U.S. Has Plan to Secure Pakistan Nukes

[Arsalan]

well lot of BS about some one comming in and taking charge of our nukes, whether it is taliban or the US. this is not going to happen it is just like we say that if someone can hijake four planes and crash them against WTC then they can even sabotage any nuclear facility in US, how about this!!
for the security and strength of our nuclear sities i want you guys to have a look at:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/wmd-missiles/33081-how-prone-our-nukes-really-attack-us.html#post469605
it surely will be helpfull.

 

[Arsalan]

well members do visit the thread as have tried to explain all these BS rumors and will like to have your share of knowledge about this issue.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/wmd-missiles/33081-how-prone-our-nukes-really-attack-us.html#post469605

regards!

 

[gambit]

well lot of BS about some one comming in and taking charge of our nukes, whether it is taliban or the US. this is not going to happen it is just like we say that if someone can hijake four planes and crash them against WTC then they can even sabotage any nuclear facility in US, how about this!!
for the security and strength of our nuclear sities i want you guys to have a look at:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/wmd-missiles/33081-how-prone-our-nukes-really-attack-us.html#post469605
it surely will be helpfull.

How about it? FYI...We do have that consideration that US nuclear facilities are vulnerable, even to a takeover...

NRC: Post 9/11 Information
NRC: Backgrounder - Nuclear Security

If the issue is not BS for US, why should Pakistan's nuclear resources be exempted from speculations?

 

[graphican]

How about it? FYI...We do have that consideration that US nuclear facilities are vulnerable, even to a takeover...

NRC: Post 9/11 Information
NRC: Backgrounder - Nuclear Security

If the issue is not BS for US, why should Pakistan's nuclear resources be exempted from speculations?

Your can wary because your Nukes are in United States of America and you are the Most Insecure Nation on the face of the earth. Ours Nukes are here in Pakistan and we know how to take care of them. Our F-16s dont sleep at the time of need neither our countrymen are life-less. USA is deluded that Paksitan would let USA take control of its Nukes if it felt like falling to Mullas. If there is 0.000000000000000000000000000000000001% probability of anything happening like that, we are more likely to invite Mullas to take our Nukes instead of letting them go with the Nation like you. After all, you never tried to know how much love we have for you.

 

[muse]

Secure This



Pakistan ‘developing’ advanced nuclear technology: report

* Pakistan pushing ahead with plutonium-based programme

Daily Times Monitor

LAHORE: A new report claims that Pakistan is developing “more advanced nuclear technology”, while India has in recent days signalled the need for new tests – marking a growing arms race in the subcontinent.

Citing a study in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, The Telegraph said Pakistan is “pushing ahead” with a plutonium-based nuclear programme, superior to its previous reliance on uranium technology. Plutonium is easier to weaponise, as smaller quantities of the material are required. “Two new plutonium production reactors are under construction,” said the report.

The report concludes that Pakistan has an arsenal of 70 to 90 nuclear weapons, “and is busy enhancing its capabilities across the board” – representing “much quicker progress than expected”.

The report also said that a new nuclear-capable ballistic missile is being readied for deployment, and two nuclear-capable cruise missiles are under development.

“The types of facilities under construction suggest that Pakistan has decided to supplement and perhaps replace its heavy uranium-based weapons with smaller, lighter plutonium-based designs that could be delivered further by ballistic missiles than its current warheads and that could be used in cruise missiles,” said the study by scientists Robert Norris and Hans Kristensen.

Earlier this month, senior Indian scientist K Santanam revealed that the country’s 1998 test had not been as successful as previously claimed.

According to leading Pakistani physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy, the admission was not an act of coming clear, but an attempt by India’s nuclear establishment to press the case for new tests.

Rather than a minimal deterrence, “both countries are rushing to make as many (weapons) as they can”, said Professor Hoodbhoy.

India’s 1998 test was of a hydrogen bomb, which is many times more powerful than a weapon that Pakistan could produce with its technology.

