Investigation: Nuclear scandal - Abdul Qadeer Khan

qsaark

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
177
Likes
2
The release of the letter at this stage might be an attempt by Pak Govt. or the Pak military including possibly Pak backers in USA ( example Robin Raphael) to put all the blame on Mrs. Bhutto and one general ( who are both dead) and thereby close the chapter.
You have made an interesting point. Yes, it is quite possible.
 

Vikramaditya

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
702
Likes
321
Country flag
You surely have a point here. Lets start with your definition of ‘rogue’ state. Please tell me, what defines a state a ‘rogue state’?

I would suggest you to put your Pakistan-hatred aside for a while. From where did you get in my reply that I was defending AQ Khan? I was neither defending AQ Khan nor the nuclear proliferation, but merely mentioning that this has been done in the past and at greater scale.
And this was the point I was going to make next. How do we know it was not between the two states? Only because AQ Khan was made a scapegoat suggests that Pakistan as a state was not involved?
I am not pointing finger to you but to GOP,see what they are doing in 26\11 case and they did same with rouge scientist A Q Khan.....

Wonder what wil be the next face saving tactics by pakistan...........
 

rubyjackass

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
23
Likes
0
You have made an interesting point. Yes, it is quite possible.
Also they are in a convenient position of being US"s only supply route to afghanistan. SO why waste a chance. It may be even A Q Khan who did this for the dual purpose of his freedom and minimizing damage to Pak government. At another time Pakistan would have been sanctioned to keep it out of development for at least a decade. So I think in the end A Q Khan did good to Pakistan.
I also noted that no important Pakistani newspaper or international media covered this. After all Simon Henderson, if he made the revelation on his own accord is everyone's enemy now -
Pakistan, China, Iran, NK,, heck even US, Nato and his home country.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
The biggest culprit in all this and the once does continues to be so is not AQ Khan, or Pakistan but the US.
Its short sighted policy during the cold war and the war in Afghanistan against the Soviets led to to turn a blind eye on proliferation.
Now it has a new excuse and guess who is the excuse this time? Afghanistan again. The US continues to blink at the activities of Pakistan and showers it with Aid all used to fund its bomb and other aggressive military activities. It had to rush to the IMF to avoid default of payments but it has no problem investing in three Pu reactors at the cost of billions.

The only reason why the Dutch intel was in a hurry to hide the letter was to make sure it doesnt get into the open and incriminate the Pakistani establishment. The US did show bravado in the earlier stages by threatening to "Bomb back to stone age" and "you are either with us or them" lines. But the fact remains that it was Pakistan that threatened and played with the US and continues to do so.

What they also wanted to hide is the fact that their own agencies winked when AQ was getting nuke material and know how from NATO countries. That would be more damaging than anything else. The Dutch,British and German connection in the whole proliferation activity would have been not a major embarrasment for them, but a slap on their face for preaching non proliferation.
 

Sandrocottas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
24
Likes
0
AQ khan Letters: An article from www.saag.org from noted analyst B.Raman

China as Nuclear Proliferator

by B. Raman

It was known in 2004 that A.Q.Khan, Pakistan's nuclear scientist, who is wanted by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, for interrogation in connection with his nuclear proliferation to North Korea, Iran and Libya, had left a letter with his wife Henny of Dutch origin and their daughter giving some details of his proliferation activities with the knowledge, if not prior approval, of the political and military leadership. The reported purpose of the letter was to tell his people that whatever he did, he did at the instance of the political and military leadership of the country and that he was not acting as a rogue proliferator as was sought to be made out by the leadership of the country.

2. He reportedly wanted his wife to release the letter to the public if any harm came to him. People close to him had also leaked to sections of the Pakistani media information about the letter written by him to his wife and daughter to be released if he was harmed. He feared that he might be prosecuted and jailed on the basis of confessions extracted under duress or handed over to the IAEA for interrogation and prosecution under US pressure.

3. Neither of these contingencies happened. The Pervez Musharraf Government pressured him to admit those proliferation activities, which had already come to the notice of the US and the IAEA and project them as carried out by him on his own independent initiative without the knowledge of the political and military leadership. In return, he was promised that he would be merely kept under house arrest to satisfy the US and not prosecuted or handed over to the IAEA for interrogation. He agreed to this deal.

