Bush handed blueprint to seize Pakistan's nuclear arsenal

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Bush handed blueprint to seize Pakistan's nuclear arsenal


· Architect of Iraq surge draws up takeover options
· US fears army's Islamists might grab weapons

Adrian Levy and Cathy Scott-Clark
Saturday December 1, 2007
The Guardian

The man who devised the Bush administration's Iraq troop surge has urged the US to consider sending elite troops to Pakistan to seize its nuclear weapons if the country descends into chaos.

In a series of scenarios drawn up for Pakistan, Frederick Kagan, a former West Point military historian, has called for the White House to consider various options for an unstable Pakistan.

These include: sending elite British or US troops to secure nuclear weapons capable of being transported out of the country and take them to a secret storage depot in New Mexico or a "remote redoubt" inside Pakistan; sending US troops to Pakistan's north-western border to fight the Taliban and al-Qaida; and a US military occupation of the capital Islamabad, and the provinces of Punjab, Sindh and Baluchistan if asked for assistance by a fractured Pakistan military, so that the US could shore up President Pervez Musharraf and General Ashfaq Kayani, who became army chief this week.

"These are scenarios and solutions. They are designed to test our preparedness. The United States simply could not stand by as a nuclear-armed Pakistan descended into the abyss," Kagan, who is with the American Enterprise Institute, a thinktank with strong ideological ties to the Bush administration, told the Guardian. "We need to think now about our options in Pakistan,"

Kagan argued that the rise of Sunni extremism in Pakistan, coupled with the proliferation of al-Qaida bases in the north-west, posed a real possibility of terrorists staging a coup that would give them access to a nuclear device. He also noted how sections of Pakistan's military and intelligence establishment continued to be linked to Islamists and warned that the army, demoralised by having to fight in Waziristan and parts of North-West Frontier Province, might retreat from the borders, leaving a vacuum that would be filled by radicals. Worse, the military might split, with a radical faction trying to take over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

Kagan accepted that the Pakistani military was not in the grip of Islamists. "Pakistan's officer corps and ruling elites remain largely moderate. But then again, Americans felt similarly about the shah's regime and look what happened in 1979," he said, referring to Iran.

The scenarios received a public airing two weeks ago in an article for the New York Times by Kagan and Michael O'Hanlon, an analyst at the Brookings Institution, who has ties to the Democrats.

They have been criticised in the US as well as Pakistan, with Kagan accused of drawing up plans for another US occupation of a Muslim country.

But the scenarios are regarded with some seriousness because of Kagan's influence over thinking in the Bush administration as the architect of the Iraq troop surge, which is conceded to have brought some improvements in security.

A former senior state department official who works as a contractor with the government and is familiar with current planning on Pakistan told the Guardian: "Governments are supposed to think the unthinkable. But these ideas, coming as they do from a man of significant influence in Washington's militarist camp, seem prescriptive and have got tongues wagging - even in a town like Washington, built on hyperbole."

Kagan said he was not calling for an occupation of Pakistan.

"I have been arguing the opposite. We cannot invade, only work with the consent of elements of the Pakistan military," he said.

"But we do have to calculate how to quantify and then respond to a crisis that is potentially as much a threat as Soviet tanks once were. Pakistan may be the next big test."

The political and security crises there have led the Bush administration to conclude that Pakistan has become a more dangerous place than it was before Musharraf took over in the coup of October 1999.

One Pentagon official said last week that the defence department had indeed been war-gaming some of Kagan's scenarios.

A report by Kagan and O'Hanlon in April highlighted their argument.

"The only serious response to this international environment is to develop armed forces capable of protecting America's vital interests throughout this dangerous time," it said.

But in Pakistan, aides to Musharraf yesterday dismissed Kagan's study as "hyperbole".

Bush handed blueprint to seize Pakistan's nuclear arsenal | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

Kagan is close to Bush and therefore though this Doomsday scenario appears to be kiteflying, yet one should read between the lines. And the Bush Administration is capable of doing things that are unthinkable under normal diplomatic and international regime niceties!

I wonder even if there are elite troops, how are they going to take over the nuclear arsenal, especially when they are not aware of the exact locations.

This article also indicates that notwithstanding Bush's public pronouncement about democracy etc, it appears that he trust the Pakistan military over the politicians of Pakistan!

 

[fatman17]

Kagan is close to Bush and therefore though this Doomsday scenario appears to be kiteflying, yet one should read between the lines. And the Bush Administration is capable of doing things that are unthinkable under normal diplomatic and international regime niceties!