 

[Ratus Ratus]

U.S. Has Plan to Secure Pakistan Nukes if Country Falls to Taliban - Political News - FOXNews.com

Great find.. YOU just forgot to mention that the article was written way back in MAY and that this whole topic has already been beaten to death several time over.

U.S. Has Plan to Secure Pakistan Nukes if Country Falls to Taliban
By Rowan Scarborough
FOXNews.com
Thursday, May 14, 2009

Well 7 pages and 95 irrelevant posts. Not bad ..

The only post here is that by muse it has some meaning to the CURRENT situation.

But heck rant about dead news by all means..

 

[Developereo]

So do not presume to lecture to me about direct first hand experience on how the media works. I probably have more experience in that area in your community than you do in mine.

Missed it by that much.
I won't get in a pissing contest about relative experience, but I can assure you I have over a decade of very direct contact with Western media. Far, far more than you, as a military man, are ever likely to have with any media, let alone Muslim media. Your confusion between Muslim media, and Arab media, says it all.

Everytime I read a muslim using Western technology and Western information sources to complain about how muslims are portrayed in Western public eyes, from trying to make excuses for this...
...To trying to deflect attention from this...
...I savor every sweet moment of the irony. That is Theo van Gogh dead in broad daylight, by the way.

I noticed you shifted the goal posts again from 9/11 to this. No worries. Let's look at the Danish cartoons and Van Gogh controversy where the mullahs used this as an opportunity to demonstrate their control over their flock. This was pure power play for the mullahs, directed more at each other and, in Muslim countries, at their governments. But the Western media, rightly or wrongly, interpreted it as a threat against Western interests. I fully agree that anyone who incites violence should be prosecuted. I only wish Muslim governments were more diligent in maintaining rule of law.

As regards the Danish cartoons, many major Western media published the cartoons as a show of support for free speech. Even some Arab newspapers published them. But here's the interesting part. The Iranians, pesky realists that they are, challenged the Danes on the very concept of free speech. They dared them to publish cartoons mocking the Holocaust. After recovering from a stunned silence, and humming and hawing for a few days, the Danish editor finally agreed to the challenge. As a result, the paper sent her on a leave of absence! When they finally couldn't avoid the issue, the paper drew up a series of cartoons, ran them past a panel of rabbis, and only published the handful of cartoons deemed acceptable to the rabbis. Almost no major Western media carried the Holocaust cartoons.

That's called media bias and monolithic ideology.

In other words, I could never charge 'the media' but only particular brand names inside 'the media',

Then you would be in a minority even within American thinking. Even our favorite Faux News constantly berates about "left-wing media bias" and "mainstream media bias". Statistics like 70% of journalists are registered Democrats and voted such-and-such are constantly used. The media is staffed by people who, like everybody else, are themselves subject to media manipulation and display their ingrained bias in their reporting. Documentaries like OutFoxed and others clearly showcase the bias within organizations. And the multinational media conglomerates are huge. Was a time (2000) when five conglomerates controlled 90% of the Western media. I haven't checked lately, but it probably hasn't changed much.

whereas muslims like yourself have no choice but to make the indictment against your own media in general, like you just did, while at the same time using Western resources to boot.

On the contrary. I make the indictment against both Muslim and Western media. It is you who considers all Muslim media to be "controlled" and Western media to be "free".

So now you are claiming the high ground because we are using computers to communicate?

How lame has your argument gotten that you have to resort to this level of "rebuttal"? I have never diminished Western accomplishments in science and technology, so I am not sure where this is coming from. Perhaps you are confused and beginning to lump all of us "Muslims in the ummah" together....

I would rather the brands in my media be 'biased' than 'controlled', like the ones in your community. At least there are many biases in mine whereas the despots in your community allows zilch.