4. After the Pakistan People's Party (PPP)-led Government headed by Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani came to power in March last year, it removed some of the restrictions on his meeting others in his house. He took advantage of this to tell some Japanese correspondents that his contacts with North Korea were within the knowledge of Musharraf. The Government of Gilani denied his allegations and reimposed the restrictions on his interactions with journalists and other members of the public. On an appeal filed on his behalf, he was released from house arrest by a court, but was told by the court that he could not travel inside the country without the prior permission of the Government. The restrictions on his meeting journalists remained.

5. He again took up the matter before the Lahore High Court, which ordered the removal of all restrictions on his movements inside the country. These restrictions have been re-imposed by the Government by a fresh order.

6. Apparently angered by the continuing restrictions on him, his wife or daughter seems to have released the letter written by him to them in December, 2003, giving some details of his proliferation activities undertaken, according to him, at the instance of the Benazir Bhutto Government in the case of Iran and an unnamed Army General in the case of North Korea. It also gives details of the assistance received by Pakistan from China for the development of an atom bomb. The letter has reached the hands of a journalist by name Siman Henderson, who has published a story based on it in the "Sunday Times" of London of September 20, 2009. The journalist, in his story, has sought to give the impression that he had got hold of the letter independently through his contacts unconnected to the Khan family and that it has been in his possession since 2007, though he decided to make it public only now. It has to be noted that even now he has not published the entire letter which, according to him, ran to two pages. He has published only three or four paras. He has given some details of what the letter contained about China, North Korea and Iran. He says that the letter also refers to Libya, without specifying what. Is there an attempt by him to potect Libya? If so, why?

7. The "Times" article gives only details of his proliferation activities undertaken with the knowledge, if not at the instance, of the political and/or military leadership of Pakistan. It is silent on the proliferation activities undertaken by him at his own instance such as the supply of nuclear equipment to Libya and the setting up of facilities in Malaysia with the help of a Muslim of Indian/Sri Lankan origin for the manufacture of enrichment centrifuges for supply to Iran and Libya. It is also silent on his missile proliferation activities. The details given by Khan are meant to implicate his political and military leadership without enabling the IAEA and the US to have a full idea of the nuclear capabilities of Iran and North Korea. Khan has taken care to see that scanty details given by him could not be used by the US and the IAEA against Iran and North Korea.

8. Puzzlingfly, the maximum details given by him in his letter are regarding the assistance received by Pakistan from China for the development of a military nuclear capability. According to his letter, "we put up a centrifuge plant at Hanzhong (250km southwest of Xian). The Chinese gave us drawings of the nuclear weapon, gave us 50kg of enriched uranium, gave us 10 tons of UF6 (natural) and 5 tons of UF6 (3%)." The role of China in helping Pakistan develop a military nuclear capability, including the supply of the drawings of the first Chinese atomic bomb, were known earlier through human and technical intelligence reports, but this is the first time such authentic details have come from the scientist who developed Pakistan's military nuclear programme. The details from the letter as revealed in the "Times" article do greater damage to China than to Iran and North Korea.

9. While there has been considerable international focus on Pakistan's nuclear proliferation activities through AQ Khan, a similar focus on China's role in nuclear proliferation has not been there so far. There have been many congressional enquiries in the US on China's missile proliferation activities, but not on its nuclear proliferation activities. It is the copies of the A-bomb drawings passed on by China to Pakistan which were subsequently passed on by AQ Khan to Iran and Libya. India and Israel have been the worst sufferers of the Chinese nuclear proliferation in favour of Pakistan----India directly and Israel indirectly.

10. Apart from reviving the demand for the interrogation of AQ Khan outside Pakistan by an independent IAEA team of experts, the IAEA should also ask for a full disclosure by China of its nuclear proliferation to Pakistan. An enquiry into this should also be taken up by the relevant US Congressional committees.

11. At a time when efforts are being made by the Government of India to discourage the anti-Chinese hysteria in our media over the reports of Chinese troop intrusions into Indian territory, the disclosures in AQ Khan's letter of details of the Chinese assistance in developing an atomic bomb for possible use against India would add to the suspicions and fears in the Indian civil society over what they see as China's malevolent attitude towards India. If China really values improved relations with India, it should volunteer a full disclosure of its nuclear supply relationship with Pakistan and give credible assurances to the Indian people that such instances will not recur in future. Unless and until this is done the trust deficit between the two countries will continue to remain wide.

