US prepared to snatch Pakistan nukes
- Thread starter LETHALFORCE
- Start date
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,871
- Likes
- 48,534
Splitting atoms: Can your nukes save you? – The Express Tribune Blog
Splitting atoms: Can your nukes save you?
Pakistan's nuclear program, much like Pakistan itself, is always a headline grabber. And like Pakistan, it's usually for all the wrong reasons. Certainly, there are all the perfect ingredients for a pot-boiler present –the potential death of millions, espionage, conspiracy, the threat of pilferage and/or outright takeover and so on.
Also predictably, very few of us really see eye to eye on the usefulness of this programme. Those to the left of the political spectrum see it as a wasteful, dangerous and unnecessary tool, while the rightists amongst us see it as an indispensable asset and a laudable achievement. There are arguments to be made for both cases but, as is so often the case, debate degenerates into a shouting match. Lots of sound, fury and personal attacks, but little or no cogent analysis.
So here's my own, admittedly amateurish attempt at that analysis.
In the beginning"¦
It's 1972, and a highly demoralised and humiliated Pakistan, shorn of its eastern wing, decides that India's conventional preponderance simply cannot be matched without a nuclear deterrent. With all the strategic gospel previously expounded by Pakistan's military geniuses proven to be just hot air, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto jumpstarts Pakistan's nuclear programme. Two years later, the Buddha smiles from across the border, flashing nuclear-tipped teeth and sending shivers down the spines of Pakistan strategic planners.
If there were any doubts about the need for a nuclear programme, they were now dispelled. What followed was a coordinated, no-holds-barred effort at obtaining these weapons of mass destruction. The story of how Pakistan acquired this technology is like something right out of Tom Clancy – involving fake companies, good old-fashion humint, and a shell game of epic proportions. Honestly it's something to be proud of, and we're in good company as far as this kind of espionage is concerned. The USSR's N-programme only got off the ground thanks to spies – and spies are what largely keep China's nuclear arsenal modernized. In fact, espionage is probably one of the leading vectors when it comes to the spread of just about any technology. Of course, in typical Pakistani fashion, what started out as a brilliant international network quickly descended into disgrace and farce when "certain someones" took it on themselves to "allegedly" use that network for international proliferation. The rest, as they say, is history.
Coming back to the programme itself, it is important to realise that it is reactive in nature, just as Pakistan's 1998 nuclear tests were, coming as they did after India's own tests. The main purpose of this arsenal is to prevent Indian forces from capturing large parts of Pakistan's territory. As such, Pakistan's nuclear doctrine must logically remain ambiguous and the nuclear threshold – the red line beyond which the use of these weapons is allowed – undefined. This also means, of course, that the Pakistani nuclear doctrine is almost 100% that of first strike. This is precisely why President Zardari's comment about proposing a no-first-use pact with India created such a flap.
Will we, won't we?
Let's examine that doctrine a little more: in a large-scale Indo-Pak military conflict, India will certainly not opt for first strike because its preponderance in conventional arms means it simply won't have to. The situation is different when it comes to Pakistan. An outgunned Pakistani military, faced with the prospect of Indian troops marching in, may well opt to blast a troop formation – or logistic hub- with nuclear weapons. This will be what is referred to as a tactical nuclear strike, and will likely (initially at least) target only military assets. Of course, once the first strike is in, India will retaliate on 'strategic' targets – effectively obliterating major cities. If Pakistan still has the capability of a second strike (which the diffused nature of the nuclear programme is aimed at ensuring) then Indian population centers will very much be on the target list. In the end, millions will die and the survivors will face plague, famine and a lingering death. No one really wins a nuclear war when both sides have nukes (imperial Japan, I'm thinking of you).
Here then is the sub-continental version of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), the concept that kept the cold war from getting, well, toasty. Of course, nuclear deterrence didn't keep the USA and USSR from using the rest of the world as a proxy battleground and every once in a while, nuclear brinkmanship did in fact bring us all perilously close to annihilation. Still, an argument can certainly be made that without MAD, the Warsaw Pact would have used its conventional superiority to roll over Western Europe.
Slightly MAD
So does MAD apply to the subcontinent? Yes and No. It's true that there have been no 'real' wars between Pakistan and India since the nuclear tests, but in 1999 our military leadership decided in all its wisdom to go ahead and capture Kargil, expecting that it wouldn't lead to a full mobilization of Indian forces and that the Indian high command would take it as a fait accompli. Clearly an over-reliance on the deterrence value of nuclear weapons was a major factor in this calculation. It was a good idea, except that it really didn't work. India mobilized, Pakistan reportedly started arming its nuclear weapons and then daddy Clinton had to step in and cool things down. The lesson here is that possessing nuclear weapons is NOT a license to do as you please, or to wage proxy wars with impunity. Another lesson here was that while Pakistan's nuclear threshold is ambiguous, so too is India's conventional threshold. Translated this means that while a formal armed incursion into Indian territory will certainly be a causus belli, so too can be action by non-state actors. Harken back to the attack on the Indian parliament in 2002 and you'll see what I mean. The bottom line is that nuclear weapons can impose a (fairly cold) peace, but try not to push your luck – or someone may just push the button.
The ultimate insurance?
Now, let's move beyond the military and tactical to the global and geopolitical. One thing nuclear weapons can do is prevent forcible regime change by outside forces. For example, if Saddam had actually possessed nukes, you can bet your bottom dollar he'd still be twirling his impressive moochis on Baghdad TV. Same goes for Gaddafi. In fact, despite western rhetoric about how no one but them should have nukes, I am yet to hear a single reason why a state that considers itself in danger of foreign invasion should not want to secure itself with nuclear weapons. I mean, just look at North Korea: the Kim dynasty has successfully alienated every single friend it ever had, sees its citizens starve on a daily basis and is generally despised by all and sundry and yet manages to cling onto power. No one really wants to topple them, and certainly no one considers military action against Pyongyang simply because they're pretty sure the Kims will let the nukes fly if they tried.