I wonder even if there are elite troops, how are they going to take over the nuclear arsenal, especially when they are not aware of the exact locations.

This article also indicates that notwithstanding Bush's public pronouncement about democracy etc, it appears that he trust the Pakistan military over the politicians of Pakistan!

Nothing new in this article - this has been discussed in other threads. it is very clear that the Bush admn trusts the Pak Military over the civilians but due to Bush's advocacy of spreading Democracy we hear these pronoucements of democracy daily from the US. there is no better person than Musharraf to fight the WoT for the west.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

How many times do we have to go through this?

There is no way on earth the US is going to walk away with the nukes for "safe keeping". Islamist takeover or not, the military and most Pakistanis will come together to oppose this. The Islamist takeover will in fact be justified!

The current "pro Western military" was not afraid to pi** off the US by supporting the emergency, because they didn't like how "pro US" BB was, and anticipated her running away with the elections - if this is how distrustful of the US the "pro US" people are, America has a snowflakes chance in hell of getting any meaningful cooperation in "securing the nukes" from any part of the PA.

The only tactic the US can realistically hope would be successful is an air assault on suspected locations, and hope that they take out every single one - which again would be the akin to playing Russian roulette - with only one chamber empty,

Irresponsible nonsense all of this. Perhaps meant to nudge the PA to continue to maintain control and security over the Nukes.

By the way Salim, did you read the WSJ article on Pakistan's nuclear controls? Very enlightening.

 

[slimoe]

no one knows where the pak nuclear weapons are not even america its one of the most closely guarded secrets.So in no way can they walk away with arnd 100 nuclear warheads

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

How many times do we have to go through this?

There is no way on earth the US is going to walk away with the nukes for "safe keeping". Islamist takeover or not, the military and most Pakistanis will come together to oppose this. The Islamist takeover will in fact be justified!

The current "pro Western military" was not afraid to pi** off the US by supporting the emergency, because they didn't like how "pro US" BB was, and anticipated her running away with the elections - if this is how distrustful of the US the "pro US" people are, America has a snowflakes chance in hell of getting any meaningful cooperation in "securing the nukes" from any part of the PA.

The only tactic the US can realistically hope would be successful is an air assault on suspected locations, and hope that they take out every single one - which again would be the akin to playing Russian roulette - with only one chamber empty,

Irresponsible nonsense all of this. Perhaps meant to nudge the PA to continue to maintain control and security over the Nukes.

By the way Salim, did you read the WSJ article on Pakistan's nuclear controls? Very enlightening.

No.

I don't have the subscription for WSJ. Even the on line version requires a subscription.

While I found the article too vague for belief, yet the Kagan connection with the Bush Administration, which is very close, is what made me sit up and take notice.

It is almost from the horse's mouth!

It could be to allay the fears of the US domestic audience or there could be more than what meets the eye and what is left unsaid.

 

[fatman17]

No.

I don't have the subscription for WSJ. Even the on line version requires a subscription.

While I found the article too vague for belief, yet the Kagan connection with the Bush Administration, which is very close, is what made me sit up and take notice.

It is almost from the horse's mouth!

It could be to allay the fears of the US domestic audience or there could be more than what meets the eye and what is left unsaid.

people please read todays DAWN english edition.
mr. kagan has denied he has given any blueprints for securing pak nukes. he goes further by saying it would require a million man army to do the job.
come on people - lets get real
CASE and THREAD CLOSED

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Salim,

The article is here:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/wmd-missiles/8529-pakistans-nuclear-controls.html

 

[Energon]

This is silly. Although I am heavily in support of de-nuclearizing Pakistan if it remains unstable, I don't think such elaborate military plans are required. The US generally buys off everything, and in this case it won't be any different. The enrichment facilities can be bombed.

However, I don't think it will come to this.

 

[kidwaibhai]

this is the most ludicris idea i have ever heard they cant controll a broken down country like afghanistan and they want to invade pakistan. if they do make this collosal mistake this will bring the american century to a cruel and abrupt stop this i can promise any neo con.

 

[Awesome]

Step 1. Goto KRL and shout, look an elephant!
Step 2. Make a mad dash for the box that says nuclear
Step 3. Run back, while the trap doors close.
--- Don't forget to grab your hat on the way out just as the door closes.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Others say that simply holding the games may worsen the situation by antagonising Pakistanis. Retired Pakistani Brigadier Feroz Khan, who until 2001 was the second-ranking officer in the Pakistani army’s strategic plans division, said in an interview that he has heard of the studies and war games carried out “in various US government agencies”, and thinks they are “very dangerous”.

