China Military News & Updates

[Daredevil]

terrorists are fundamentalists.Hidus have them,too.
could you show me some evidence of relevance between terrorism attack and Pak gvt?

These terrorists are Pakistan sponsored terrorists not any other fundamentalist. In Mumbai attacks it has been conclusively shown that LeT was involved in the attacks. If you don't know, LeT is created and nurtured by ISI, the intelligence agency of Pakistan.

This is off-topic in this thread. Go through below thread and ask any further questions there

http://www.defenceforum.in/forum/war-terror/1297-26-11-trial-related-developments.html

 

[kuku]

Pakistan was supporting terrorists long before openly declaring they had nukes.

Although PRC had supplied and tested them for Pakistan long before the actual tests.

Were the ballistic missiles that PRC supplied to Pakistan capable of carrying the nuclear warheads that PRC provided them with?

The end of the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan was the time when Pakistan applied the Afghan formula to Kashmir valley. They already had the training camps, arms and the propaganda machine.

Could it be that by that time they already had the nuclear weapons (when did PRC test the warhead for them?).

Even without the nuclear weapons war is not something a government should look forward to, Pakistan had this concept of limited war and we validated that concept.

The gloves should have come off during the Kargil episode, a larger war to stop these stupid attacks.

 

[nimo_cn]

If China really wanted peace it wouldn't have given nukes to Pakistan.

If India wants peace, why India develops nukes?
If India can own nukes, why can not Pakistan?
And there is no hard evidence can proof that it is china that has provided nuclear technology to Pakistan.
Why cant Pakistan develop nukes by itself while india is capable of doing that?

 

[kuku]

If India wants peace, why India develops nukes?
If India can own nukes, why can not Pakistan?
And there is no hard evidence can proof that it is china that has provided nuclear technology to Pakistan.
Why cant Pakistan develop nukes by itself while india is capable of doing that?

There is plenty of evidence that PRC provided them with the nuclear warhead, missiles, and the techonology to make nuclear material.

 

[hit&run]

 

[Daredevil]

If India wants peace, why India develops nukes?
If India can own nukes, why can not Pakistan?
And there is no hard evidence can proof that it is china that has provided nuclear technology to Pakistan.
Why cant Pakistan develop nukes by itself while india is capable of doing that?

India developed nukes to deter China which already had nukes.

As for China's gifting of nukes to Pakistan

In the past, China played a major role in the development of Pakistan's nuclear infrastructure, especially when increasingly stringent export controls in western countries made it difficult for Pakistan to acquire materials and technology elsewhere. According to a 2001 Department of Defense report, China has supplied Pakistan with nuclear materials and expertise and has provided critical assistance in the construction of Pakistan's nuclear facilities.

In the 1990s, China designed and supplied the heavy water Khusab reactor, which plays a key role in Pakistan's production of plutonium. A subsidiary of the China National Nuclear Corporation also contributed to Pakistan's efforts to expand its uranium enrichment capabilities by providing 5,000 custom made ring magnets, which are a key component of the bearings that facilitate the high-speed rotation of centrifuges.

According to Anthony Cordesman of CSIS, China is also reported to have provided Pakistan with the design of one of its warheads, which is relatively sophisticated in design and lighter than U.S. and Soviet designed first generation warheads.

China also provided technical and material support in the completion of the Chasma nuclear power reactor and plutonium reprocessing facility, which was built in the mid 1990s. The project had been initiated as a cooperative program with France, but Pakistan's failure to sign the NPT and unwillingness to accept IAEA safeguards on its entire nuclear program caused France to terminate assistance.

Link

Here, another one

China tested nukes for Pakistan, gave design

CHIDANAND RAJGHATTA, TNN 5 September 2008, 10:46am IST
WASHINGTON: While an assortment of non-proliferation hardliners and hi-tech suppliers treat India with immense suspicion in the matter of nuclear trade predicated on tests, it turns out that the United States and the west were fully aware of Chinese nuclear weapons proliferation to Pakistan, including conducting a proxy test for it, as far back as 1990.

In some of the most startling revelations to emerge on the subject, a high-ranking former US official who was also a nuclear weapons designer has disclosed that ''in 1982 China's premier Deng Xiaoping began the transfer of nuclear weapons technology to Pakistan.''

