What's new

USA Worries about Pak's nuclear weapons

Status
Not open for further replies.

QuickSilver

BANNED

New Recruit

Jun 7, 2008
86
0
6
Just wondering why the US always has to poke a nose into others affairs, or do they have any proof to back it up?

This is the latest news report in a popular news website.

Pakistani nukes are risk prone, says US
Saturday, 14 June , 2008, 11:23


Washington: Pakistan's nuclear capabilities present at least four challenges to American nuclear policy and its arsenal was described as risk prone at a Senate hearing.

Among those who testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, was Stephen P Cohen of the Brookings Institution, who said, “Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities present at least four challenges to American policy:”


“There is a small but real possibility of the next India-Pakistan crisis escalating to nuclear levels. Pakistan may decide, as a matter of state policy, to extend a nuclear umbrella (or engage in nuclear sharing) with one or more Middle East states, especially if Iran acquires a nuclear device,” Cohen said.

“There is a hard-to-quantify risk of nuclear theft. Pakistan has a home grown personnel reliability programme, but even this could be circumvented in a determined conspiracy. There is some small chance that should Pakistan unravel, that its nuclear assets will be seized by remnant elements of the army for political, strategic, or personal purposes,” he added.


Cohen said that while nuclear proliferation or nuclear theft should not be the sole, or even the determining element in Washington’s relationship with Pakistan, some of the scenarios were “frightening”.

He explained, “Our policy paradox is that we want many things from Pakistan, but that we cannot directly address Pakistan’s inability to deliver. We want Pakistan to co-operate on terrorism, we want it to normalise with India, we want to ensure that it will not proliferate nuclear technology, we want it to democratise, and we want it to transform its domestic order by ‘normalising’ the FATA.”

Cohen said Washington should “marginally increase” its engagement in India-Pakistan relations, adding that the Pakistan Army still regarded nuclear weapons as its main defence, the Daily Times reported.

“We need to address their chief incentive to acquire more and bigger nuclear weapons,” he said.
 

maqsad

FULL MEMBER
Aug 14, 2007
648
0
48
Proof to back what up? Everything Cohen said is public knowledge. The only assertion that some Pakistanis would dispute is the fact that Pakistan would supply Saudi Arabia with a nuclear umbrella to counter a nuclear Iran. The reason for this dispute is because some pakistanis live in a delusional state where they think Iran is a friendly ally, the top leadership in the pak military is not that foolish however and Cohen obviously knows that fact.
 

araz

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Jun 14, 2006
7,804
64
12,134
Proof to back what up? Everything Cohen said is public knowledge. The only assertion that some Pakistanis would dispute is the fact that Pakistan would supply Saudi Arabia with a nuclear umbrella to counter a nuclear Iran. The reason for this dispute is because some pakistanis live in a delusional state where they think Iran is a friendly ally, the top leadership in the pak military is not that foolish however and Cohen obviously knows that fact.
maqsad.
This post is in continuity with my post on another thread. I think the problem why Pakistan may respond aggressively is not the fact that we are great chums with Iran, but firstly due to risk of nuclear fallout, and secondly the implications of a destroyed Iran on Pakistans own geo strategic situation. I think the latter ought to be discussed more carefully and is probably been laid threadbare by the strategic body of Pak Army. I think the implications would force Pakistans hand and that might be difficult for the world in general.
Araz
 

alphaforce

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Nov 11, 2009
17
0
2
Proof to back what up? Everything Cohen said is public knowledge. The only assertion that some Pakistanis would dispute is the fact that Pakistan would supply Saudi Arabia with a nuclear umbrella to counter a nuclear Iran. The reason for this dispute is because some pakistanis live in a delusional state where they think Iran is a friendly ally, the top leadership in the pak military is not that foolish however and Cohen obviously knows that fact.
I think sovereignty of Iran is in interest of Pakistan. No matter Iran is friendly to Pakistan or not, but in a matter of fact that what US wanted in this region is to access China and the Golden Bird "India".... That is why they are trying to change the maps of the region and that is why such statements released from Pentagon:usflag:
But if you think neutrally, then this is actually the main goal. This is of course not in very much interest of Pakistan, China, Saudia Arabia, India and Iran, besides all conflicts....
 

Hafizzz

SENIOR MEMBER
Jun 28, 2010
5,026
0
3,522
Just wondering why the US always has to poke a nose into others affairs, or do they have any proof to back it up?