So yes, nuclear weapons will prevent a full-on invasion, but they won't prevent covert operations by your enemies and their internal allies and certainly will have absolutely no effect on internal dissent. In simpler terms, they'll hold the infantry at bay but not the insurgents. They'll keep Amreeka's army off your back, but not your apna awaam. Even if Hosni Mubarak had slept on an enriched uranium bed every night, it wouldn't have meant anything to the Tahrir Square revolutionaries. The corollary of this is that nukes can and do give even the most odious regime a degree of longevity, and if one such regime did come to power in Pakistan, well, don't expect any foreign intervention to get them off our backs.
Another thing that nukes won't do for you is to prevent your country from falling apart around your ears. It didn't work for the USSR, and it won't work for Pakistan either. Some can and do argue that the cost of developing, storing and maintaining nuclear weapons is in itself intolerable for a country like Pakistan, but that argument assumes that whatever money may have been saved by not developing nuclear weapons would have instead been ploughed into development. If you believe that, given that the lion's share of the budget historically goes to the military, then I have a wonderful bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to sell you.
No, that money would have simply resulted in the purchase of more tanks and more planes – not in the building of roads, schools and hospitals.
So finally, it's a sad fact that nuclear weapons do seem to be a necessary evil while living in a highly militarised part of the world. But these weapons are simply a means to an end and not an end in themselves. Given that we now seem to spend more time and effort on protecting the weapons that should be protecting us, now may be a good time to figure out exactly what that end is.
Splitting atoms: Can your nukes save you?
Pakistan's nuclear program, much like Pakistan itself, is always a headline grabber. And like Pakistan, it's usually for all the wrong reasons. Certainly, there are all the perfect ingredients for a pot-boiler present –the potential death of millions, espionage, conspiracy, the threat of pilferage and/or outright takeover and so on.
Also predictably, very few of us really see eye to eye on the usefulness of this programme. Those to the left of the political spectrum see it as a wasteful, dangerous and unnecessary tool, while the rightists amongst us see it as an indispensable asset and a laudable achievement. There are arguments to be made for both cases but, as is so often the case, debate degenerates into a shouting match. Lots of sound, fury and personal attacks, but little or no cogent analysis.
So here's my own, admittedly amateurish attempt at that analysis.
In the beginning"¦
It's 1972, and a highly demoralised and humiliated Pakistan, shorn of its eastern wing, decides that India's conventional preponderance simply cannot be matched without a nuclear deterrent. With all the strategic gospel previously expounded by Pakistan's military geniuses proven to be just hot air, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto jumpstarts Pakistan's nuclear programme. Two years later, the Buddha smiles from across the border, flashing nuclear-tipped teeth and sending shivers down the spines of Pakistan strategic planners.
If there were any doubts about the need for a nuclear programme, they were now dispelled. What followed was a coordinated, no-holds-barred effort at obtaining these weapons of mass destruction. The story of how Pakistan acquired this technology is like something right out of Tom Clancy – involving fake companies, good old-fashion humint, and a shell game of epic proportions. Honestly it's something to be proud of, and we're in good company as far as this kind of espionage is concerned. The USSR's N-programme only got off the ground thanks to spies – and spies are what largely keep China's nuclear arsenal modernized. In fact, espionage is probably one of the leading vectors when it comes to the spread of just about any technology. Of course, in typical Pakistani fashion, what started out as a brilliant international network quickly descended into disgrace and farce when "certain someones" took it on themselves to "allegedly" use that network for international proliferation. The rest, as they say, is history.
Coming back to the programme itself, it is important to realise that it is reactive in nature, just as Pakistan's 1998 nuclear tests were, coming as they did after India's own tests. The main purpose of this arsenal is to prevent Indian forces from capturing large parts of Pakistan's territory. As such, Pakistan's nuclear doctrine must logically remain ambiguous and the nuclear threshold – the red line beyond which the use of these weapons is allowed – undefined. This also means, of course, that the Pakistani nuclear doctrine is almost 100% that of first strike. This is precisely why President Zardari's comment about proposing a no-first-use pact with India created such a flap.
Will we, won't we?
Let's examine that doctrine a little more: in a large-scale Indo-Pak military conflict, India will certainly not opt for first strike because its preponderance in conventional arms means it simply won't have to. The situation is different when it comes to Pakistan. An outgunned Pakistani military, faced with the prospect of Indian troops marching in, may well opt to blast a troop formation – or logistic hub- with nuclear weapons. This will be what is referred to as a tactical nuclear strike, and will likely (initially at least) target only military assets. Of course, once the first strike is in, India will retaliate on 'strategic' targets – effectively obliterating major cities. If Pakistan still has the capability of a second strike (which the diffused nature of the nuclear programme is aimed at ensuring) then Indian population centers will very much be on the target list. In the end, millions will die and the survivors will face plague, famine and a lingering death. No one really wins a nuclear war when both sides have nukes (imperial Japan, I'm thinking of you).
Here then is the sub-continental version of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), the concept that kept the cold war from getting, well, toasty. Of course, nuclear deterrence didn't keep the USA and USSR from using the rest of the world as a proxy battleground and every once in a while, nuclear brinkmanship did in fact bring us all perilously close to annihilation. Still, an argument can certainly be made that without MAD, the Warsaw Pact would have used its conventional superiority to roll over Western Europe.