The whistleblower isn't a think-tank academic or an unnamed official speaking on background. Thomas Reed, described as a former U.S ''nuclear weaponeer'' and a Secretary of the Air Force (1976-77) writes in the latest issue of Physics Today that China's transfers to Pakistan included blueprints for the ultrasimple CHIC-4 design using highly enriched uranium, first tested by China in 1966. A Pakistani derivative of CHIC-4 apparently was tested in China on 26 May 1990, he adds.

Reed makes an even more stunning disclosure, saying Deng not only authorized proliferation to Pakistan, but also, "in time, to other third world countries.'' The countries are not named. He also says that during the 1990s, China conducted underground hydronuclear experiments—though not full-scale device tests—for France at Lop Nur.

Reed's disclosures are based on his knowledge of and insights into the visits to China by Dan Stillman, a top US nuclear expert who went there several times in the late 1980s at Beijing invitation, in part because the Chinese wanted to both show-off and convey to the US the progress they had made in nuclear weaponisation.

One of Stillman's visit to the Shanghai Institute of Nuclear Research (SINR), writes Reed, ''also produced his first insight into the extensive hospitality extended to Pakistani nuclear scientists during that same late-1980s time period,'' which would eventually lead to the joint China-Pak nuclear test.

Chinese nuclear proliferation to Pakistan, including the supply of hi-tech items like ring magnets in the early 1990s, has always been known to the non-proliferation community (which largely slept on the reports). But this is the first time it has been confirmed by such a senior official.

In the late 1980s, both the Reagan and the George Bush Sr administration repeatedly fudged the issue to certify that Pakistan had not gone nuclear despite obvious evidence to the contrary.

In his assessment of the Chinese nuclear program based on Stillman's visits, Reed writes admiringly about Beijing's successes, saying ''Over a period of 15 years, an intellectually talented China achieved parity with the West and pre-eminence over its Asian peers in the design of nuclear weapons and in understanding underground nuclear testing.''

"China now stands in the first rank of nuclear powers," he concludes.

In trenchant observation, Reed writes, ''Any nuclear nation should consider its nuclear tests to be giant physics experiments. The Chinese weaponeers understood that well; other proliferators do not. Many states have considered their early nuclear shots to be political demonstrations or simple proof tests. In China, however, extremely sophisticated instrumentation was used on even the first nuclear test.''

Chronicling the progress of China's nuclear weapons program, Reed writes: Atop a tower on 16 October 1964, China's first nuclear device, 596, was successfully fired. US intelligence analysts were astonished by the lack of plutonium in the fallout debris and by the speed with which China had broken into the nuclear club, but that was only the beginning.

Eighteen months later, in the spring of 1966, China entered the thermonuclear world with the detonation of a boosted-fission, airdropped device that used lithium-6, a primary source of tritium when bombarded with neutrons. That test, their third, achieved a yield of 200–300 kilotons. By the end of the year, they made the leap to multistage technology with a large two-stage experiment that yielded only 122 kilotons, but it again displayed 6Li in the bomb debris.

The Chinese then closed the circle on 17 June 1967, unambiguously marching into the H-bomb club with a 3.3-megaton burst from an aircraft-delivered weapon. On 27 December 1968, the Chinese bid the Johnson administration farewell with an improved, airdropped 3-megaton thermonuclear device that for the first time used plutonium in the primary.

It is clear from the reactor-to-bomb progression times that by 1968 China had unequivocally entered the European nuclear cartel on a par with the U, says Reed. Furthermore, China had become a thermonuclear power. It had achieved the leap from the initial A-bomb test to a 3.3-megaton thermonuclear blast in a record-breaking 32 months. It had taken the US more than seven years to accomplish that feat.

 

[nimo_cn]

India developed nukes to deter China which already had nukes.

As for China's gifting of nukes to Pakistan




Here, another one

it is interesting, so your logic is if China had nukes then India should have nukes.
So i am wondering why Pakistan cant have nukes, since India also had nukes.I hope someone to expain that.

 

[Daredevil]

it is interesting, so your logic is if China had nukes then India should have nukes.
So i am wondering why Pakistan cant have nukes, since India also had nukes.I hope someone to expain that.

India made nukes to act as a deterrent not to go for a nuclear war with China. On the other hand Pakistan is using nukes as a deterrent to attack India by sponsoring terrorism in India (for eg mumbai attacks) and go unpunished for its acts.

