The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

The War on Terrorism & Homeland Security

Pakistan Is Rapidly Adding Nuclear Arms, U.S. Says

Discuss the War on Terrorism, Homeland Security, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea and other global terrorist concerns.

Postby Jaack » Sun May 17, 2009 8:20 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/world ... ml?_r=2&hp

Pakistan Is Rapidly Adding Nuclear Arms, U.S. Says


By THOM SHANKER and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: May 17, 2009

WASHINGTON — Members of Congress have been told in confidential briefings that Pakistan is rapidly adding to its nuclear arsenal even while racked by insurgency, raising questions on Capitol Hill about whether billions of dollars in proposed military aid might be diverted to Pakistan’s nuclear program.

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. Sitting beside Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, 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, clearly cognizant of Pakistan’s sensitivity to any discussion about the country’s nuclear strategy or security. Inside the Obama administration, some officials say, Pakistan’s drive to spend heavily on new nuclear arms has been a source of growing concern, because the country is producing more nuclear material at a time when Washington is increasingly focused on trying to assure the security of an arsenal of 80 to 100 weapons so that they will never fall into the hands of Islamic insurgents.

The administration’s effort is complicated by the fact that Pakistan is producing an unknown amount of new bomb-grade uranium and, once a series of new reactors is completed, bomb-grade plutonium for a new generation of weapons. President Obama has called for passage of a treaty that would stop all nations from producing more fissile material — the hardest part of making a nuclear weapon — but so far has said nothing in public about Pakistan’s activities.

Bruce Riedel, the Brookings Institution scholar who served as the co-author of Mr. Obama’s review of Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy, reflected the administration’s concern in a recent interview, saying that Pakistan “has more terrorists per square mile than anyplace else on earth, and it has a nuclear weapons program that is growing faster than anyplace else on earth.”

Obama administration officials said that they had communicated to Congress that their intent was to assure that military aid to Pakistan was directed toward counterterrorism and not diverted. But Admiral Mullen’s public confirmation that the arsenal is increasing — a view widely held in both classified and unclassified analyses — seems certain to aggravate Congress’s discomfort.

Whether that discomfort might result in a delay or reduction in aid to Pakistan is unclear.

The Congressional briefings have taken place in recent weeks as Pakistan has descended into further chaos and as Congress has considered proposals to spend $3 billion over the next five years to train and equip Pakistan’s military for counterinsurgency warfare. That aid would come on top of $7.5 billion in civilian assistance.

None of the proposed military assistance is directed at the nuclear program. So far, America’s aid to Pakistan’s nuclear infrastructure has been limited to a $100 million classified program to help Pakistan secure its weapons and materials from seizure by Al Qaeda, the Taliban or “insiders” with insurgent loyalties.

But the billions in new proposed American aid, officials acknowledge, could free other money for Pakistan’s nuclear infrastructure, at a time when Pakistani officials have expressed concern that their nuclear program is facing a budget crunch for the first time, worsened by the global economic downturn. The program employs tens of thousands of Pakistanis, including about 2,000 believed to possess “critical knowledge” about how to produce a weapon.

The dimensions of the Pakistani buildup are not fully understood. “We see them scaling up their centrifuge facilities,” said David Albright, the president of the Institute for Science and International Security, which has been monitoring Pakistan’s continued efforts to buy materials on the black market, and analyzing satellite photographs of two new plutonium reactors less than 100 miles from where Pakistani forces are currently fighting the Taliban.

“The Bush administration turned a blind eye to how this is being ramped up,” he said. “And of course, with enough pressure, all this could be preventable.”

As a matter of diplomacy, however, the buildup presents Mr. Obama with a potential conflict between two national security priorities, some aides concede. One is to win passage of a global agreement to stop the production of fissile material — the uranium or plutonium used to produce weapons. Pakistan has never agreed to any limits and is one of three countries, along with India and Israel, that never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Yet the other imperative is a huge infusion of financial assistance into Afghanistan and Pakistan, money considered crucial to helping stabilize governments with tenuous holds on power in the face of terrorist and insurgent violence.