Slightly MAD
So does MAD apply to the subcontinent? Yes and No. It's true that there have been no 'real' wars between Pakistan and India since the nuclear tests, but in 1999 our military leadership decided in all its wisdom to go ahead and capture Kargil, expecting that it wouldn't lead to a full mobilization of Indian forces and that the Indian high command would take it as a fait accompli. Clearly an over-reliance on the deterrence value of nuclear weapons was a major factor in this calculation. It was a good idea, except that it really didn't work. India mobilized, Pakistan reportedly started arming its nuclear weapons and then daddy Clinton had to step in and cool things down. The lesson here is that possessing nuclear weapons is NOT a license to do as you please, or to wage proxy wars with impunity. Another lesson here was that while Pakistan's nuclear threshold is ambiguous, so too is India's conventional threshold. Translated this means that while a formal armed incursion into Indian territory will certainly be a causus belli, so too can be action by non-state actors. Harken back to the attack on the Indian parliament in 2002 and you'll see what I mean. The bottom line is that nuclear weapons can impose a (fairly cold) peace, but try not to push your luck – or someone may just push the button.
The ultimate insurance?
Now, let's move beyond the military and tactical to the global and geopolitical. One thing nuclear weapons can do is prevent forcible regime change by outside forces. For example, if Saddam had actually possessed nukes, you can bet your bottom dollar he'd still be twirling his impressive moochis on Baghdad TV. Same goes for Gaddafi. In fact, despite western rhetoric about how no one but them should have nukes, I am yet to hear a single reason why a state that considers itself in danger of foreign invasion should not want to secure itself with nuclear weapons. I mean, just look at North Korea: the Kim dynasty has successfully alienated every single friend it ever had, sees its citizens starve on a daily basis and is generally despised by all and sundry and yet manages to cling onto power. No one really wants to topple them, and certainly no one considers military action against Pyongyang simply because they're pretty sure the Kims will let the nukes fly if they tried.
So yes, nuclear weapons will prevent a full-on invasion, but they won't prevent covert operations by your enemies and their internal allies and certainly will have absolutely no effect on internal dissent. In simpler terms, they'll hold the infantry at bay but not the insurgents. They'll keep Amreeka's army off your back, but not your apna awaam. Even if Hosni Mubarak had slept on an enriched uranium bed every night, it wouldn't have meant anything to the Tahrir Square revolutionaries. The corollary of this is that nukes can and do give even the most odious regime a degree of longevity, and if one such regime did come to power in Pakistan, well, don't expect any foreign intervention to get them off our backs.
Another thing that nukes won't do for you is to prevent your country from falling apart around your ears. It didn't work for the USSR, and it won't work for Pakistan either. Some can and do argue that the cost of developing, storing and maintaining nuclear weapons is in itself intolerable for a country like Pakistan, but that argument assumes that whatever money may have been saved by not developing nuclear weapons would have instead been ploughed into development. If you believe that, given that the lion's share of the budget historically goes to the military, then I have a wonderful bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to sell you.
No, that money would have simply resulted in the purchase of more tanks and more planes – not in the building of roads, schools and hospitals.
So finally, it's a sad fact that nuclear weapons do seem to be a necessary evil while living in a highly militarised part of the world. But these weapons are simply a means to an end and not an end in themselves. Given that we now seem to spend more time and effort on protecting the weapons that should be protecting us, now may be a good time to figure out exactly what that end is.
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,871
- Likes
- 48,534
Taliban commander wants Pakistan's nukes, global Islamic caliphate - The Long War Journal
Taliban commander wants Pakistan's nukes
One of the top leaders of the Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan said the terror group seeks to overthrow the Pakistani government, impose sharia, or Islamic law, seize the country's nuclear weapons, and wage jihad until "the Caliphate is established across the world."
The statements were made by Omar Khalid al Khurasani, the al Qaeda-linked leader of the Movement the Taliban in Pakistan's branch in the Mohmand tribal agency, in a video that was released on jihadist web forums yesterday. The video, which also discussed the history and evolution of the Movement the Taliban in Pakistan, was released by Umar Studios and has been translated by the SITE Intelligence Group.
In the video, Khalid said the Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan was united and strong and operating under the leadership of Hakeemullah Mehsud. Khalid outlined five "important goals" of the Taliban: overthrow the Pakistani institutions; release both Pakistani and "foreign" fighters; impose sharia law; obtain a nuclear weapon; and establish a global caliphate.
"First of all, we aim to counter the Pakistani government, its intelligence agencies, and its army, which are each against Islam and have oppressed the mujahideen and their families," Khalid said, according to the SITE translation. The Taliban want to "avenge the oppression of the mujahideen in the tribal and urban areas" as well as the "humiliation of the mujahideen in Pakistani prisons."
"Our second objective is to seek the safe release of Pakistani and foreign mujahideen in Pakistan," Khalid continued. The term "foreign mujahideen" refers to members of al Qaeda and other outside terror groups such as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.
Khalid said the Taliban want to "replace the English system of democracy with Islamic Shariah" as "the Pakistani system has nothing to do with Islam."
Khalid also said that the Taliban want to seize Pakistan's nuclear weapons and "other resources," including the army, to defend Islam.
"Another objective of Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan is to use Pakistan's strengths including the atomic bomb, army, and other resources, to guide other Muslim countries and for the survival of Islam," Khalid said. "Pakistan's soil, Pakistan's people and Pakistan's mujahideen must not be used to serve American interests, but must be used for the survival and integrity of Islam."
Finally, Khalid said that the Taliban would continue their fight even after taking over Pakistan and Afghanistan.
"Our objectives are as clear as the orders in the Qur'an, which is our constitution. Allah said in the Qur'an: 'Fight against hypocrites and apostates till there is no more fitna [sedition],'" he said. "So, until Islam is implemented in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the Caliphate is established across the world, our jihad will continue. This is our first and foremost objective."
Omar Khalid, the Taliban commander of Mohmand agency, in 2007
Mohmand Taliban under command of able leader
Khalid is a senior deputy of Hakeemullah Mehsud's Taliban movement. Khalid is considered one of the Taliban's most effective and powerful leaders in the tribal areas. He also maintains close ties to al Qaeda and is believed to have given sanctuary to Ayman al Zawahiri in the past.