Once again, the fact that you equate the Muslim world, or ummah as you love to use the word, with the Arab world shows your confusion in this matter. Moreover, the mere use of the word ummah marks you as the product of right-wing brainwashing. You watched a little Faux News, talked amonst your military buddies, and read a few pieces by anti-Muslim bigots, and now you consider yourself an expert on Islam and Muslims. Most ordinary Muslims do not consciously identify themselves with any greater ummah, much less know the word.

But it is changing because of the GWOT. People like myself, who never thought much about my Islamic beliefs, are beginning to become more aware of the onslaught against Muslims. Ironically, the GWOT may end up doing for Muslims what we could not do ourselves. Unite us.

See the differences in science and technology between the West and the ummah? That is the same chasm in 'the media' between yours and mine societies. It is awfully difficult to take seriously the criticisms from the ummah on NASA's many mistakes and institutional flaws.

Once again with the science? Man you are all over the place... Focus, please!

 

[Zulfiqar]

First...I am not aware of any American who so specified his opinion. Please provide verbatim source(s).

Well you did but not in the exact words and not in the same line. I will look for more posts.

The reasons, multiple, for Iraq was to prevent Iraq from becoming a nuclear weapons state, to search for functional nuclear weapons devices if any exists, and to overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime.

Did we claimed such links exists? No...But in being prudent after a decade of Saddam's hatred towards US and on the Sept. 11, 2001 attack, we would be foolish not to explore such a possibility. Are you telling all here that no other governments would have done the same?

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/29712-current-tensions-xinjiang-china-46.html#post426678

In your previous post you described the intentions of Japanese.That was before you actually destroyed them.

My question: why would iraq attack you if they know that you will nuke them even if they used non state actors for the plot. The origin of nuclear weapon can be traced you know.

If USSR did not attack you then why Iraq.You could have waited for some years to see where did the trend go.

It make no logical sense. If it is about oil, then why should we destroy our source of discounted oil by overthrowing Saddam Hussein? Let the Russians, the Chinese, the French and the Germans deal under the table, we will buy Iraqi oil legitimately. Let Saddam Hussein uses the oil revenues, legal or otherwise, to build his palaces instead of buying food and medicines for his people. What do we care, it is cheaper to buy oil at peace than lose our discounted source by waging war, right?

Come on US wasted hundreds of billions of $ (much of which was loaned money) which directly affected you economy and while doing so suffered thousands of casualties just to "liberate" iraq. There must be some return on investment.

 

[gambit]

I fully agree that anyone who incites violence should be prosecuted. I only wish Muslim governments were more diligent in maintaining rule of law.

First...In petty dictatorships, it is often the government that incites violence against its enemies. If...As you claimed that anyone who control 'the media' pretty much control public policy...Then why would any muslim government, which control 'the media' inside its borders, prosecute any muslim who would incite violence against the West? For those angry muslims in the Netherlands who carried signs calling for bloody butcherings of anyone who disrespect Islam, transport them to Saudi Arabia or Iran and why would the Saudi or Iranian government prosecute them? Is there a law in those countries banning chants of 'Death to America. Death to Israel' and burning the American and Israeli flags in the public squares? If no such laws, then what 'rule of law' are you talking about? But if the Western media print and broadcast images of these muslims we see people like you up in arms about 'media biases'.

BBC NEWS | UK | Cartoons protest man apologises

"I feel almost ashamed. I feel the words didn't make sense. I didn't think anyone would take me seriously."

Got that -- almost ashamed? But never mind the fact that he did not quite reach that degree of repentance for inciting violence.

This issue is about the supposedly media 'bias' against muslims. Is the BBC obligated NOT to print these newsworthy events for fear of appearing to be 'biased' against muslims?

But then we have this from one of the BBC's own...

Muslim Aaqil Ahmed chosen as BBC's head of religion -Times Online

May 12, 2009

The BBC has appointed its first Muslim head of religion.

Aaqil Ahmed, who is to become jointly head of Religion and Ethics and commissioning editor for Religion TV, has made his name at Channel 4 where is he currently commissioning editor for Religion and Multicultural.