This is the latest news report in a popular news website.
USA can't stand any Muslim country having nukes...so there will always be excuses to destroy them(nuclear weapon).

USA has nothing to worry about because Pakistan's nuke are very SAFE !!!
 

TOPGUN

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Jun 6, 2006
8,280
1
7,589
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Its a old thread leave it alone let them worry and let others cry our nukes are safe .
 

ARSENAL6

FULL MEMBER
Apr 25, 2007
1,671
-1
633
Country
Israel
Location
United Kingdom

PakSher

FULL MEMBER
Oct 4, 2009
1,052
0
534
US should worry about its own nukes because all US Jews Citizens and Israeli smypathizers will steal all of US secrets before US wakes up. Wake up US.
 

Arsalan

THINK TANK CHAIRMAN
Sep 29, 2008
18,210
65
23,436
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
USA Worries about Pak's nuclear weapons

they must stop worrying about us and rest of the world and look into there own backyard..

Two US generals fred over mishandling of nuclear missiles
The US air force's two most senior officials have resigned after a report suggested it was performing poorly in its handling of nuclear arms and parts. Gen T Michael Moseley, the chief of staff, and Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne were both asked to resign by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Mr Gates told reporters that the security of US nuclear weapons and parts had been in question. One incident involved the sending of nuclear weapons fuses to Taiwan.
Mr Gates said he had accepted the two men's resignations and that he would announce their replacements at a later time. He also announced that former Defence Secretary James Schlesinger would head a senior level task force to "recommend improvements necessary to ensure that the highest levels of accountability and control are maintained in the stewardship of nuclear weapons". Cruise missile mix-up.

Mr Gates cited two embarrassing incidents. In the first, electrical fuses for ballistic missiles were mistakenly sent to Taiwan in 2006 in place of helicopter batteries. The fuses, designed for the nose cone of a nuclear missile, were sent from a US airbase in Wyoming.
AND
Despite claims that the U.S. nuclear stockpile is safe and reliable, the number of accidents involving America's atomic arsenal is a matter of concern. The Department of Defense (DoD) first published a list of nuclear weapon accidents in1968 which detailed 13 serious nuclear weapon accidents between 1950-1968. An updated and revised list released in 1980 catalogued 32 accidents between1950-1980. However, this second compilation failed to include some of the accidents covered in the 1968 list.
for full artocle visit:
http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukeaccidents/accidents.htm

AND
Missing Nukes on August 29-30, 2007

According to a wide range of reports, several nuclear bombs were “lost” for 36 hours after taking off August 29/30, 2007 on a “cross-country journey” across the U.S., from U.S.A.F Base Minot in North Dakota to U.S.A.F. Base Barksdale in Louisiana. [1] Reportedly, in total there were six W80-1 nuclear warheads armed on AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missiles (ACMs) that were “lost.” [2] The story was first reported by the Military Times, after military servicemen leaked the story.

It is also worth noting that on August 27, 2007, just days before the "lost" nukes incident, three B-52 Bombers were performing special missions under the direct authorization of General Moseley, the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force. [3] The exercise was reported as being an aerial information and image gathering mission. The base at Minot is also home of the 91st Space Wings, a unit under the command of Air Force Space Command (AFSPC).

According to official reports, the U.S. Air Force pilots did not know that they were carrying weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Once in Louisiana, they also left the nuclear weapons unsecured on the runway for several hours. [4]

U.S. Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Plans, and Requirements, Major-General Richard Y. Newton III commented on the incident, saying there was an “unprecedented” series of procedural errors, which revealed “an erosion of adherence to weapons-handling standards” [5]

These statements are misleading. The lax security was not the result of procedural negligence within the U.S. Air Force, but rather the consequence of a deliberate tampering of these procedures.

If a soldier, marine, airman, or sailor were even to be issued a rifle and rifle magazine — weaponry of a far lesser significance, danger, and cost — there is a strict signing and accountability process that involves a chain of command and paperwork. This is part of the set of military checks and balances used by all the services within the U.S. Armed Forces.

Military servicemen qualified to speak on the subject will confirm that there is a stringent nuclear weapons handling procedure. There is a rigorous, almost inflexible, chain of command in regards to the handling of nuclear weapons and not just any soldier, sailor, airman, or marine is allowed to handle nuclear weapons. Only servicemen specialized in specific handling and loading procedures, are perm certified to handle, access and load nuclear warheads.