Khalid is also allied with Qari Zia Rahman, the dual-hatted Taliban and al Qaeda leader who operates in Pakistan's tribal agencies of Mohmand and Bajaur as well as in Afghanistan's provinces of Kunar and Nuristan. Rahman established and runs the suicide training camps that are used to indoctrinate and train female bombers [see LWJ report, Al Qaeda, Taliban create female suicide cells in Pakistan and Afghanistan]. In August 2011, Khalid claimed credit for a female suicide attack in Peshawar.
Khalid has been active in the Taliban's propaganda machine since the death of Osama bin Laden, and has been vocal in his support of al Qaeda. In mid-May, Khalid vowed revenge on Pakistani and US forces for the death of Osama bin Laden.
"We will take revenge of Osama's killing from the Pakistani government, its security forces, the Pakistani ISI, the CIA and the Americans, they are now on our hit list," Khalid said. "Osama bin Laden has given us the ideology of Islam and Jihad, by his death we are not scattered but it has given us more strength to continue his mission."
In early June, Khalid said the Taliban have been behind the spate of attacks in Pakistan and again threatened the US.
"Our war against America is continuing inside and outside of Pakistan. When we launch attacks, it will prove that we can hit American targets outside Pakistan," Khalid said.
In the same interview, Khalid said that Ayman al Zawahiri is al Qaeda's "chief and supreme leader." He stated this more than one week before Zawahiri was officially declared emir of al Qaeda.
Khalid gained prominence during the summer of 2007 after taking over a famous shrine in Mohmand and renaming it the Red Mosque in honor of the radical mosque in Islamabad whose followers had attempted to impose sharia in the capital.
The Mohmand Taliban took control of the tribal agency after the Pakistani government negotiated a peace agreement with the extremists at the end of May 2008. The deal required the Taliban to renounce attacks on the Pakistani government and security forces. The Taliban said they would maintain a ban on the activities of nongovernmental organizations in the region but agreed not to attack women in the workplace as long as they wore veils. Both sides exchanged prisoners.
The Taliban promptly established a parallel government in Mohmand. Sharia courts were formed, and orders were given for women to wear the veil in public. "Criminals" were rounded up and judged in sharia courts. Women were ordered to have a male escort at all times and were prevented from working on farms. The Taliban also kidnapped members of a polio vaccination team.
In July 2008, Khalid became the dominant Taliban commander in Mohmand after defeating the Shah Sahib group, a rival pro-Taliban terror group with ties to the Lashkar-e-Taiba. The military claimed it killed Khalid in January of 2009, but the Taliban denied the report and he has since surfaced.
The Pakistani government placed a $123,000 bounty on Khalid's head in 2009. But Pakistan has failed not only to arrest or kill Khalid; it has yet to capture or kill any of the terrorist leaders on that bounty list. The US succeeded in killing Baitullah Mehsud, who topped the list, in a drone strike in South Waziristan in August 2009.
Read more: Taliban commander wants Pakistan's nukes, global Islamic caliphate - The Long War Journal
Taliban commander wants Pakistan's nukes
One of the top leaders of the Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan said the terror group seeks to overthrow the Pakistani government, impose sharia, or Islamic law, seize the country's nuclear weapons, and wage jihad until "the Caliphate is established across the world."
The statements were made by Omar Khalid al Khurasani, the al Qaeda-linked leader of the Movement the Taliban in Pakistan's branch in the Mohmand tribal agency, in a video that was released on jihadist web forums yesterday. The video, which also discussed the history and evolution of the Movement the Taliban in Pakistan, was released by Umar Studios and has been translated by the SITE Intelligence Group.
In the video, Khalid said the Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan was united and strong and operating under the leadership of Hakeemullah Mehsud. Khalid outlined five "important goals" of the Taliban: overthrow the Pakistani institutions; release both Pakistani and "foreign" fighters; impose sharia law; obtain a nuclear weapon; and establish a global caliphate.
"First of all, we aim to counter the Pakistani government, its intelligence agencies, and its army, which are each against Islam and have oppressed the mujahideen and their families," Khalid said, according to the SITE translation. The Taliban want to "avenge the oppression of the mujahideen in the tribal and urban areas" as well as the "humiliation of the mujahideen in Pakistani prisons."
"Our second objective is to seek the safe release of Pakistani and foreign mujahideen in Pakistan," Khalid continued. The term "foreign mujahideen" refers to members of al Qaeda and other outside terror groups such as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.
Khalid said the Taliban want to "replace the English system of democracy with Islamic Shariah" as "the Pakistani system has nothing to do with Islam."
Khalid also said that the Taliban want to seize Pakistan's nuclear weapons and "other resources," including the army, to defend Islam.
"Another objective of Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan is to use Pakistan's strengths including the atomic bomb, army, and other resources, to guide other Muslim countries and for the survival of Islam," Khalid said. "Pakistan's soil, Pakistan's people and Pakistan's mujahideen must not be used to serve American interests, but must be used for the survival and integrity of Islam."
Finally, Khalid said that the Taliban would continue their fight even after taking over Pakistan and Afghanistan.
"Our objectives are as clear as the orders in the Qur'an, which is our constitution. Allah said in the Qur'an: 'Fight against hypocrites and apostates till there is no more fitna [sedition],'" he said. "So, until Islam is implemented in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the Caliphate is established across the world, our jihad will continue. This is our first and foremost objective."
Omar Khalid, the Taliban commander of Mohmand agency, in 2007
Mohmand Taliban under command of able leader
Khalid is a senior deputy of Hakeemullah Mehsud's Taliban movement. Khalid is considered one of the Taliban's most effective and powerful leaders in the tribal areas. He also maintains close ties to al Qaeda and is believed to have given sanctuary to Ayman al Zawahiri in the past.
Khalid is also allied with Qari Zia Rahman, the dual-hatted Taliban and al Qaeda leader who operates in Pakistan's tribal agencies of Mohmand and Bajaur as well as in Afghanistan's provinces of Kunar and Nuristan. Rahman established and runs the suicide training camps that are used to indoctrinate and train female bombers [see LWJ report, Al Qaeda, Taliban create female suicide cells in Pakistan and Afghanistan]. In August 2011, Khalid claimed credit for a female suicide attack in Peshawar.
