said.

The reputation of Pakistan, the world's only known nuclear-armed Muslim country, has been tarnished with the sale of atomic secrets on a global black market headed by its disgraced chief nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan.

Khan confessed in 2004 to passing atomic secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea. He was pardoned by Musharraf but remains under virtual house arrest in Islamabad.

In the longer term, Koch feared that Pakistan's professional military class could be compromised if the country becomes increasingly pro-Taliban and anti-Western.

In the ultimate "doomsday" or "nightmare" scenario, he feared that the Pakistani military would see its loyalities split if the government falls and Islamists and other factions struggle to fill the void.

He said "there's always the ultimate option of trying some sort of raid to snatch the weapons" but this would be difficult because "we don't have absolute certainty we know where all of Pakistan's weapons are kept."

US has no good option in a Pakistan nuclear 'nightmare' - Yahoo! News

 

[Munir]

Tha fact is that they cannot handle Pakistan so there busy in publications that defame Pakistan. Whether you watch CNN or BBC... It is al nonsense. They shate Musharraf so much and love Benazir while the reality is that her father made PAkistani eat grass to pay for nukes and she bankrupted entire Pakistan... Do we have to listen to those folks that invaded Irac cause they it had WMD's? Please.

 

[Neo]

Ironacally those crying the loudest about Pakistani nukes are the ones responsible for the mess the world is in today. Without Sovjet or US interference we would have no Afghanistan today or Iraq today. If US/UK had been impartial in Irael-Palestina crisis we would have no 9/11. If India had not detonated the nuke in 1974 we would not have developped one either.

 

[foxhound]

Salaam

It' s quite ironic that the USA and other western allies have on numerous occassions threatened or had strong desires to destroy/control or capture Pak nuclear capability/facility. Whenever, they get the opportunity (thanks to the idiot politicians in Pakistan) they vehemently show their desire and objectives.

Please note, they do definately have contingency plans for a scenario like this (they have 'war-gamed' this scenario and have readied a capability. whether they will be successful or not...time would tell.

Pakistan needs to definately take these intimidations/threats very seriously and try to get counter-measures. I have seen the analysis on a very high level and Pakistan's Air defences are very weak. We do not have any sophisticated longe range SAM systems or any aircraft that can really provide it with an effective AD capability.

You need to look at the type of aircraft, the servicibility and spare parts etc to determine how many aircraft are readied and capable of effectively challenging an sophisticated Enemy.

The F-16's are old (the most capable type), no real BVR system yet...remember it takes some considerable time for training and getting the squadrons operationally trained in their equipment. The JF-17s would take some time to be operational. There are many more factors that need to be taken.

I had a look at the AD system (Very high level) and unfortunately it did not look good. PAF had the capability to intercept effectively, but the type of aircraft would succumb and be shot down to a Sophisticated enemy.....here I mean USA or its Western Allies.

Pakistan has alot of potential and will (Inshallah) get stronger and make it harder for a would be adversary to gain air superiority etc. in the long run....that's why the 'enemies' would like to see a weak and an unstable Pakistan.

I just hope that we are able to pull out of this current crisis without giving any one an opportunity. I do not fear a threat from India or Pakistan's other neighbours....it is primarily the USA/NATO in the long run....Pak needs to wisen up and build the country economically and militarily strong.

 

[Neo]

Pentagon, Eying Pakistan Unrest, Plans New Afghan Supply Routes ​

By Ken Fireman

Nov. 14 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Defense Department is laying plans for alternative supply lines into Afghanistan in case the political unrest in Pakistan disrupts existing routes traversing that country, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said.

About 75 percent of all supplies to U.S. troops in Afghanistan go through Pakistan, including about 40 percent of the fuel used there, Morrell said. No ammunition is shipped through Pakistan, he added.

While the civil unrest triggered by President Pervez Musharraf's declaration of emergency rule hasn't affected the supply routes so far, Morrell said, Pentagon planners are taking no chances.

``We feel it is responsible, given the importance of the Pakistani supply lines to our operations in Afghanistan, to have a contingency plan,'' Morrell said during a Pentagon briefing. ``Clearly we do not like the situation that we find ourselves in right now.''

There are about 25,000 U.S. troops currently stationed in Afghanistan, many of them part of a NATO force battling to prevent a return to power by the Taliban. The U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and ousted the Taliban regime, saying it harbored al-Qaeda terrorists.

Musharraf declared emergency rule and suspended his country's constitution on Nov. 3. Pakistani opposition parties say more than 15,000 of their supporters have been detained since then.

Morrell said a review of U.S. military aid to Pakistan that was announced last week is still continuing. He said he didn't know if there was evidence that some of that aid was being diverted from its intended purpose of combating terrorists to enforce emergency rule.