Pakistan can have nukes but if it develops them on its own but that didn't happen, they were given by China to contain India. So why would anyone think that China wants peace with India.

If one goes by your flawed logic if China has nukes then Japan, South Korea, Vietnam or Taiwan also can have nukes. Do you like if India gives nukes to them?. Your argument is very flawed on that account.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

India developed nukes to deter China which already had nukes.

As for China's gifting of nukes to Pakistan




Here, another one

Come on, DD, neither one of them is a smoking gun.

This is a smoking gun

washingtonpost.com
Libyan Arms Designs Traced Back to China
Pakistanis Resold Chinese-Provided Plans

By Joby Warrick and Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, February 15, 2004; Page A01

Investigators have discovered that the nuclear weapons designs obtained by Libya through a Pakistani smuggling network originated in China, exposing yet another link in a chain of proliferation that stretched across the Middle East and Asia, according to government officials and arms experts.

The bomb designs and other papers turned over by Libya have yielded dramatic evidence of China's long-suspected role in transferring nuclear know-how to Pakistan in the early 1980s, they said. The Chinese designs were later resold to Libya by a Pakistani-led trading network that is now the focus of an expanding international probe, added the officials and experts, who are based in the United States and Europe.

The packet of documents, some of which included text in Chinese, contained detailed, step-by-step instructions for assembling an implosion-type nuclear bomb that could fit atop a large ballistic missile. They also included technical instructions for manufacturing components for the device, the officials and experts said.

"It was just what you'd have on the factory floor. It tells you what torque to use on the bolts and what glue to use on the parts," one weapons expert who had reviewed the blueprints said in an interview. He described the designs as "very, very old" but "very well engineered."

U.S. intelligence officials concluded years ago that China provided early assistance to Pakistan in building its first nuclear weapon -- assistance that appeared to have ended in the 1980s. Still, weapons experts familiar with the blueprints expressed surprise at what they described as a wholesale transfer of sensitive nuclear technology to another country. Notes included in the package of documents suggest that China continued to mentor Pakistani scientists on the finer points of bomb-building over a period of several years, the officials said.

China's actions "were irresponsible and short-sighted, and raise questions about what else China provided to Pakistan's nuclear program," said David Albright, a nuclear physicist and former U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq. "These documents also raise questions about whether Iran, North Korea and perhaps others received these documents from Pakistanis or their agents."

The package of documents was turned over to U.S. officials in November following Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi's decision to renounce weapons of mass destruction and open his country's weapons laboratories to international inspection. The blueprints, which were flown to Washington last month, have been analyzed by experts from the United States, Britain and the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

Weapons experts in Libya also found large amounts of equipment used in making enriched uranium, the essential ingredient in nuclear weapons. That discovery helped expose a rogue nuclear trading network that officials say funneled technology and parts to Libya as well as Iran and North Korea. A central figure in the network, Pakistani metallurgist Abdul Qadeer Khan, acknowledged in a televised confession last month that he had passed nuclear secrets to others. Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, then pardoned Khan.

Of the many proliferation activities linked to Khan's network, the selling of weapon designs is viewed as the most serious. The documents found in Libya contained most of the information needed to assemble a bomb, assuming the builder could acquire the plutonium or highly enriched uranium needed for a nuclear explosion, according to U.S. and European weapons experts familiar with the blueprints. At the same time, one of the chief difficulties for countries trying to build nuclear weapons has been obtaining the plutonium or uranium.

Libya appeared to have made minimal progress toward building a weapon, and had no missile in its arsenal capable of carrying the 1,000-pound nuclear device depicted in the drawings, the officials said. However, weapons experts noted, the blueprints would have been far more valuable to the other known customers of Khan's network.

"This design would be highly useful to countries such as Iran and North Korea," said Albright, whose Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security has studied the nonconventional weapons programs of both states. The design "appears deliverable by North Korea's Nodong missile, Iran's Shahab-3 missile and ballistic missiles Iraq was pursuing just prior to the 1991 Persian Gulf War," he said.

Such a relatively simple design also might be coveted by terrorist groups who seek nuclear weapons but lack the technical sophistication or infrastructure to build a modern weapon, said one Europe-based weapons expert familiar with the blueprints. While such a bomb would be difficult to deliver by air, "you could drive it away in a pickup truck," the expert said.