You cannot have it both ways, pal, and your argument is falling apart.

As regards the Danish cartoons, many major Western media published the cartoons as a show of support for free speech. Even some Arab newspapers published them.

Uh...Huh...

List of newspapers that reprinted Jyllands-Posten's Muhammad cartoons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is a list of those FIRED for printing those Muhammad cartoons and we can see several Western news organizations who fired their people, including the US. But wait...We see the muslims boo-hoo-hoo that 'the media' is biased against muslims. The Saudi Shams (Sun) is reported as suspended by the Saudi government and Jordanian editors were imprisoned for being 'liberal' about freedom of the press.

On the contrary. I make the indictment against both Muslim and Western media. It is you who considers all Muslim media to be "controlled" and Western media to be "free".

So now you are claiming the high ground because we are using computers to communicate?

How lame has your argument gotten that you have to resort to this level of "rebuttal"? I have never diminished Western accomplishments in science and technology, so I am not sure where this is coming from. Perhaps you are confused and beginning to lump all of us "Muslims in the ummah" together....

Not sure...Then I will explain.

Your continued references to Fox News is important for the readers to see. Why Fox? What make you think that I only uses Fox? I thought I made it clear that I also read liberal sources from The New York Times to near communist The Nation. Is Fox News a branch of the US government? I thought Voice Of America was and last time I checked VOA has nowhere the audience of Fox and is aimed primarily overseas. The Nation often print Noam Chomsky and Michael Walzer, neither of whom are friends of conservatives or Republicans. How many of the Chomskys and Walzers in the muslim media that still have their heads? Not only does Chomsky and Walzer are still alive but continues to be respected and make good money. I criticize muslims therefore Fox must be my only source. Why not NBC or CNN? Is it because they are not as 'conservative' as Fox? But if that is the case, then the fact that there are gradations of 'biases' in the US media is pretty much the proverbial monkey wrench in your argument. And you call me 'pathetic'? More like a projection of your conditioning from having access to only government controlled media to me.

Let us take Human Rights Watch for example. HRW consistently ranks muslim countries among the worst offenders of politically motivated human rights abuses and that include media controls. You would rather remove this data point from the trends because it would make muslims 'look bad' because of 'the media' biases. But we have no doubt you would insist on reserving the right to use this data point against US regarding Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. It is funny to me that there is no muslim equivalent of HRW in the muslim world that dare to do the same as HRW, except only when it concerns the Jews and Israel, of course, and that there is no muslim equivalent of the liberal The New York Times to publish HRW's report. It is funny to me that you cannot see the irony that the muslims must rely upon Western sources to indict both Western and muslim medias and to demand we see both categorically the same. So which is truly the 'free' and which is the 'controlled' here if only one has the sources and the information you desire? The issue is not about science and technology but about the chasm between the West and the muslims in science and technology and how that chasm is easily transferable to 'the media'. So no...I do not claim the moral high ground just because the muslims uses Western technology to indict Western media as supposedly 'biased'. I just think it is deliciously ironic that muslims uses all Western tools, from technology to information to human courage (HRW) to turn around and complain that Western 'media' is biased against muslims.

That's called media bias and monolithic ideology.

Utter BS. The US have no such laws regarding the Muhammad cartoons nor disputing the Holocaust nor headscarves. David Duke, a Louisiana state legislator, is a white supremacist and was invited to Iran for Holocaust denial conference. The US government cannot challenge his right to such expression. In this instance, you would be better off challenging the particular government. Try again with something else that would be more appropriately 'monolithic'.

Then you would be in a minority even within American thinking. Even our favorite Faux News constantly berates about "left-wing media bias" and "mainstream media bias". Statistics like 70% of journalists are registered Democrats and voted such-and-such are constantly used. The media is staffed by people who, like everybody else, are themselves subject to media manipulation and display their ingrained bias in their reporting.