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: [email protected])
 

qsaark

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
177
Likes
2
10. Apart from reviving the demand for the interrogation of AQ Khan outside Pakistan by an independent IAEA team of experts, the IAEA should also ask for a full disclosure by China of its nuclear proliferation to Pakistan. An enquiry into this should also be taken up by the relevant US Congressional committees.
Very nice article indeed. The author forgot to include one point however. When he is suggesting “the IAEA should also ask for a full disclosure by China of its nuclear proliferation to Pakistan”, he should also suggest asking for a full disclosure by USA, UK, France, and Canada of their nuclear proliferation to Israel and India. That way the investigations will be balanced and the other countries will also realise that IAEA is not biased.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,799
Likes
48,281
Country flag
Qsaark the countries you mentioned specifically USA and Canada are the ones i will reply to
USA had nuclear trade with India starting in the 1950's under Eisenhower's atoms for peace program, later with the creation of the NPT there was no trade upto recently with the US-India nuclear deal. The canadian nuclear trade with India under CANDU also started in the 1950's until 1974 ; the Cirus canadian reactor is no longer operational. Lumping this in with Chinese NPT violations to Pakistan is not the same. The basic difference is China was violating the NPT while being a signatory and also possibly violating CTBT.



http://www.nci.org/i/ib12997.htm

Canada has also done nuclear trade with pakistan.India is currently negotiating a new nuclear treaty with Canada.


Canadian Nuclear Cooperation with India and Pakistan

CANADIAN NUCLEAR COOPERATION
WITH INDIA & PAKISTAN

all research by David Martin
Nuclear Awareness Project




BACKGROUND
by David Martin


1. Canada suspended nuclear cooperation with India following the explosion of a bomb at the Pokhran site in May 1974. The bomb had used plutonium manufactured in a research reactor known as "CIRUS" given to India by Canada.

However, it was not until May 1976, after unsuccessful discussions to upgrade proliferation safeguards, that Canada formally ended its nuclear relationship with India.

After the 1974 Indian nuclear test, discussions on improved safeguards also took place with Pakistan. Again, negotiations were unsuccessful, and nuclear cooperation with Pakistan was terminated in December 1976.

2. Beginning in 1989, at the urging of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) Canada quietly re-started nuclear cooperation with India & Pakistan. This occurred through the CANDU Owners Group (COG), an alliance of AECL and utilities with CANDU reactors around the world.

The motto of the CANDU Owners Group -- an integral part of their corporate logo -- is "Strength Through Cooperation".



WHY CANADA SHOULD END
ALL NUCLEAR COOPERATION
WITH INDIA & PAKISTAN

3. Neither Indian nor Pakistan have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Nor have they signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Neither does Canada have any Nuclear Cooperation Agreements (NCAs) with India or Pakistan. That should be reason enough to end all nuclear cooperation.

4. There is no clear separation in either India or Pakistan between the military and civilian nuclear programs. Aid for one is aid for the other.

5. AECL, COG and the Canadian government are defending nuclear cooperation and information exchange on the grounds that it promotes reactor safety in India and Pakistan.

In reality however, the issue would not have been unsafe operation. Without Canadian nuclear cooperation India would likely have had to shut down the two RAPS reactors (the Rajasthan Atomic Power Station).

Similarly Pakistan would almost certainly have had to shut down the KANUPP reactor (the Karachi Nuclear Power Plant). Its pressure tubes used the original CANDU alloy known as "Zircalloy" that was extremely prone to embrittlement.

In other words, refusal of nuclear cooperation by Canada would have been an extremely effective sanction, since it would have necessitated the shutdown of the RAPS and KANUPP reactors.

6. Canadian aid has gone far beyond just information exchange. The CANDU Owners Group (COG) orchestrated a major rehabilitation of the KANUPP reactor in Pakistan. This involved extended work from 1990 to the present by AECL and Ontario Hydro and other contractors.

7. Although the KANUPP and RAPS reactors ARE safeguarded (inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency), the COG Annual Report for 1995-96 confirms that AECL and Ontario Hydro technicians worked on the Narora and Kakrapar nuclear stations in India (NAPS and KAPS). These reactors are NOT safeguarded.

8. The fact that the KANUPP and RAPS reactors are safeguarded is NOT an acceptable defense for providing aid to them. In the case of India, knowledge gained from work on the RAPS reactors is clearly transferable to the other six operating CANDU "clones" and the four under construction.

9. The CIRUS "research" reactor, which Canada gave to India in 1956, was used to produce plutonium for India's first bomb exploded in 1974. CIRUS continues to operate, and it is NOT safeguarded. It is quite possible, even likely, that CIRUS provided at least some of the plutonium for the nuclear weapons exploded by India in 1998.