Senior members of Congress were already pressing for assurances from Pakistan that the American military assistance would be used to fight the insurgency, and not be siphoned off for more conventional military programs to counter Pakistan’s historic adversary, India. Official confirmation that Pakistan has accelerated expansion of its nuclear program only added to the consternation of those in Congress who were already voicing serious concern about the security of those warheads.

During a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, Senator Jim Webb, a Virginia Democrat, veered from the budget proposal under debate to ask Admiral Mullen about public reports “that Pakistan is, at the moment, increasing its nuclear program — that it may be actually adding on to weapons systems and warheads. Do you have any evidence of that?”

It was then that Admiral Mullen responded with his one-word confirmation. Mr. Webb said Pakistan’s decision was a matter of “enormous concern,” and he added, “Do we have any type of control factors that would be built in, in terms of where future American money would be going, as it addresses what I just asked about?”

Similar concerns about seeking guarantees that American military assistance to Pakistan would be focused on battling insurgents also were expressed by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the committee chairman.

“Unless Pakistan’s leaders commit, in deeds and words, their country’s armed forces and security personnel to eliminating the threat from militant extremists, and unless they make it clear that they are doing so, for the sake of their own future, then no amount of assistance will be effective,” Mr. Levin said.

A spokesman for the Pakistani government contacted Friday declined to comment on whether his nation was expanding its nuclear weapons program, but said the government was “maintaining the minimum, credible deterrence capability.” He warned against linking American financial assistance to Pakistan’s actions on its weapons program.

“Conditions or sanctions on this issue did not work in the past, and this will not send a positive message to the people of Pakistan,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because his country’s nuclear program is classified.
What?
User avatar
Jaack
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: Google Earth

Postby CodeBlack » Tue May 19, 2009 5:02 pm

Hey, why doesn't Pakistan use some of those nukes on al Qaeda. Would you care? Would anybody care? I'm ok with it. Haven't seen a good nuclear blast in a long time. That would pretty much put an end to al Qaeda in Pakistan.
N2TheBlack
User avatar
CodeBlack
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby hxxx » Tue May 19, 2009 6:34 pm

Yeah the Pak's must have intelligence on AQ cells in America. Use nukes on 'em, right? After all that would solve the problem...

:roll:
hxxx
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby CodeBlack » Wed May 20, 2009 5:13 pm

Ooooo, you're so fierce hxxx nut, wing nut.
N2TheBlack
User avatar
CodeBlack
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Percival » Sun May 24, 2009 7:47 am

I imagine that Pakistan is increasing its nuclear arsenal because India has significantly more. Simple as, nothing to do with insurgents that wouldn't be worth wasting their precious nukes on. India's nuclear program is the only real reason Pakistan invests in its own, and the Pakistani authorities certainly wouldn't risk their tenuous relationship with the US by using nukes on non-nuke targets.
Percival
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 2:21 pm

Postby CodeBlack » Sun May 24, 2009 10:39 am

Really? I don't think the US would change its relationship with Pakistan if Pakistan took out al Qaeda. They'd be saving B.O.'s bacon. B.O. not looking so hot on the war on terror.
N2TheBlack
User avatar
CodeBlack
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Percival » Mon May 25, 2009 7:24 am

Except that if Pakistan wasted nukes in nothing more than a counter-insurgency conflict against Al-Qaeda there would be universal condemnation from the rest of the world and the US would be hard-put to justify its relationship with a country reckless enough to take such measures.
Percival
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 2:21 pm

Postby CodeBlack » Mon May 25, 2009 5:03 pm

Yeah and that has worked so well with Iran and North Korea.
N2TheBlack
User avatar
CodeBlack
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am


Return to The War on Terrorism & Homeland Security

  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest