ejaz007
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 6,533
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Pakistans nuclear controls safe and sophisticated
* NYT report says Nuclear Command Authority leaders are thought to be military professionals first, and therefore responsible
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: Pakistan has a sophisticated Nuclear Command Authority, with layers upon layers of protection, some of them installed with the help of a covert American program that has already spent more than $100 million, according to David Sanger of the New York Times.
Writing in the newspapers blog, Sanger, the NYT bureau chief in Washington, remarks that the nuclear command authoritys leaders are Musharraf acolytes but they are thought to be military professionals first, and therefore responsible. He observes that unified leadership at the top still counts. The problem is that Pakistan has a great deal of nuclear material, and is making more at a quick pace. Its facilities are spread out, so that India could not easily attack them all. The intelligence service, the ISI, has deeply divided sympathies, with many supporting the Taliban and extremist causes. And the bulk of the military isnt much better, Sanger writes.
Sanger says that there were shudders felt in Washington over Pakistan even before Musharraf resigned in mid-August rather than face impeachment. Knowing Musharraf was on thin ice, the United States government had already run tabletop exercises in which a Pakistani descent into chaos would leave everyone wondering who was in control of that countrys nuclear arsenal. Would it be the new elected prime minister, whom the military deeply distrusts? The army? The small clique of trusted Musharraf aides who built the countrys nuclear security system, but no longer have a patron? The worries about Pakistan and North Korea, two unsteady nuclear powers have begun to change thinking among officials in Washington who used to focus principally on the awful scenario that a nuclear weapon might pass straight from a government to a terrorist group.
Sanger writes that it is not that anyone is more sanguine about the possibility of a terror group acquiring enough nuclear material to set off an atomic bomb in an American city. But that is still the number 1 worry. The way the problem is analysed is beginning to shift, however. A senior intelligence official in charge of monitoring Pakistans nuclear programme told Sanger, You know, we used to have this great distinction between states with nukes that we could deter the old-fashioned way, and groups with nukes that we couldnt deter. But today, the official said, our biggest problem may be groups within states that could take advantage of political chaos to seize what they need, either to sell it or to win a struggle for leadership of the country. To experts in the Bush administration, whats happening today in countries like North Korea and Pakistan poses a far higher statistical risk of letting loose nukes out the door than Iraq ever did.
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
* NYT report says Nuclear Command Authority leaders are thought to be military professionals first, and therefore responsible
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: Pakistan has a sophisticated Nuclear Command Authority, with layers upon layers of protection, some of them installed with the help of a covert American program that has already spent more than $100 million, according to David Sanger of the New York Times.
Writing in the newspapers blog, Sanger, the NYT bureau chief in Washington, remarks that the nuclear command authoritys leaders are Musharraf acolytes but they are thought to be military professionals first, and therefore responsible. He observes that unified leadership at the top still counts. The problem is that Pakistan has a great deal of nuclear material, and is making more at a quick pace. Its facilities are spread out, so that India could not easily attack them all. The intelligence service, the ISI, has deeply divided sympathies, with many supporting the Taliban and extremist causes. And the bulk of the military isnt much better, Sanger writes.
Sanger says that there were shudders felt in Washington over Pakistan even before Musharraf resigned in mid-August rather than face impeachment. Knowing Musharraf was on thin ice, the United States government had already run tabletop exercises in which a Pakistani descent into chaos would leave everyone wondering who was in control of that countrys nuclear arsenal. Would it be the new elected prime minister, whom the military deeply distrusts? The army? The small clique of trusted Musharraf aides who built the countrys nuclear security system, but no longer have a patron? The worries about Pakistan and North Korea, two unsteady nuclear powers have begun to change thinking among officials in Washington who used to focus principally on the awful scenario that a nuclear weapon might pass straight from a government to a terrorist group.
Sanger writes that it is not that anyone is more sanguine about the possibility of a terror group acquiring enough nuclear material to set off an atomic bomb in an American city. But that is still the number 1 worry. The way the problem is analysed is beginning to shift, however. A senior intelligence official in charge of monitoring Pakistans nuclear programme told Sanger, You know, we used to have this great distinction between states with nukes that we could deter the old-fashioned way, and groups with nukes that we couldnt deter. But today, the official said, our biggest problem may be groups within states that could take advantage of political chaos to seize what they need, either to sell it or to win a struggle for leadership of the country. To experts in the Bush administration, whats happening today in countries like North Korea and Pakistan poses a far higher statistical risk of letting loose nukes out the door than Iraq ever did.
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