10. The tritium connection is also a very interesting way in which Canada has likely made a material contribution to the Pakistani and Indian military nuclear programs in recent years.

Tritium is a key nuclear explosive which is used in both "boosted" fission bombs and in the triggering of most thermonuclear (fusion) bombs.

The CANDU reactor produces large quantities of tritium, and Ontario Hydro and AECL have notable expertise in tritium handling and production. This information was likely made available to both India and Pakistan, and rationalized on the grounds of worker safety.

11. Ultimately, it is a matter of principle. How serious is Canada about walking the non- proliferation talk? Should Canada be aiding and abetting rogue nuclear states?

12. Freedom of information is also an issue. The government claims that the nuclear information provided to India and Pakistan is "public domain". Yet the government has refused a request by Nuclear Awareness Project to provide a list of information provided to India and Pakistan.

Moreover, if the information is in the public domain, why do India and Pakistan require Canadian cooperation? And why do India and Pakistan pay a fee to be members of the CANDU Owners Group?



SANCTIONS

13. The Prime Minister stated that all relations with India and Pakistan have been placed on hold. However, nuclear cooperation is clearly continuing. According to the statement of Lloyd Axworthy on May 28, the only actions taken against both India and Pakistan have included:

* recall of the Canadian High Commissioners from India and Pakistan (that is the name for Ambassadors in Commonwealth countries);

* discontinuation of all non-humanitarian aid;

* support for deferral of international financial institution funding for both countries (eg. World Bank funding);

* a ban on military exports; and

* deferral of visits by Indian and Pakistani officials to Canada.
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,615
Likes
5,772
If at one point of time in future, the nuclear weapons fall into the hands of the terrorists - then US, China and Pakistan should be held equally responsible. US for turning a blind eye despite having the intelligence of Pakistan's bomb making ability with the help of China and others. China for giving the Pakistan the complete weapon design and other materials required for bomb making including know how. Pakistan for proliferating to rogue nations like NoKo, Iran etc. All are equally culpable. Without any of these players knowledge and moral responsibility this wouldn't have happened.
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,615
Likes
5,772
Very nice article indeed. The author forgot to include one point however. When he is suggesting “the IAEA should also ask for a full disclosure by China of its nuclear proliferation to Pakistan”, he should also suggest asking for a full disclosure by USA, UK, France, and Canada of their nuclear proliferation to Israel and India. That way the investigations will be balanced and the other countries will also realise that IAEA is not biased.
Please give me a reference where deliberate involvement of above mentioned nations in providing India with know how of making nuclear weapons or designing the war heads has been shown. Except for the Canadian reactor which was used for nuclear material enrichment, it has not got any direct help from any country whatsoever. And India has never proliferated any knowledge or materials pertaining to Nuclear weapons.
 

qsaark

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
177
Likes
2
If at one point of time in future, the nuclear weapons fall into the hands of the terrorists - then US, China and Pakistan should be held equally responsible. US for turning a blind eye despite having the intelligence of Pakistan's bomb making ability with the help of China and others. China for giving the Pakistan the complete weapon design and other materials required for bomb making including know how. Pakistan for proliferating to rogue nations like NoKo, Iran etc. All are equally culpable. Without any of these players knowledge and moral responsibility this wouldn't have happened.
Why excluding Russia, UK, and France? All three of them have a fair share in this proliferation. As far as terrorist countries is concerned, is there a more terrorizing country than the Israel? And about the rogue states, well, in one of my reply, I have shown that the criteria required for a country to be called a 'rogue' state fits as much to the very country that 'invented' this term and is using repeatedly. As well as to her allies for the crimes against the humanity they have been committing during the entire 20th century.
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,615
Likes
5,772
Why excluding Russia, UK, and France? All three of them have a fair share in this proliferation. As far as terrorist countries is concerned, is there a more terrorizing country than the Israel? And about the rogue states, well, in one of my reply, I have shown that the criteria required for a country to be called a 'rogue' state fits as much to the very country that 'invented' this term and is using repeatedly. As well as to her allies for the crimes against the humanity they have been committing during the entire 20th century.
France, Russia and UK didn't proliferate the technology for making bombs but for generating power and this nuclear technology is civilian one. But to make bombs you need more than just centrifuges and reactors. Israel was not provided with technology but people have defected from US and provided technology to Israel just like Manhattan project veterans and Klaus Fuchs and co. have provided the tech know how to France, China and Russia.