Yes...Please keep in mind your charge of 'the media' at large, not a particular brand as I pointed out. So no...I am hardly a 'minority' in the American public. First you complained that 'the media' is biased, now you pointed out that one participant in this enterprise is accusing another participant on being a different political slant. It is amazing that you cannot even see how you contradicted yourself.

You watched a little Faux News, and read a few pieces by anti-Muslim bigots, and now you consider yourself an expert on Islam and Muslims.

Actually...Most of my knowledge about Islam and muslims came from bishmika allahuma, fatwa-online, fatwaislam, and even muslimahonline and many other similar sources. Out of curiosity, at bishmika allahuma I debated Light-of-Mustafa, nee PrinceZed, about geocentrism vs heliocentrism and it was eye-opening on why the man believe the Earth cannot rotate. He and many like him belong with the Flat-Earthers. I have my own Quran and assorted commentaries translated from Egyptian and Saudi sources. However, I am not interested in becoming a 'scholar' in the model of Esposito or Lewis but only on how ordinary muslims, thru a religious filter, view my society. No different than how a Christian or a Buddhist would. Fox News is a red herring. Get it over Fox News if you can. On the other hand, it could be argued that whatever Fox News spews out must hit awfully close to the intellectual home, eh?

 

[Developereo]

First...In petty dictatorships, it is often the government that incites violence against its enemies. If...As you claimed that anyone who control 'the media' pretty much control public policy...Then why would any muslim government, which control 'the media' inside its borders, prosecute any muslim who would incite violence against the West? For those angry muslims in the Netherlands who carried signs calling for bloody butcherings of anyone who disrespect Islam, transport them to Saudi Arabia or Iran and why would the Saudi or Iranian government prosecute them? Is there a law in those countries banning chants of 'Death to America. Death to Israel' and burning the American and Israeli flags in the public squares? If no such laws, then what 'rule of law' are you talking about? But if the Western media print and broadcast images of these muslims we see people like you up in arms about 'media biases'.

I don't know what you're on about but I was referring to the rule of law regarding public safety and basic human rights. Like I said, all governments, Western and Muslim, should prosecute anyone who incites violence. Not sure why you find that so hard to understand.

And the Western equivalent of people marching "Death To America" are well-dressed, terrorism and security "experts" advocating invasion of Iraq, Iran, or whatever. Just because these people are more polished and well versed in public relations and double-speak doesn't mean they are any less fanatical.

This issue is about the supposedly media 'bias' against muslims. Is the BBC obligated NOT to print these newsworthy events for fear of appearing to be 'biased' against muslims?
You cannot have it both ways, pal, and your argument is falling apart.

My argument remains intact. I never said the media should not report crimes by Muslims. I said that they should devote equal space to positive stories about Muslims to present a more balanced picture.

List of newspapers that reprinted Jyllands-Posten's Muhammad cartoons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is a list of those FIRED for printing those Muhammad cartoons and we can see several Western news organizations who fired their people, including the US. But wait...We see the muslims boo-hoo-hoo that 'the media' is biased against muslims. The Saudi Shams (Sun) is reported as suspended by the Saudi government and Jordanian editors were imprisoned for being 'liberal' about freedom of the press.

So you prove my point that Arab, and Muslim, newspapers published the cartoons. I notice there are a number of those newspapers whose editors were not fired. By contrast, there were almost no Western newspapers that published the Holocaust cartoons.

Speaking of freedom of speech, here's the latest...
Dutch to prosecute Arabs over Holocaust cartoon - Yahoo! News
"Prosecutors plan to press charges for "insulting a group and distributing an insulting image."

No double standards. None whatsoever...

Your continued references to Fox News is important for the readers to see. Why Fox? What make you think that I only uses Fox? I thought I made it clear that I also read liberal sources from The New York Times to near communist The Nation. Is Fox News a branch of the US government? I thought Voice Of America was and last time I checked VOA has nowhere the audience of Fox and is aimed primarily overseas. The Nation often print Noam Chomsky and Michael Walzer, neither of whom are friends of conservatives or Republicans. How many of the Chomskys and Walzers in the muslim media that still have their heads? Not only does Chomsky and Walzer are still alive but continues to be respected and make good money. I criticize muslims therefore Fox must be my only source. Why not NBC or CNN? Is it because they are not as 'conservative' as Fox? But if that is the case, then the fact that there are gradations of 'biases' in the US media is pretty much the proverbial monkey wrench in your argument. And you call me 'pathetic'? More like a projection of your conditioning from having access to only government controlled media to me.

I use Fox News because it demonstrates the mindset you display continually with your monolithic view of the Islamic world. You tend to equate Arab with Muslim. I would invite you to become more familiar with media from Turkey, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, to name a few countries. Just within Pakistan, you can read DAWN.com among others. People like Nadeem Paracha, Cyril Almeida, Pervez Hoodbhoy and others would make Noam Chomsky look like a Pentagon spokesman.

there is no muslim equivalent of the liberal The New York Times

Once again, your misconceptions about media in Muslim countries is clouding your judgement. I encourage you to familiarize yourself with non-Arab media in the Muslim world.

I just think it is deliciously ironic that muslims uses all Western tools, from technology to information to human courage (HRW) to turn around and complain that Western 'media' is biased against muslims.

That statement is a non-sequitur. Logically, it doesn't even make sense.

Utter BS. The US have no such laws regarding the Muhammad cartoons nor disputing the Holocaust nor headscarves.

Court: Muslim cop can’t wear head scarf | Philadelphia Daily News | 04/08/2009

Yes...Please keep in mind your charge of 'the media' at large, not a particular brand as I pointed out. So no...I am hardly a 'minority' in the American public. First you complained that 'the media' is biased, now you pointed out that one participant in this enterprise is accusing another participant on being a different political slant. It is amazing that you cannot even see how you contradicted yourself.

There is no contradiction. Bias relates to particular issues or ideologies. The American media has diversity of opinion when it comes to domestic policy. There are liberal and right wing camps, each accusing the other of bias. But when it comes to Middle Eastern politics or Muslim issues, then the American media becomes much more monolithic. Almost any media debate on Middle Eastern issues lacks a first-hand Palestinian perspective. Debates regarding Afghanistan and Pakistan policy rarely have people from the region presentign their point of view. There are a handful of programs like Lehrer Report and Charlie Rose on PBS which are better, but most of the media has two American "experts" debating each other.

Actually...Most of my knowledge about Islam and muslims came from bishmika allahuma, fatwa-online, fatwaislam, and even muslimahonline and many other similar sources. Out of curiosity, at bishmika allahuma I debated Light-of-Mustafa, nee PrinceZed, about geocentrism vs heliocentrism and it was eye-opening on why the man believe the Earth cannot rotate. He and many like him belong with the Flat-Earthers. I have my own Quran and assorted commentaries translated from Egyptian and Saudi sources.

As stated earlier, you are under the same misconception that plagues many Westerners: you equate Arab with Muslim. FYI, about 20% of Muslims live in Arab countries, 30% in the Indian Subcontinent, and 15.6% in Indonesia alone, the largest Muslim country in absolute numbers (Source: Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

Fox News is a red herring. Get it over Fox News if you can. On the other hand, it could be argued that whatever Fox News spews out must hit awfully close to the intellectual home, eh?

Nah. It's just that Fox News tends to be the most direct in their anti-Muslim agenda. Unlike others, they don't bother with niceties and double-speak.

 

[gambit]

Well you did but not in the exact words and not in the same line. I will look for more posts.

Good luck in your search.

In your previous post you described the intentions of Japanese.That was before you actually destroyed them.

My question: why would iraq attack you if they know that you will nuke them even if they used non state actors for the plot. The origin of nuclear weapon can be traced you know.