The device depicted in the blueprints appears similar to a weapon known to have been tested by China in the 1960s, officials familiar with the documents said. Although of an older design, the bomb is an implosion device that is smaller and more sophisticated than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. Implosion bombs use precision-timed conventional explosives to squeeze a sphere of fissile material and trigger a nuclear chain reaction.

Pakistan's first nuclear test in 1998 involved a more modern design than the one sold to Libya. Albright said the Libyan documents "do not appear to contain any information about the nuclear weapons Pakistan has built."

The documents at the center of the investigation were handed over to IAEA inspectors in two white plastic shopping bags from a Pakistani clothing shop. The shop's name -- Good Looks Tailor -- and Islamabad address were printed on the bags in red letters. One of the bags contained drawings and blueprints of different sizes; the other contained a stack of instructions on how to build not only a bomb but also its essential components.

The documents themselves seemed a hodgepodge -- some in good condition, others smudged and dirty; some professionally printed, others handwritten. Many of the papers were "copies of copies of copies," said one person familiar with them. The primary documents were entirely in English, while a few ancillary papers contained Chinese text. The package also included open-literature articles on nuclear weapons from U.S. weapons laboratories, officials familiar with the documents said.

Strikingly, although most of the essential design elements were included, a few key parts were missing, the officials and experts said. Some investigators have speculated that the missing papers could have been lost, or hadn't yet been provided -- possibly they were being withheld pending additional payments. Others suggested that the drawings were simply thrown in as a bonus with the purchase of uranium-enrichment equipment -- "the cherry on the sundae," one knowledgeable official said.

Libyan scientists interviewed by international inspectors about the designs said they had not seriously studied them and were unaware that anything was missing. As Libya had no suitable missile or delivery system for a nuclear weapon, the scientists might have decided to delay work on bomb designs until other parts of their weapons program were further advanced, one knowledgeable U.S. official said.

U.S. and European investigators said there were many similarities among the other nuclear-related designs and components found in Libya and Iran, suggesting they were provided by the same network.

As for who delivered the material to the Libyans, a European official who has studied the question said the connection to the Khan network was indirect. "The middleman is quite invisible. The middleman has covered his tracks very well."

The evidence of China's transfer of nuclear plans to Pakistan confirms something that U.S. officials have believed since at least the early 1980s. A declassified State Department report on Pakistan's nuclear program written in 1983 concluded that China had "provided assistance" to Pakistan's bomb-making program. "We now believe cooperation has taken place in the area of fissile material production and possibly nuclear device design," the report said.

While the discovery of direct evidence of such cooperation was disturbing, it was noteworthy that China's views on proliferation have changed dramatically since the 1980s, and its leaders now generally cooperate with the United States and other countries in stopping the leaking of sensitive weapons technology, said Jonathan Wolfsthal, a nonproliferation expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

"Did the Chinese make a huge mistake in sharing technology with Pakistan? Sure. Did we make a mistake by looking the other way in the 1980s when Pakistan was developing the bomb? Yes," Wolfsthal said. "But none of that should get in the way of dealing with the real threats we face today. Our priority must be to drain the swamp created by the action of these nuclear suppliers and businessmen over the past 10 years."

Researcher Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

 

[Daredevil]

Come on, DD, neither one of them is a smoking gun.

This is a smoking gun

Thanks. I have posted first available links on google.

 

[F-14]

this might help all those who say that china has nothing to do with the pakistani Nuke program

Shaheen Hatf-3 Ghaznavi PRC M-11

Shaheen-I Hatf-4 PRC M-9

Shaheen-II Hatf-6 Ghaznavi PRC M-18

Pakistan Missile Special Weapons Delivery Systems

 

[nimo_cn]

India made nukes to act as a deterrent not to go for a nuclear war with China. On the other hand Pakistan is using nukes as a deterrent to attack India by sponsoring terrorism in India (for eg mumbai attacks) and go unpunished for its acts.

Pakistan can have nukes but if it develops them on its own but that didn't happen, they were given by China to contain India. So why would anyone think that China wants peace with India.

If one goes by your flawed logic if China has nukes then Japan, South Korea, Vietnam or Taiwan also can have nukes. Do you like if India gives nukes to them?. Your argument is very flawed on that account.