But there is no proof that any of these countries have provided the know how to make nuclear weapons like China did to Pakistan. And through Pakistan alone it is very likely that it might fall in the hands of the terrorists and if they use one loose nuke on any territory killing people, then who is responsible?.
 

qsaark

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
177
Likes
2
Please give me a reference where deliberate involvement of above mentioned nations in providing India with know how of making nuclear weapons or designing the war heads has been shown. Except for the Canadian reactor, which was used for nuclear material enrichment, it has not got any direct help from any country whatsoever. And India has never proliferated any knowledge or materials pertaining to Nuclear weapons.
Well sir, you are saying as if the Canadian Reactor was nothing but the most trivial thing. What is left to make a nuclear device once the enriched radioactive material is obtained? The enriched Plutonium came from the CIRUS reactor at BARC. Than the next important thing needed, was a neutron initiator. The device the Indians used was of polonium-beryllium type. It was a US design used in the infamous ‘Fat man’. From where did the Indians get the designs and blueprints of the polonium-beryllium type neutron initiator used in the Fat Man? Was USA not supplying with the heavy water?
 

qsaark

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
177
Likes
2
France, Russia and UK didn't proliferate the technology for making bombs but for generating power and this nuclear technology is civilian one. But to make bombs you need more than just centrifuges and reactors. Israel was not provided with technology but people have defected from US and provided technology to Israel just like Manhattan project veterans and Klaus Fuchs and co. have provided the tech know how to France, China and Russia.

But there is no proof that any of these countries have provided the know how to make nuclear weapons like China did to Pakistan. And through Pakistan alone it is very likely that it might fall in the hands of the terrorists and if they use one loose nuke on any territory killing people, then who is responsible?.
How much difficult is it to make a thermo-nuclear device you think? What is the bottle neck? It is the enrichment of the radioactive material that could be used in a thermo nuclear device. Heavy Water Reactors are fine with low enriched Uranium usually in the range of 0.9% to 2%. Light Water Reactors need 3 to 5%. For making a weapon, all you need is to enrich the Uranium to up to 20% and you got material for making a ‘usable’ weapon. Up to 85% pure, and you can make more lethal weapons. I talked about Neutron Initiators. Even though such a device is needed for the ignition (to start a chain reaction) it is not absolutely required.

It is because of this ‘ease’ that the world fears from the so called ‘dirty’ bombs. You don’t need much sophistication to detonate a briefcase full of low grade Plutonium or Uranium and cause havoc.

And as far as Israel is concerned, there is ample proof that ‘dual-use’ material has been imported and smuggled by the Israel from the various source. Actually, from the similar sources, India and Pakistan has obtained material for their respective nuclear programs. Now all this is not coming from China. There have been repeated incidents here in the US where material was found missing from the reactors. The CIA has also banned several private contractors who were smuggling the dual use technology abroad. Similar cases are also reported in Europe and in Russian Federation.
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,615
Likes
5,772
How much difficult is it to make a thermo-nuclear device you think? What is the bottle neck? It is the enrichment of the radioactive material that could be used in a thermo nuclear device. Heavy Water Reactors are fine with low enriched Uranium usually in the range of 0.9% to 2%. Light Water Reactors need 3 to 5%. For making a weapon, all you need is to enrich the Uranium to up to 20% and you got material for making a ‘usable’ weapon. Up to 85% pure, and you can make more lethal weapons. I talked about Neutron Initiators. Even though such a device is needed for the ignition (to start a chain reaction) it is not absolutely required.

It is because of this ‘ease’ that the world fears from the so called ‘dirty’ bombs. You don’t need much sophistication to detonate a briefcase full of low grade Plutonium or Uranium and cause havoc.
This is exactly the fear, the falling of enriched nuclear material in the hands of the terrorists. If you spread the technology to rogue nations which have no qualms to handover such material to terrorists, then you are asking for trouble. Dirty bomb is easy to make provided you have the material. Which are the likely countries that can provide material to terrorists will be the next question that comes to mind. Syria, Pakistan, Libya are some of the most likely countries which could provide such material to the Islamic terrorists (with or without consent of the respective establishments) because of their relationship with them.


