On November 11, The Washington Post reported that the United States sent "tens of millions of dollars worth of equipment such as intrusion detectors and ID systems to safeguard Pakistan's nuclear weapons". A week later, The New York Times, which had been sitting on the story for three years, revealed that the program was in fact much larger, "Over the past six years, the Bush administration has spent almost $100 million on a highly classified program to help General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's president, secure his country's nuclear weapons." The assistance ranged from "helicopters to night-vision goggles to nuclear detection equipment". The US military claims to be confident about the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. A Pentagon press spokesman said, "At this point, we have no concerns. We believe that they are under the appropriate control." The chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff declared, "I don't see any indication right now that security of those weapons is in jeopardy."
The US military claims to be confident about the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. A Pentagon press spokesman said, "At this point, we have no concerns. We believe that they are under the appropriate control." The chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff declared, "I don't see any indication right now that security of those weapons is in jeopardy."
It would amaze me if the Americans don't know exactly where the nukes are and have plans ready to pick them up without making any fuss.
Annals of National Security: Watching the Warheads: The New Yorker
Nonetheless, in recent weeks an élite Pentagon undercover unit--trained to slip into foreign countries and find suspected nuclear weapons, and disarm them if necessary--has explored plans for an operation inside Pakistan. In 1998, Pakistan successfully tested a nuclear device, heralded as the Islamic world's first atomic bomb. According to United States government estimates, Pakistan now has at least twenty-four warheads, which can be delivered by intermediate-range missiles and a fleet of F-16 aircraft. [...] In recent weeks, the Administration has been reviewing and "refreshing" its contingency plans. Such operations depend on intelligence, however, and there is disagreement within the Administration about the quality of the C.I.A.'s data. The American intelligence community cannot be sure, for example, that it knows the precise whereabouts of every Pakistani warhead--or whether all the warheads that it has found are real. "They've got some dummy locations," an official told me. "You only get one chance, and then you've tried and failed. The cat is out of the bag."
[...]
In recent weeks, the Administration has been reviewing and "refreshing" its contingency plans. Such operations depend on intelligence, however, and there is disagreement within the Administration about the quality of the C.I.A.'s data. The American intelligence community cannot be sure, for example, that it knows the precise whereabouts of every Pakistani warhead--or whether all the warheads that it has found are real. "They've got some dummy locations," an official told me. "You only get one chance, and then you've tried and failed. The cat is out of the bag."
A week later, The New York Times, which had been sitting on the story for three years, revealed that the program was in fact much larger,
HAHAHAHAHA. Typical NYT. Just like the FISA stroy. Wonder what else they've stashed down in the vaults cos it's embarrassing to the repugs. keep to the Fen Causeway
Overwhelming Afghanistan and invading Iraq are hardly comparable to engaging in an act of war with a country of a billion people.
Leaving aside that Pakistan has nowhere close to 1 billion people, I have to say that removing a couple of nukes hardly seems comparable to directly or indirectly killing hundreds of thousands of people.
It will piss off alot of people, true, but if Pakistan implodes, there are no good options when it comes to their nuclear weapons. Having them removed by the US might be one of the less dangerous ones, and might even be supported by parts of the current powers in Pakistan.
All this is of course pure speculation.
India/Pakistan damn near came to war several years ago and there are, unconfirmed AFAIK, reports of nuclear weapons being released to theater commanders. Meaning, the world hovered on the brink of a nuclear exchange¹ with the 'hold' being the least stable theater commander.
India has continually repeated they think terrorist attacks in India are being supported and financed by the ISI. Upon the military and political leadership concluding Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is under, or going to be under, control of the ISI or their political allies a sufficient condition for a pre-emptive First Strike has been met.
¹ Jargon for a small scale nuclear war.
There is no way such a thing is going to work.
The problem is that even if you assume, say, a 95% chance of success for each individual mission, the odds of not being able to do everything are quite large. Not to speak of the political consequences of even attempting to do something like this, whether they succeed or not.
How many warheads does Pakistan have? How many missiles? How many silos? How many different locations? We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
We're talking about a massive operation to take them all out in any case. We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
They have no contingency plan and might very well just come up with some crazy shit right now as they go along. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