Come on, the flawed logic is yours, you said India needs to own nukes because China had nukes. It seems all India is doing is to deter China. Deter China?
Let me tell you, wether china had nukes or not, India was going to develop nukes anyway. China is just an excuse for India to do so. If you just want to have nukes, pls admit it, dont hide your ambitions by repeating crap like "deter china". We didnt threat anyone with our nukes, we obeserve "No-First-Use" nuclear policy.
As for Japan, and South Korea, they are capable enough to develop their own nukes, they just are not allowed to own nukes. And I believe india dare not do what you have suggeted.

 

[Daredevil]

Come on, the flawed logic is yours, you said India needs to own nukes because China had nukes. It seems all India is doing is to deter China. Deter China?

Indeed, China will now think twice before going to war.

Let me tell you, wether china had nukes or not, India was going to develop nukes anyway. China is just an excuse for India to do so. If you just want to have nukes, pls admit it, dont hide your ambitions by repeating crap like "deter china". We didnt threat anyone with our nukes, we obeserve "No-First-Use" nuclear policy.

Look at the time line. India developed nukes after China has developed. Now, you tell me, why China needs nukes and why it developed them in the first place?

Even India has a NFU policy unlike your attack dogs Pakistan who doesn't have that policy.

As for Japan, and South Korea, they are capable enough to develop their own nukes, they just are not allowed to own nukes. And I believe india dare not do what you have suggeted.

What about Vietnam, Taiwan?. They don't have scientific base to develop nuclear weapons and they would love to have them to deter China. Shouldn't they be given some nukes ?

 

[nimo_cn]

Indeed, China will now think twice before going to war.
Look at the time line. India developed nukes after China has developed. Now, you tell me, why China needs nukes and why it developed them in the first place?

Yes, we developed nukes before you did, that is because we were actually threatened by both USA and USSR with nukes. Especially USA, they claimed agian and again they would bomb China with nukes in Korean War. So we had to develop nukes to protect us from being destroyed by nukes. And i want to emphasize that again, we havent intended to use nukes to against India, even before India had nukes, it is your illusion that we are threating you, so "deter china" is just an excuse for India to develop nukes.

Even India has a NFU policy unlike your attack dogs Pakistan who doesn't have that policy.

Everyone include indian will feel insulted if his/her country is described as "other's attack dog", I hope our discussion can be carried on in a polite way. I suggest that such sentence should never appear during our further discussion.
It is great that India can establish the NFU policy, it indicates that india is a responsible country. But it doesnt mean Pakistan must have that policy ,too. And it shouldn't be surprised that Pakistan doesnt observe such policy, neither do coutries like US and Russia. Pakistan is a sovereign country, she can determine what policy she wants to take. And again, the relationship between China and Pakistan is normal and equal, we respect the decision they have made.

What about Vietnam, Taiwan?. They don't have scientific base to develop nuclear weapons and they would love to have them to deter China. Shouldn't they be given some nukes ?

Dont underestimate taiwan, she has more advanced technologies than India, like Japan, South Korea.she is just not allowed to do so. And you should be aware that taiwan is an integral part of China, and such fact is admitted by india governmet. For what reason Inida can and will give nukes to taiwan?
As for Vietnam, i dont know if she is capable of doing that.
And I dont think it is possible that India would take the suggestion you have raised.
There is a consensus among international community, the more countries own nukes, the more dangerous the world will be. So what we should do now is to work together on the issue like nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation.

 

[Daredevil]

Yes, we developed nukes before you did, that is because we were actually threatened by both USA and USSR with nukes. Especially USA, they claimed agian and again they would bomb China with nukes in Korean War. So we had to develop nukes to protect us from being destroyed by nukes. And i want to emphasize that again, we havent intended to use nukes to against India, even before India had nukes, it is your illusion that we are threating you, so "deter china" is just an excuse for India to develop nukes.

Same reasons for India to develop nukes after getting bloody nose in 1962 war. It is threatened by China and India needed nukes to deter china. But we have developed it ourselves and not gifted by anyone the way China did with Pakistan. Do you not feel China did a wrong thing by giving nukes to Pakistan?

Everyone include indian will feel insulted if his/her country is described as "other's attack dog", I hope our discussion can be carried on in a polite way. I suggest that such sentence should never appear during our further discussion.

Its a figure of speech, no need for you to get worked up.

It is great that India can establish the NFU policy, it indicates that india is a responsible country. But it doesnt mean Pakistan must have that policy ,too. And it shouldn't be surprised that Pakistan doesnt observe such policy, neither do coutries like US and Russia. Pakistan is a sovereign country, she can determine what policy she wants to take. And again, the relationship between China and Pakistan is normal and equal, we respect the decision they have made.