Khalid has been active in the Taliban's propaganda machine since the death of Osama bin Laden, and has been vocal in his support of al Qaeda. In mid-May, Khalid vowed revenge on Pakistani and US forces for the death of Osama bin Laden.
"We will take revenge of Osama's killing from the Pakistani government, its security forces, the Pakistani ISI, the CIA and the Americans, they are now on our hit list," Khalid said. "Osama bin Laden has given us the ideology of Islam and Jihad, by his death we are not scattered but it has given us more strength to continue his mission."
In early June, Khalid said the Taliban have been behind the spate of attacks in Pakistan and again threatened the US.
"Our war against America is continuing inside and outside of Pakistan. When we launch attacks, it will prove that we can hit American targets outside Pakistan," Khalid said.
In the same interview, Khalid said that Ayman al Zawahiri is al Qaeda's "chief and supreme leader." He stated this more than one week before Zawahiri was officially declared emir of al Qaeda.
Khalid gained prominence during the summer of 2007 after taking over a famous shrine in Mohmand and renaming it the Red Mosque in honor of the radical mosque in Islamabad whose followers had attempted to impose sharia in the capital.
The Mohmand Taliban took control of the tribal agency after the Pakistani government negotiated a peace agreement with the extremists at the end of May 2008. The deal required the Taliban to renounce attacks on the Pakistani government and security forces. The Taliban said they would maintain a ban on the activities of nongovernmental organizations in the region but agreed not to attack women in the workplace as long as they wore veils. Both sides exchanged prisoners.
The Taliban promptly established a parallel government in Mohmand. Sharia courts were formed, and orders were given for women to wear the veil in public. "Criminals" were rounded up and judged in sharia courts. Women were ordered to have a male escort at all times and were prevented from working on farms. The Taliban also kidnapped members of a polio vaccination team.
In July 2008, Khalid became the dominant Taliban commander in Mohmand after defeating the Shah Sahib group, a rival pro-Taliban terror group with ties to the Lashkar-e-Taiba. The military claimed it killed Khalid in January of 2009, but the Taliban denied the report and he has since surfaced.
The Pakistani government placed a $123,000 bounty on Khalid's head in 2009. But Pakistan has failed not only to arrest or kill Khalid; it has yet to capture or kill any of the terrorist leaders on that bounty list. The US succeeded in killing Baitullah Mehsud, who topped the list, in a drone strike in South Waziristan in August 2009.
Read more: Taliban commander wants Pakistan's nukes, global Islamic caliphate - The Long War Journal
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,871
- Likes
- 48,534
Saudis 'eye Pakistani nukes' to face Iran - UPI.com
Saudis 'eye Pakistani nukes' to face Iran
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates, Sept. 15 (UPI) -- Saudi Arabia has been beefing up its military links with Pakistan to counter Iran's expansionist plans and this reportedly includes acquiring atomic arms from the only Muslim nuclear power or its pledge of nuclear cover.
Pakistan has become a front-line state for Sunni Islam and is being positioned by its leaders, particularly in the powerful military and intelligence establishments, as a bulwark against Shiite Iran and its proxies.
Increasingly, Pakistan is rushing to the defense of Saudi Arabia, with whom it has a long had discreet security links. It is reported to have put two army divisions on standby for deployment to Saudi Arabia if the kingdom is threatened by Iran or the pro-democracy uprisings sweeping the Arab world.
It is even reported to be prepared to provide Saudi Arabia with nuclear weapons if threatened by Iran. In return, it has been promised Saudi Arabian oil and treasure.
The Saudis have portrayed the roiling rivalry with the Iranians as a new, menacing chapter of the 1,300-year-old struggle between Sunni and Shiite Islam.
"The stakes are enormous," says Bruce Riedel, a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist.
"Pakistan has the fastest growing nuclear arsenal in the world. It will soon surpass the United Kingdom as the fifth-largest nuclear arsenal. It is the sixth-largest country in the world in terms of population," Riedel wrote in the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel.
"It will soon surpass Indonesia as the country with the largest Muslim population."
The Saudis have long had close relations with Pakistan and there have been persistent reports that they, and other Persian Gulf states, have funded Islamabad's nuclear arms program for decades.
It is widely held in the Middle East that if Iran does produce nuclear weapons Pakistan will provide the Saudis with weapons from Islamabad's stockpile.
The Saudis have had close links with Abdul Qadeer Khan, father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb who provided nuclear expertise to Iran, Libya and North Korea until he was exposed in 2003.
The Pakistanis insist Khan, a revered national hero in his homeland, was acting on his own. But it is generally accepted that his "nuclear supermarket" couldn't have functioned without official approval.
Khan has admitted visiting Saudi Arabia as many as 50 times over the years and hosted Saudi officials visiting Pakistan several times.
"Given these connections, including persistent reports that the Saudis helped finance Pakistan's nuclear program, the kingdom's proximity to Iran, and its concern about the rise of (Shiite) transnationalism, Saudi Arabia is included on most analysts' list of countries likely to consider nuclear weapons as a security hedge if Iran acquires them," the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London observed in a 2006 analysis.
Concerns about Saudi plans to buy ready-made nuclear weapons, rather than go through the lengthy and verifiable process of developing their own, were raised in June 1994.
A Saudi defector, Mohammed Khilewi, the No. 2 official in the Saudi mission to the United Nations in New York, claimed Riyadh had paid up to $5 billion to Saddam Hussein to build it a nuclear weapon.
Khilewi, an expert in nuclear proliferation who was the Saudi delegate to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, had produced 13,000 documents to support his claim the kingdom engaged in a secret 20-year effort to acquire nuclear weapons, first with Iraq, which Riyadh backed in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, and then with Pakistan.