As a result of US government studies of the nuclear issue, Pakistani officials have come to believe a US intervention “is a real threat now”, Khan said. The Pakistani military almost certainly has taken steps to forestall such a raid, he said, such as creating phony bunkers that contain dummy nuclear warheads, the article said.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

The distrust, or wariness, of the US within the pakistani military is a good sign - as is the speaking out of high ranking officials on this. It is just as important to have plans to counter any contingency, as it is to make sure the US knows we do.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

The USA still manages to do what it wants to do.

That is what is the bottomline that should worry those who are in their sights.

 

[Neo]

Impact of US wargames on Pakistan N-arms ‘negative’​

WASHINGTON, Dec 2: US-sponsored wargames that simulate capturing Pakistan’s nuclear weapons to prevent them from falling into wrong hands are having a negative impact, experts say.

On Sunday, The Washington Post carried a detailed report on such exercises, pointing out that the all such games came to the same conclusion: Pakistan’s cooperation -- particularly that of its military – was crucial.

According to the Post, the US government has conducted several such games in recent years, examining various options and scenarios for Pakistan’s nuclear weapons: How many troops might be required for a military intervention in Pakistan? Could Pakistani nuclear bunkers be isolated by saturating the surrounding areas with tens of thousands of high-powered mines, dropped from the air and packed with anti-tank and anti-personnel munitions? Or might such a move only worsen the security of Pakistan’s arsenal?

“Our best bet to secure Pakistan’s nuclear forces would be in a cooperative mode with the Pakistani military, not an adversarial one,” Scott Sagan, a Stanford University expert on counter-proliferation told the Post.

Feroz Khan, a retired brigadier who until 2001 was the second-ranking officer in the Pakistani Strategic Plans Division, warned that holding wargames exploring the possibility of capturing Pakistan’s nuclear weapons might worsen the situation.

Such exercises, he said, antagonised Pakistanis and might encourage the government in Islamabad to take countermeasures. “You might just want to remember Desert One,” he added, referring to the botched US mission to rescue American hostages in Iran in 1980.

As a result of US government studies of the nuclear issue, Pakistani officials had come to believe a US intervention “is a real threat now,” Mr Khan said. The Pakistani military almost certainly had taken steps to forestall such a raid, he said, such as creating phony bunkers that contain dummy nuclear warheads. He estimated that Pakistan’s current arsenal now contained about 80 to 120 genuine warheads, roughly double the figure usually cited by outside experts.

Zia Mian, a Princeton University physicist and expert on nuclear proliferation in South Asia, agreed. “It may actually make things worse, to attempt that sort of thing,” he said. Among other negative repercussions, he predicted, any US effort to secure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal “would really increase anti-Americanism.”

US intelligence officials and counter-proliferation experts, interviewed by the Post, however, insisted that an internal break up could allow religious extremists in Pakistan to grab some of the nuclear, not necessarily to use them but to wield them as a symbol of authority.

Robert B. Oakley, a former US ambassador to Pakistan, said that although US officials expressed confidence in the current security measures, the more they examined the risks, the more they realised that there were no good answers. “Everybody’s scrambling on this,” Mr Oakley said.

One participant in last year’s game told the Post that there were no palatable ways to forcibly ensure the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons -- and that even studying scenarios for intervention could worsen the risks by undermining US-Pakistani cooperation.

Mr Sagan argued that mere contemplation of a US intervention might actually increase the chances of terrorists acquiring a nuclear warhead. He said that in a crisis, the Pakistani government might begin to move its nuclear weapons from secure but known sites to more secret but less-secure locations.

“If Pakistan fears they may be attacked,” he said, then the Pakistani military had an incentive “to take them out of the bunkers and put them out in the countryside”.

In such locations, Mr Sagan concluded, the weapons would be more vulnerable to capture by bad actors. “It ironically increases the likelihood of terrorist seizure,” said Mr Sagan, who in the past had advised the Pentagon on nuclear strategy.

He noted that Pakistan moved some of its arsenal in September 2001, when it feared it might be attacked. But Brig Khan said that Mr Sagan’s fears were misplaced. The weapons “are in secure bunkers, with multiple levels of security, and active and passive measures” to mask their presence, he said. And while he conceded that the Pakistani government moved some nuclear weapons in 2001, he said the shifts made the arsenal more secure, not less.

Impact of US wargames on Pakistan N-arms ‘negative’ -DAWN - Top Stories; December 03, 2007