Every service personnel that moves or even touches these weapons must sign a tracking paper and has total accountability for their movement. There is good reason for the paperwork behind moving these weapons. The military officers that order the movement of nuclear weapons, including base commanders, must also fill out paper forms.

In other words, unauthorized removal of nuclear weapons would be virtually impossible to accomplish unless the chain of command were bypassed, involving, in this case, the deliberate tampering of the paperwork and tracking procedures.

The strategic bombers that carried the nuclear weapons also could not fly with their loaded nuclear weaponry without the authorization of senior military officials and the base commander. The go-ahead authorization of senior military officials must be transmitted to the servicemen that upload the nuclear weapons. Without this authorization no flights can take place.

In the case of the missing nukes, orders were given and flight permission was granted. Once again, any competent and eligible U.S. Air Force member can certify that this is the standard procedure.

There are two important questions to be answered in relation to the "lost" nukes incident:

1. Who gave the order to arm the W80-1 thermonuclear warheads on the AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missiles (ACMs)? At what level in the military hierarchy did this order originate? How was the order transmitted down the command chain?

2. If this was not a procedural error, what was the underlying military-political objective sought by those who gave the orders?
full article:
Missing Nukes: Treason of the Highest Order

AND
Walter Reed acknowledges mishandling nuclear material that may have exposed staff, patients
The military's flagship hospital has acknowledged it mishandled two packages of radioactive material in May, possibly exposing staff and patients to elevated radiation levels.

Spokesman Chuck Dasey said Thursday that Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington doesn't dispute the allegations made by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The commission said the packages sat beneath a lobby counter for nearly two days after they were delivered.

Dasey says the hospital has since reinforced its nuclear medicine safety program and retrained staff on the proper handling of radioactive material.

The packages contained radioactive material used to treat and diagnose ailments such as cancer and heart disease.

NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said no harm has been reported from the incident
AND
well forget it,, the list will go on and on.

i highly recommen you guys to read the article:
Missing Nukes: Treason of the Highest Order

it well describes how safe a world is with US concerns over nukes...:hitwall:

regards!
 

maqsad

FULL MEMBER
Aug 14, 2007
648
0
48
maqsad.
I think the problem why Pakistan may respond aggressively is not the fact that we are great chums with Iran, but firstly due to risk of nuclear fallout, and secondly the implications of a destroyed Iran on Pakistans own geo strategic situation.
Pakistan respond aggressively to what, and how? And nuclear fallout? I really don't understand what you are saying. Who is going to nuke Iran...Saudi Arabia?

Why would a "destroyed Iran" impact Pakistan negatively anyway? All that would happen is that Iran's Sistan-Balochistan province would be annexed by invading tribesmen from Afghanistan if the Pak army or the US/NATO coalition didn't secure it first which they probably would. How would it negatively impact Pakistan? I don't get it.


I think the latter ought to be discussed more carefully and is probably been laid threadbare by the strategic body of Pak Army.
I don't see why it should be such a major concern of Pakistan. Lets assume that both Afghanistan and the US want an independent Balochistan in order to give both of them access to and from the Arabian sea. Would you rather they grab Pakistan's Balochistan than Iran's Balochistan?

I think sovereignty of Iran is in interest of Pakistan. No matter Iran is friendly to Pakistan or not
LOL what? So you are saying that a hostile, unfriendly Iran is in the interests of Pakistan? :disagree: Amazing...this forum is filled with the most mind boggling and creative reasoning as to why Pakistan should support and strengthen Iran in every way while weakinging itself if necessary. Please elaborate.
 

Spring Onion

PDF VETERAN
Feb 1, 2006
41,403
19
34,763
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Thats why Pakistan is not on Obama's visit list ;)

old thread old claim whats new nothing to be worried sleep tight Pakistan army is awake ;)
 

ARSENAL6

FULL MEMBER
Apr 25, 2007
1,671
-1
633
Country
Israel
Location
United Kingdom
u still need u.s for next 50 yrs
You need the British Empire to run your country forever.

Please if you gonna bring up bogus claim at least have the dignity to back them up.

Otherwise I'll report you as being a troll.
Pakistan zindabad :pakistan:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Top