Pakistan may be a sovereign country but it is a rogue state which has been sponsoring terrorism against India for nearly two decades now and is a epicenter of world terrorist activities (9/11, London Bomb blasts, Mumbai attacks etc) . Nukes in the hands of such states which are irresponsible in actions not a wise decision. But China gave nukes to a rogue state. What should one make of it?. Why should China give nukes and missiles to Pakistan?.

Dont underestimate taiwan, she has more advanced technologies than India, like Japan, South Korea.she is just not allowed to do so. And you should be aware that taiwan is an integral part of China, and such fact is admitted by india governmet. For what reason Inida can and will give nukes to taiwan?
As for Vietnam, i dont know if she is capable of doing that.
And I dont think it is possible that India would take the suggestion you have raised.

The question I asked is would China like if Vietnam/taiwan are given missiles and nukes for use against China??. Don't digress from that question.

There is a consensus among international community, the more countries own nukes, the more dangerous the world will be. So what we should do now is to work together on the issue like nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation.

Then why did China proliferate its nukes to a rogue country like Pakistan which it again proliferated to more rogue countries like NoKo, Iran etc. Did China behaved like a responsible country by giving such goodies to irresponsible nation.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

The question I asked is would China like if Vietnam/taiwan are given missiles and nukes for use against China??. Don't digress from that question.

Vietnam was under the Soveit nuclear umbrella with Soviet SSBNs making port calls. Taiwan was under the American nulcear umbrella and as far as the Mainland is concerned, still is.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Then why did China proliferate its nukes to a rogue country like Pakistan which it again proliferated to more rogue countries like NoKo, Iran etc. Did China behaved like a responsible country by giving such goodies to irresponsible nation.

The stuff that North Korea got directly from China and Russia all went through IAEA inspections and were legal under the NPT and NSG rules.

The AQ Khan stuff were illegal and ultimately not used by the November Kilos. The only thing Iran has ever done wrong is nuclear weapons research and dual use equipment but uranium enrichment by itself is not illegal under NPT and NSG rules.

 

[Daredevil]

The stuff that North Korea got directly from China and Russia all went through IAEA inspections and were legal under the NPT and NSG rules.

The AQ Khan stuff were illegal and ultimately not used by the November Kilos. The only thing Iran has ever done wrong is nuclear weapons research and dual use equipment but uranium enrichment by itself is not illegal under NPT and NSG rules.

Sir, I was only referring to AQ Khan network. But what we don't know is what else (centrifuges and components for enrichment for example) apart from designs has been supplied to NoKo. There were reports that there were lot of flights between NoKo and Pakistan for this sole purpose. I have to dig out for that article. Only Pakistan and NoKo knows about it.

Added later: Here, all about AQ Khan nuclear peddling (with consent of GoP) to NoKo.

http://www.CarnegieEndowment.org/static/npp/Khan_Chronology.pdf
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=17420

 

[Officer of Engineers]

The missiles I know about. Don't get me wrong, DD, I want to know if there was co-operation between the November Kilos and the Pappa Romeo Charlies. What I do know is that the modified CIHC-4 blueprints, the best warheads in the Pakistani arsenal, found in Geneva did not use plutonium. So, that automatically means that the November Kilos did not use AQ Khan's work.

 

[Daredevil]

The missiles I know about. Don't get me wrong, DD, I want to know if there was co-operation between the November Kilos and the Pappa Romeo Charlies. What I do know is that the modified CIHC-4 blueprints, the best warheads in the Pakistani arsenal, found in Geneva did not use plutonium. So, that automatically means that the November Kilos did not use AQ Khan's work.

Sir, what I'm saying is the centrifuges,enrichment machines, components and Uranium hexafluoride that they gave to NoKo might have been used to make Plutonium bomb, which is different from HEU based CHIC-4 design supplied by Pakistan.

Plutonium can be easily extracted from Uranium and the technology and the fuel to make HEU has been given by Pakistanis. So, indirectly Pakistanis have helped NoKo in getting Plutonium bomb which may or may not have given a good yield. Now what remains a puzzle is, did NoKo designed the plutonium bomb by itself or were they given the design by some one else?.

Correct me if I'm wrong.