Khilewi's documents showed that Riyadh helped bankroll Pakistan's clandestine nuclear project and signed a pact that in the event Saudi Arabia was attacked with nuclear weapons, Islamabad would respond against the aggressor with its own nuclear arms.
The Wall Street Journal and Britain's Guardian daily said a leading Saudi royal, Prince Turki al-Faisal, warned U.S. and British military commanders meeting outside London June 8 that if Tehran didn't curtail its nuclear program, Riyadh would seek nuclear weapons of its own.
Iranian acquisition of nuclear arms, the prince said, "would compel Saudi Arabia "¦ to pursue policies which could lead to untold and possibly dramatic consequences."
Turki, who headed Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Directorate in 1977-2001, didn't spell out what those consequences might be but a senior official in Riyadh observed, "We cannot live in a situation where Iran has nuclear weapons and we don't."
Read more: Saudis 'eye Pakistani nukes' to face Iran - UPI.com
Saudis 'eye Pakistani nukes' to face Iran
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates, Sept. 15 (UPI) -- Saudi Arabia has been beefing up its military links with Pakistan to counter Iran's expansionist plans and this reportedly includes acquiring atomic arms from the only Muslim nuclear power or its pledge of nuclear cover.
Pakistan has become a front-line state for Sunni Islam and is being positioned by its leaders, particularly in the powerful military and intelligence establishments, as a bulwark against Shiite Iran and its proxies.
Increasingly, Pakistan is rushing to the defense of Saudi Arabia, with whom it has a long had discreet security links. It is reported to have put two army divisions on standby for deployment to Saudi Arabia if the kingdom is threatened by Iran or the pro-democracy uprisings sweeping the Arab world.
It is even reported to be prepared to provide Saudi Arabia with nuclear weapons if threatened by Iran. In return, it has been promised Saudi Arabian oil and treasure.
The Saudis have portrayed the roiling rivalry with the Iranians as a new, menacing chapter of the 1,300-year-old struggle between Sunni and Shiite Islam.
"The stakes are enormous," says Bruce Riedel, a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist.
"Pakistan has the fastest growing nuclear arsenal in the world. It will soon surpass the United Kingdom as the fifth-largest nuclear arsenal. It is the sixth-largest country in the world in terms of population," Riedel wrote in the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel.
"It will soon surpass Indonesia as the country with the largest Muslim population."
The Saudis have long had close relations with Pakistan and there have been persistent reports that they, and other Persian Gulf states, have funded Islamabad's nuclear arms program for decades.
It is widely held in the Middle East that if Iran does produce nuclear weapons Pakistan will provide the Saudis with weapons from Islamabad's stockpile.
The Saudis have had close links with Abdul Qadeer Khan, father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb who provided nuclear expertise to Iran, Libya and North Korea until he was exposed in 2003.
The Pakistanis insist Khan, a revered national hero in his homeland, was acting on his own. But it is generally accepted that his "nuclear supermarket" couldn't have functioned without official approval.
Khan has admitted visiting Saudi Arabia as many as 50 times over the years and hosted Saudi officials visiting Pakistan several times.
"Given these connections, including persistent reports that the Saudis helped finance Pakistan's nuclear program, the kingdom's proximity to Iran, and its concern about the rise of (Shiite) transnationalism, Saudi Arabia is included on most analysts' list of countries likely to consider nuclear weapons as a security hedge if Iran acquires them," the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London observed in a 2006 analysis.
Concerns about Saudi plans to buy ready-made nuclear weapons, rather than go through the lengthy and verifiable process of developing their own, were raised in June 1994.
A Saudi defector, Mohammed Khilewi, the No. 2 official in the Saudi mission to the United Nations in New York, claimed Riyadh had paid up to $5 billion to Saddam Hussein to build it a nuclear weapon.
Khilewi, an expert in nuclear proliferation who was the Saudi delegate to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, had produced 13,000 documents to support his claim the kingdom engaged in a secret 20-year effort to acquire nuclear weapons, first with Iraq, which Riyadh backed in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, and then with Pakistan.
Khilewi's documents showed that Riyadh helped bankroll Pakistan's clandestine nuclear project and signed a pact that in the event Saudi Arabia was attacked with nuclear weapons, Islamabad would respond against the aggressor with its own nuclear arms.
The Wall Street Journal and Britain's Guardian daily said a leading Saudi royal, Prince Turki al-Faisal, warned U.S. and British military commanders meeting outside London June 8 that if Tehran didn't curtail its nuclear program, Riyadh would seek nuclear weapons of its own.
Iranian acquisition of nuclear arms, the prince said, "would compel Saudi Arabia "¦ to pursue policies which could lead to untold and possibly dramatic consequences."
Turki, who headed Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Directorate in 1977-2001, didn't spell out what those consequences might be but a senior official in Riyadh observed, "We cannot live in a situation where Iran has nuclear weapons and we don't."
Read more: Saudis 'eye Pakistani nukes' to face Iran - UPI.com
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,871
- Likes
- 48,534
Let's Buy Pakistan's Nukes - WSJ.com
Let's Buy Pakistan's Nukes
Every visitor to Pakistan has seen them: 20-foot tall roadside replicas of a remote mountain where, a decade ago, Pakistan conducted its first overt nuclear tests. This is what the country's leaders -- military, secular, Islamist -- consider their greatest achievement.
So here's a modest proposal: Let's buy their arsenal.
A.Q. Khan, father of Pakistan's nuclear program (and midwife to a few others), likes to point out what a feat it was that a country "where we can't even make a bicycle chain" could succeed at such an immense technological task. He exaggerates somewhat: Pakistan got its bomb largely through a combination of industrial theft, systematic violation of Western export controls, and a blueprint of a weapon courtesy of Beijing.