Bloomberg.com: Worldwide

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

when a nation despite being super power becomes insecure and its innocent and peace-loving people are looted by unable leaders in shape of forcing them to pay heavy taxes, than leaders and so-called officials of such nations do resort to such kinds of BS.

What pitty they had also made flawed their own democracy too by luring electorate through such statesman.

Now i dont see any difference between their democracy and the one in Sub-continent (which i dont consider a democracy at all)

Irrational arguments and unsubstantiated facts only lose arguments.

Any nation would be worried about a nuclear arsenal falling into wrong hands. I am sure even you would be worried and even angered if Faizullah had such a bomb in the Swat Valley and he used it as a negotiating instrument with the legal Pakistan govt.

Do the US citizens pay heavy taxes? There are many other countries which pay real heavy taxes. If they can afford to do so and without complaint, then what is the connection with the nuclear arsenal?

Peace loving and innocent. Matter of opinion. I am sure the Iraqis, Syrians or Iranians would not find them peace loving or even innocent.

One could hardly call the US Democracy flawed when compared to some democracies including the sub continent!

Therefore, my advice, as I have always given you since I came to know you, is that, as a journalist, you have to have solid arguments when writing on a subject if you want to ensure your credibility!

I would have argued as follows:

Without knowing the exact location of the nuclear components,as admitted by the US, it is hardly plausible that these bombs could be "secured" by the US in any eventuality that they may perceive as "dangerous". Kite flying at best!

 

[Spring Onion]

Irrational arguments and unsubstantiated facts only lose arguments.

Any nation would be worried about a nuclear arsenal falling into wrong hands. I am sure even you would be worried and even angered if Faizullah had such a bomb in the Swat Valley and he used it as a negotiating instrument with the legal Pakistan govt.

Do the US citizens pay heavy taxes? There are many other countries which pay real heavy taxes. If they can afford to do so and without complaint, then what is the connection with the nuclear arsenal?

Peace loving and innocent. Matter of opinion. I am sure the Iraqis, Syrians or Iranians would not find them peace loving or even innocent.

One could hardly call the US Democracy flawed when compared to some democracies including the sub continent!

Therefore, my advice, as I have always given you since I came to know you, is that, as a journalist, you have to have solid arguments when writing on a subject if you want to ensure your credibility!

I would have argued as follows:

Without knowing the exact location of the nuclear components,as admitted by the US, it is hardly plausible that these bombs could be "secured" by the US in any eventuality that they may perceive as "dangerous". Kite flying at best!

My dear Sir i guess you are reading lately the para you had posted i had also posted it.
its rather more childish than my comments on part of the so called US think tanks and defence officials by saying that they should secure our nukes and at the same time saying " We do not know the exact location and lack information about these nukes".

If they dont know than how on earth they expect the Militants in mountains to have access to these nukes ????

But its pitty they are throwing every dirty comment to put more pressure on Musharraf and i believe it will harm US itself than anyone else.

 

[IceCold]

So why every now and then only our nukes in the world suddenly start posing threats. Is it because we are a muslim country or is it because of our ill leadership and oppostion BB for e.g who themselves have shown to the world how worrysum situation it will be if she isnt there in the government and nukes could easily fall into the wrong hands. Such a tragedy that we are facing right now, leaders are putting everything at stake just to get the seat. The one thing pakistan's survival depends upon, they are willing to jeopardize it.

 

[Spring Onion]

IceCold
Agree with you. Lets see things in detail.

After disintegration of USSR, the US in a new power game is already battling for energy.
Scared already by Chines swift progress economically taking over almost the markets of entire world US is battling for its control over as many energy producing countries and areas as she can.
Now in this game they also need safe routes to supply these and such routes are strategically important for many countries- - who are important players at the chess board of this power game- - so taming these countries or regions ( Pakistan also includes) US had to grab the main never of these countries.

Now being the only Muslim Country with nuclear power Pakistan is the first target of their strategy to tame for many reasons ;
1. Our main power is our united army who are also guarding these nuclear weapons for if these were in hands of our BB like politicians we would have been dismantled of these Nukes by US by now. So first thing they need to weaken our army which they are doing these days by fomenting troubles in our areas and than pitting army to attack resultantly creating opposition for the army.
As a result of weak army they had to get easy access to our nuclear weapons.

2. once if US got our nuclear weapons (God for bid) Pakistan would be tamed as much as today's Lybia is which will again to the benefit of US will be used against taming Iran by using our soil to attack and weaken Iran.
3. Thirdly once we are tamed losing our nukes to US, we would be used as colony of US having full control over Afghanistan which means they had to tackle Russia easily and reaching CARs which we all know how much have become important for the world.

4. Controling Pakistan by grabbing our nukes will also means having easy access to many strategic points, US will have easily monitor China and wage a full strength against China to tame her too.