And as far as Israel is concerned, there is ample proof that ‘dual-use’ material has been imported and smuggled by the Israel from the various source. Actually, from the similar sources, India and Pakistan has obtained material for their respective nuclear programs. Now all this is not coming from China. There have been repeated incidents here in the US where material was found missing from the reactors. The CIA has also banned several private contractors who were smuggling the dual use technology abroad. Similar cases are also reported in Europe and in Russian Federation.
Proliferation of nukes is not so different from proliferation of missiles for which you need dual use items and other sophisticated items. They might have been obtained legally or illegally due to lack of technology in those countries. So, India, Pakistan or Israel are no different in that terms. I doubt any of those countries have deliberately allowed such dual items to be sold.

But the point is what you are doing with such technology. Is that for protection of your country by using nuclear bombs as a deterrent?. Then it is absolutely fine, because it is done in the greater interests of nation. But why proliferate deliberately to other nations right from nuclear material, reactors, centrifuges, warhead designs etc to make a bomb. That is where the hitch comes in. It is clear that Pakistan has proliferated all of the above by providing such material directly or indirectly to those nations and was caught red handed. You have to think, why there was no such pandemonium when China proliferated such technology to Pakistan?. May be because other countries felt that it needs nuke weapons to deter India.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,799
Likes
48,281
Country flag
The Key Proliferation Questions - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace


The Key Proliferation Questions
Jon Wolfsthal Carnegie Proliferation Brief, Volume 7, Number 6

The unprecedented pace of proliferation developments the past 18 months makes it difficult for even dedicated experts to keep up. The historic events in Libya, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran and North Korea have raised several key questions that help frame the proliferation debate over the future direction of U.S. non-proliferation policy: Is proliferation inevitable? Is U.S. intelligence good enough to help prevent proliferation? How should the United States address the main proliferation challenges of today?

Is Proliferation Inevitable?
With all of the attention given to proliferation of late, the general public could reasonably conclude that every small, developing country has a nuclear weapons program. Yet few people appreciate that more countries have abandoned nuclear weapons programs over the past 15 years than have acquired nuclear weapons. Four countries have actually given up considerable nuclear arsenals voluntarily (South Africa, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan) while only two (Pakistan and North Korea) are thought to have crossed the nuclear finish line. While today's proliferation challenges are real and acute, the track record in uncovering, confronting and reversing proliferation with established tools is actually quite strong.

At any given point over the past 50 years, the outlook for non-proliferation was grim. Officials have predicted widespread nuclear acquisition for decades. Yet in these times, the United States has historically led the international community in preventing this future from coming to pass. The 1950s saw the creation of the international nuclear inspections or safeguard process; the '60s, the birth of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; the '70s and 80s, the growth and impact of nuclear arms reductions; the '90s, United States engagement of a new Russia and the securing of its vulnerable nuclear assets. How the United States reacts to current challenges will go a long way in deciding what kind of world develops over the coming years.

Is Our Intelligence Good Enough?
Iraq, the approach to and conduct of the war, and the failure to find weapons of mass destruction will cloud the issue of proliferation and intelligence for years. Investigations and intelligence reviews will provide plenty of grist for experts and politicians alike. But in the meantime, the work of intelligence collection and analysis must and does go on and recent history is full of examples where U.S. intelligence successfully alerted policy makers to cases and trends in proliferation. For years, the United States raised concerns (dismissed by many states in Europe and Russia) over Iran's nuclear ambitions that have proven to be true. U.S. intelligence concluded in 2002 that North Korea had a secret uranium program, which Pakistan has now admitted to assisting.

Recent speeches by President Bush and CIA Director George Tenet have made the case that U.S. intelligence cracked Pakistan's connections to Libya, Iran and North Korea and forced A.Q. Kahn's activities into the daylight. In reality, our intelligence has been even better than either the president or Director Tenet have let on. The United States has known about Pakistan's nuclear activities for years, even decades. In most cases, it is not intelligence that let America down, it was America's leaders. In case after case, U.S. intelligence has uncovered proliferation, but other priorities took precedence. The clearest case was in the 1980s, when the United States ignored Pakistan's acquisition of nuclear capabilities because it needed Islamabad's help to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. History is repeating itself, now that Pakistan is America's "ally" in the war on terror.