Still, give Mr. Khan this: Thanks partly to his efforts, a country that has impoverished the great mass of its own people, corruptly enriched a tiny handful of elites, served as a base of terrorism against its neighbors, lost control of its intelligence services, radicalized untold numbers of Muslims in its madrassas, handed the presidency to a man known as Mr. 10%, and proliferated nuclear technology to Libya and Iran (among others) has, nevertheless, made itself a power to be reckoned with. Congratulations.
But if Pakistanis thought a bomb would be a net national asset, they miscalculated. Yes, Islamabad gained parity with its adversaries in New Delhi, gained prestige in the Muslim world, and gained a day of national pride, celebrated every May 28.
What Pakistan didn't gain was greater security. "The most significant reality was that the bomb promoted a culture of violence which . . . acquired the form of a monster with innumerable heads of terror," wrote Pakistani nuclear physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy earlier this year. "Because of this bomb, we can definitely destroy India and be destroyed in its response. But its function is limited to this."
In 2007, some 1,500 Pakistani civilians were killed in terrorist attacks. None of those attacks were perpetrated by India or any other country against which Pakistan's warheads could be targeted, unless it aimed at itself. But Pakistan's nuclear arsenal has made it an inviting target for the jihadists who blew up Islamabad's Marriott hotel in September and would gladly blow up the rest of the capital as a prelude to taking it over.
The day that happens may not be so very far off. President Asif Ali Zardari was recently in the U.S. asking for $100 billion to stave off economic collapse. So far, the international community has ponied up about $15 billion. That puts Mr. Zardari $85 billion shy of his fund-raising target. Meantime, the average Taliban foot soldier brings home monthly wages that are 30% higher than uniformed Pakistani security personnel.
Preventing the disintegration of Pakistan, perhaps in the wake of a war with India (how much restraint will New Delhi show after the next Mumbai-style atrocity?), will be the Obama administration's most urgent foreign-policy challenge. Since Mr. Obama has already committed a trillion or so in new domestic spending, what's $100 billion in the cause of saving the world?
This is the deal I have in mind. The government of Pakistan would verifiably eliminate its entire nuclear stockpile and the industrial base that sustains it. In exchange, the U.S. and other Western donors would agree to a $100 billion economic package, administered by an independent authority and disbursed over 10 years, on condition that Pakistan remain a democratic and secular state (no military rulers; no Sharia law). It would supplement that package with military aid similar to what the U.S. provides Israel: F-35 fighters, M-1 tanks, Apache helicopters. The U.S. would also extend its nuclear umbrella to Pakistan, just as Hillary Clinton now proposes to do for Israel.
A pipe dream? Not necessarily. People forget that the world has subtracted more nuclear powers over the past two decades than it has added: Kazakhstan, Belarus, Ukraine and South Africa all voluntarily relinquished their stockpiles in the 1990s. Libya did away with its program in 2003 when Moammar Gadhafi concluded that a bomb would be a net liability, and that he had more to gain by coming to terms with the West.
There's no compelling reason Mr. Zardari and his military brass shouldn't reach the same conclusion, assuming excellent terms and desperate circumstances. Sure, a large segment of Pakistanis will never agree. Others, who have subsisted on a diet of leaves and grass so Pakistan could have its bomb, might take a more pragmatic view.
The tragedy of Pakistan is that it remains a country that can't do the basics, like make a bicycle chain. If what its leaders want is prestige, prosperity and lasting security, they could start by creating an economy that can make one -- while unlearning how to make the bomb.
Let's Buy Pakistan's Nukes
Every visitor to Pakistan has seen them: 20-foot tall roadside replicas of a remote mountain where, a decade ago, Pakistan conducted its first overt nuclear tests. This is what the country's leaders -- military, secular, Islamist -- consider their greatest achievement.
So here's a modest proposal: Let's buy their arsenal.
A.Q. Khan, father of Pakistan's nuclear program (and midwife to a few others), likes to point out what a feat it was that a country "where we can't even make a bicycle chain" could succeed at such an immense technological task. He exaggerates somewhat: Pakistan got its bomb largely through a combination of industrial theft, systematic violation of Western export controls, and a blueprint of a weapon courtesy of Beijing.
Still, give Mr. Khan this: Thanks partly to his efforts, a country that has impoverished the great mass of its own people, corruptly enriched a tiny handful of elites, served as a base of terrorism against its neighbors, lost control of its intelligence services, radicalized untold numbers of Muslims in its madrassas, handed the presidency to a man known as Mr. 10%, and proliferated nuclear technology to Libya and Iran (among others) has, nevertheless, made itself a power to be reckoned with. Congratulations.
But if Pakistanis thought a bomb would be a net national asset, they miscalculated. Yes, Islamabad gained parity with its adversaries in New Delhi, gained prestige in the Muslim world, and gained a day of national pride, celebrated every May 28.
What Pakistan didn't gain was greater security. "The most significant reality was that the bomb promoted a culture of violence which . . . acquired the form of a monster with innumerable heads of terror," wrote Pakistani nuclear physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy earlier this year. "Because of this bomb, we can definitely destroy India and be destroyed in its response. But its function is limited to this."
In 2007, some 1,500 Pakistani civilians were killed in terrorist attacks. None of those attacks were perpetrated by India or any other country against which Pakistan's warheads could be targeted, unless it aimed at itself. But Pakistan's nuclear arsenal has made it an inviting target for the jihadists who blew up Islamabad's Marriott hotel in September and would gladly blow up the rest of the capital as a prelude to taking it over.
The day that happens may not be so very far off. President Asif Ali Zardari was recently in the U.S. asking for $100 billion to stave off economic collapse. So far, the international community has ponied up about $15 billion. That puts Mr. Zardari $85 billion shy of his fund-raising target. Meantime, the average Taliban foot soldier brings home monthly wages that are 30% higher than uniformed Pakistani security personnel.