What Do We Do With The Main Proliferation Challenges of Today?
This question is critical and the answer to it will affect the security of the United States for decades. The good news is that we know how to prevent nuclear materials from falling into the wrong hands. Terrorists, unless and until they can produce their own nuclear materials, must look to steal (or buy stolen) weapons-grade uranium or plutonium that exists in national stockpiles. Over the past decade, the United States has invested billions of dollars to help Russia - which possesses the largest and most vulnerable stocks of these materials - keep its weapons and nuclear materials secure. These efforts to improve security are far from complete and are now beginning to expand to other states, but need more political and financial resources to keep ahead of the threats we face.

In addition, the United States has previously stopped or rolled back proliferation by working to remove the demand for nuclear weapons. Regional engagement, conflict prevention, military alliances and the like are as much a part of the non-proliferation history as nuclear seals and Geiger counters.

Lastly, the United States needs to do more hard work in addressing proliferation threats. Washington must reconfigure our policies to demonstrate it understands the nature of this threat and ensure that it takes priority over almost all other security considerations. This includes how the U.S. handles its own nuclear facilities and weapons, the support it provides to organizations like the International Atomic Energy Agency, how it invests its defense and security budgets, and how the United States prioritizes its relations with other countries.

Despite the challenges we face, proliferation is not inevitable and our knowledge of how and where proliferation takes place is better than most people think. The problem is that officials may not always make non-proliferation the priority it deserves to be.
 

qsaark

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
177
Likes
2
This is exactly the fear, the falling of enriched nuclear material in the hands of the terrorists. If you spread the technology to rogue nations which have no qualms to handover such material to terrorists, then you are asking for trouble. Dirty bomb is easy to make provided you have the material. Which are the likely countries that can provide material to terrorists will be the next question that comes to mind. Syria, Pakistan, Libya are some of the most likely countries which could provide such material to the Islamic terrorists (with or without consent of the respective establishments) because of their relationship with them.
The nations you call rogue are not responsible for even a fraction of human being killed by the five so-called super powers in past 100 or so years. So if they are rogue, than there is no nation on the face of the earth that is not rogue. Don’t bring this 'rogue nation' thing again and again. Your so-called ‘responsible’ nations have shown no ‘responsibly’ when it came to respect the lives and the livelihood of the human beings. Your second point that Syria, Pakistan, Libya are some of the most likely countries, which could provide such material to the Islamic terrorists is also not correct. It is an assumption at best and nothing more. There exists no proof that any such deal ever been made between these states and the terrorist organizations. For a terrorist network, to obtain radioactive material would be much easier from the breakaway former Russian republics than from the countries you have named. By the way, Iran, Syria and Libya have much cordial relations with India than Pakistan. If they are so much ‘rogue’ nations, why you have relations with them?

But why proliferate deliberately to other nations right from nuclear material, reactors, centrifuges, warhead designs etc to make a bomb. That is where the hitch comes in. It is clear that Pakistan has proliferated all of the above by providing such material directly or indirectly to those nations and was caught red handed. You have to think, why there was no such pandemonium when China proliferated such technology to Pakistan?. May be because other countries felt that it needs nuke weapons to deter India.
First of all, that was a deal between the two states not between a State and a terrorist organization. The states you call ‘rogue’ so passionately were very close to the former Soviet Union as well as India. And the Former Soviet Union has also been called an Evil by the Americans and her allies. Additionally no warhead designs or enriched radioactive material was ever supplied. The whole issue is revolving around selling the centrifuge designs, some material to make the centrifuges, and the technical know-how of installing them and running. If you have more information, please provide the link. Secondly, Pakistan is not a signatory of NPT. While not bound by the NPT, by selling the material or technical know how, Pakistan has committed no crime as such. It was a different story if Pakistan was a signatory and still it was doing things being restricted in the treaty. Thirdly, Libya and Iran are pursuing nuclear capability for the very same reason others have pursued them; that is to obtain a deterrent. Israel is known to possess the nuclear weapons; what justification exists for the other countries in the region not to get the deterrence?
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,799
Likes
48,281
Country flag
Qsaark you present a good point, one simple question is China in violation of the NPT??
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,615
Likes
5,772
The nations you call rogue are not responsible for even a fraction of human being killed by the five so-called super powers in past 100 or so years. So if they are rogue, than there is no nation on the face of the earth that is not rogue.
Definitely every nation is rogue one or the other way and I'm not supporting any country which illegally invaded other countries or sponsor terrorism in other countries and kill innocent people in other countries.

But then we are discussing this in the context of nuclear weapons which when used can have deadly consequences for its obvious radioactivity and repercussion will be that much more stronger.

Don’t bring this 'rogue nation' thing again and again. Your so-called ‘responsible’ nations have shown no ‘responsibly’ when it came to respect the lives and the livelihood of the human beings.
I have never talked responsibility in terms of killing people in other ways but in terms of containing nuclear proliferation in not transferring nuclear weapons technology deliberately to other countries like China did to Pakistan and Pakistan did to NoKo, Libya and Iran.

Your second point that Syria, Pakistan, Libya are some of the most likely countries, which could provide such material to the Islamic terrorists is also not correct. It is an assumption at best and nothing more.
Its an assumption based on likelihood because of their close relationship with terrorist organizations.

There exists no proof that any such deal ever been made between these states and the terrorist organizations.
Of course, I never said that it exists or that it happened. I'm only alluding to the fact that it might happen.

For a terrorist network, to obtain radioactive material would be much easier from the breakaway former Russian republics than from the countries you have named.
May be, but it hasn't happened even after soviet union breakdown and nothing is known of their proliferation activities either.

By the way, Iran, Syria and Libya have much cordial relations with India than Pakistan. If they are so much ‘rogue’ nations, why you have relations with them?
I don't see any harm when India can have relationship with a country which sponsors terrorism and kills its citizens. These countries doesn't harm India at least by arms length but they may harm the other part of the world, which is of a bit concern.

First of all, that was a deal between the two states not between a State and a terrorist organization. The states you call ‘rogue’ so passionately were very close to the former Soviet Union as well as India.

And the Former Soviet Union has also been called an Evil by the Americans and her allies. Additionally no warhead designs or enriched radioactive material was ever supplied. The whole issue is revolving around selling the centrifuge designs, some material to make the centrifuges, and the technical know-how of installing them and running. If you have more information, please provide the link.
Despite closeness India or Soviet Union, they didn't provide them with Nuclear weapons, while on the other hand Pakistan made deals with this and other countries to sell weapon designs, know how, technology, centrifuges, components, nuclear material. If you think I'm bluffing, please go through these articles. There are thousands of them. I can provide more if you want. There are also two nice books you can read which are available on Amazon

"Shopping for Bombs: Nuclear Proliferation, Global Insecurity, and the Rise and Fall of the A.Q. Khan Network" - Gordin Crorera


"America and the Islamic Bomb: The Deadly Compromise" - Armstrong and Trento

Nuclear Weapons Program - North Korea
Pakistan Now Says Scientist Did Send Koreans Nuclear Gear - New York Times
Chowk: : The Nuclear Noose Around Pakistan’s Neck
Association for Asia Research- A.Q. Khan's China connection
The nuclear shopping-mall: AQ Khan and Iran | open Democracy News Analysis
Libyan Nuclear Weapons

Secondly, Pakistan is not a signatory of NPT. While not bound by the NPT, by selling the material or technical know how, Pakistan has committed no crime as such.
Of course it didn't commit a crime legally as such but why it proliferates clandestinely then and why it puts all the blame on AQ Khan then. Because it is morally not right owing to the fact that the havoc these weapons can cause. There are consequences for proliferating. Your country has become a nuclear pariah. You are not offered a nuke deal nor given NSG waiver like they did to India.

It was a different story if Pakistan was a signatory and still it was doing things being restricted in the treaty. Thirdly, Libya and Iran are pursuing nuclear capability for the very same reason others have pursued them; that is to obtain a deterrent. Israel is known to possess the nuclear weapons; what justification exists for the other countries in the region not to get the deterrence?
Of course every country has a right to possess a deterrent and have a nuclear weapon provided they do the hard work to achieve it and can make it themselves but not by buying from nuclear supermarket. If pakistan were supermarket, most of the countries in this world can afford to buy nuclear weapons, Libya bought most of tech from Pakistan for just 100 million dollars or so.
 

qsaark

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
177
Likes
2
Qsaark you present a good point, one simple question is China in violation of the NPT??
If an evidence is established that China did give the blue prints of a thermonuclear device to Pakistan or to any other country, than yes. Oral stories or letters written to wives and daughters are not sufficient an evidence in this regard. If the Israel and India could get their hands on the blue prints from the Las Alamos, so could Pakistan. There exists a vast black market where anything can be shopped for a price. What is needed is a thorough investigation, and make sure that such things don’t happen again. However, so long the bully of few so-called super powers remains, there will remain a need for other countries to acquire credible deterrent by whatever means possible. And as long as buyers are there, merchants will keep showing up from somewhere.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top