Preventing the disintegration of Pakistan, perhaps in the wake of a war with India (how much restraint will New Delhi show after the next Mumbai-style atrocity?), will be the Obama administration's most urgent foreign-policy challenge. Since Mr. Obama has already committed a trillion or so in new domestic spending, what's $100 billion in the cause of saving the world?
This is the deal I have in mind. The government of Pakistan would verifiably eliminate its entire nuclear stockpile and the industrial base that sustains it. In exchange, the U.S. and other Western donors would agree to a $100 billion economic package, administered by an independent authority and disbursed over 10 years, on condition that Pakistan remain a democratic and secular state (no military rulers; no Sharia law). It would supplement that package with military aid similar to what the U.S. provides Israel: F-35 fighters, M-1 tanks, Apache helicopters. The U.S. would also extend its nuclear umbrella to Pakistan, just as Hillary Clinton now proposes to do for Israel.
A pipe dream? Not necessarily. People forget that the world has subtracted more nuclear powers over the past two decades than it has added: Kazakhstan, Belarus, Ukraine and South Africa all voluntarily relinquished their stockpiles in the 1990s. Libya did away with its program in 2003 when Moammar Gadhafi concluded that a bomb would be a net liability, and that he had more to gain by coming to terms with the West.
There's no compelling reason Mr. Zardari and his military brass shouldn't reach the same conclusion, assuming excellent terms and desperate circumstances. Sure, a large segment of Pakistanis will never agree. Others, who have subsisted on a diet of leaves and grass so Pakistan could have its bomb, might take a more pragmatic view.
The tragedy of Pakistan is that it remains a country that can't do the basics, like make a bicycle chain. If what its leaders want is prestige, prosperity and lasting security, they could start by creating an economy that can make one -- while unlearning how to make the bomb.
Bangalorean
Ambassador
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2010
- Messages
- 6,233
- Likes
- 6,854
Yes, the present Pakistan cannot be persuaded to hand over nukes. That is precisely why I feel we should actively work towards a dismembered Pakistan.
And the dismemberment should not be a "breakoff" - it should be a complete dismemberment such that none of the dismembered parts should exist as "Pakistan". We will have Balochistan, Sindhudesh, Pashtunistan, Pok, Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakjab and maybe Mohajiristan (basically city-state Karachi). But there will be no Pakistan.
I am sure that in such a case, Pakjab will be the only serious contender to preserve nukes, and the future leaders of independent Pakjab can be coerced or bribed to place their nukes under international observation.
The new Pakjab will be much more pliant than present-day Pakistan.
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,871
- Likes
- 48,534
Once Baluchistan is liberated USA will no longer need Pakistan. Baluchistan will
serve all the strategic interests of USA.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2009
- Messages
- 3,582
- Likes
- 2,538
hmmmm ? they might still need a corridor to the finger tip area of eastern afghanistan and rather than go through NWFP_FATA they might be persuaded to go through POK which the USA will then hand over to india ( due to local population desire and collective will ) once mission is completed - not entirely improbable .
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2009
- Messages
- 3,582
- Likes
- 2,538
good ideas ! and they first step should be economic warfare against packland - not co-operating eceonomically with them as the present goi seems to be doing but i could be wrong about the present goi
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2009
- Messages
- 3,582
- Likes
- 2,538
- good idea - simplifies the whole thing to just one state - the key state
mki
Regular Member
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2011
- Messages
- 295
- Likes
- 197
if there will be simultaneous Time-squre type of attack happend in usa (ofcourse they should be unfolded by US inteligence befor any explosions)... and all probe goes to porkiland, haqqani, Lasker-e-toiba and direct involvment of ISI and pak govt officials......... then "Land of pure will become Land to cure".... pakiland will be denuck........ and bomb to stone age........... :thumb:
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2009
- Messages
- 3,582
- Likes
- 2,538
pak militaery is using vehicles on the roads to run nukes around the country so their location is mobile - so the radiation wpould be on the roads of packland - good idea eh ?
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2009
- Messages
- 24,324
- Likes
- 11,757
Denuking Pak may not actually be that difficult. If it is decided we have to do it, there are various means to it and it starts in the UN. Pak may then do the foolish thing of assembling its nukes. That will make it easier for the US and others to take them out. Even if they are not assembled, knocking out one component will render the nuke useless.
India will have to be on a high alert while this is going on with it's satellites, radars and Air Force on combat alert to as Pak may launch a strike on India if it sees it's nukes in danger.-
India will have to be on a high alert while this is going on with it's satellites, radars and Air Force on combat alert to as Pak may launch a strike on India if it sees it's nukes in danger.-
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,871
- Likes
- 48,534
Baluchistan is ideally located between Pakistan,Afghanistan and Iran . It gives access to the
Arabian sea and also Central Asia and Middle East; it is rich in oil and resources.
Last edited:
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,871
- Likes
- 48,534
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2009
- Messages
- 3,582
- Likes
- 2,538
Hey LF- ive liked your map below and a couple of others earlier on or in another thread ? ) but tis one ive quoted has some "inaccuracies" - like i t shouws POK and GB as given to afghanistan - or rather perhaps pok is back to india but GB is erroneously given to afghansitan., that should be returned to india per decades of claim and peoples choice - westernpart of afghanistan given to iran - usa would never like that - afghanistan given too much of belouchi territory - should remain belouchi - remember the sindhis have been praying for decades to be free of punjabstan so the map should shouw a free sindhu-desh and the remaining packland should be called western punjabstan with its capital at lahore, "ismlamabad" area should be taken by india ......just my opinions - 2 cents worthBaluchistan is ideally located between Pakistan,Afghanistan and Iran . It gives access to the
Arabian sea and also Central Asia and Middle East; it is rich in oil and resources.
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,871
- Likes
- 48,534
This was the first thing I saw when I was going to use this. I intentionally
posted it to see how many members find this and comment on it. Congratulations
you are the first one.!!!!!!!!
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2009
- Messages
- 3,582
- Likes
- 2,538
a very good idea indeed - trust LF to invent such ideas !