If USSR did not attack you then why Iraq.You could have waited for some years to see where did the trend go.

Sorry...But I think you are confused between pre- versus post-detonation forensics. UN/IAEA nuclear inspection regimes are well developed and mature in their methodologies to determine, based upon PROGRAM related evidences, the origins of the materials used to develop a nuclear explosive device. Notice I said 'explosive device' and not 'warhead'. The 'warhead' falls under 'weaponization' and by that time, any inspection regime is irrelevant.

Nuclear weapons states are those who have succesfully detonated at least a device, not yet a 'warhead', even though we may use 'warhead' casually, I plead guilty to that sin as well. Those nuclear weapons states are: US, Russia, China, Great Britain and France. These are also permanent UN Security Council members. Other two nuclear weapons states are India and Pakistan. Do not include Israel or North Korea in this because to date the best way to prove a successful indigenous nuclear weapons program is to actually detonate a nuclear explosive device of one's own development and build. So far neither Israel nor NKR have done so (yet), for NKR it is speculative at best. UN/IAEA nuclear investigation regimes are fully capable of pre-detonation forensics.

That does not mean post-detonation forensics is unknown. Every nuclear weapons state that successfully detonated an indigenous device performed the necessary forensic investigation to verify the estimated yield of their devices, the amount of uranium or plutonium consumed or how much radiation produced. However, they had assistance in the form of contaminated uranium or plutonium, aka 'trace markers', embedded. These marker or 'contaminants' are voluntary and along with the 'recipe' of the fissionable material, are also state secrets. The US and other nuclear states are suppliers to other nuclear states such as Japan and Germany, our allies who are not nuclear weapons states. So for speculation's sake if there is a horrible nuclear related disaster in Japan, for example, post-detonation forensics would tell us the origins of the fissionable material, even down to the day manufactured, via those isotopic trace markers. Still...post-detonation forensics are far less advanced and experienced than pre-detonation investigation processes and techniques for obvious reasons presented by the need to verify NPT compliance.

The next problem for post-detonation forensics is the mode of the weapon. A 'dirty bomb' is where even though fissionable materials were involved, an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction was not produced. A 'dirty bomb' is aka a 'radiological' weapon. If there is a smoke detector in your home, you are near a 'radiological' device. Same for an X-ray machine in a doctor's office. There is a minute amount of uranium in an average home smoke/fire detector. A 'dirty bomb' is more a weapon of terror than of destruction. Radioactive materials are dispersed and the fear factor induced will socially and economically devastate a neighbor. If a person is contaminated with the fissionable material, the psychological effects can mentally and physically cripple the person. Even if no isotopic markers are found, enough of the fissionable material will remain chemically intact to provide investigators with its composition, including process contaminants that were not filtered out, that can at least give them a lead towards the origin of the fissionable material.

https://www.llnl.gov/str/March05/Hutcheon.html

The Nuclear Smuggling International Technical Working Group, formed in 1995, works closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency to provide assistance to nuclear forensic scientists around the world. In 2004, the group, which included participants from Lawrence Livermore, met in Cadarache, France, to discuss recent progress in countering the illicit trafficking of nuclear materials.

The difference between the UN/IAEA and the ITWG is that the IAEA focuses on state sponsored nuclear programs while the ITWG concentrate on non-state actors smuggling nuclear related materials across borders and continents and attribute whatever they find to its origin. The young age of the group is highly indicative of the immaturity level of this pre-detonation forensic program. To date -- China, India and Pakistan, nuclear weapons states, are NOT contributing members of the ITWG.

What if it is not a 'dirty bomb' but a fully functional nuclear explosive device that resulted in an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction, say in Washington DC or Orlando (Disneyland) during peak summer tourist time? What if there is no isotopic marker in the scant residue of this true nuclear weapon instead of a mere 'dirty bomb'? How much of that nuclear heat will leave us any clue? To say that post-detonation nuclear forensics in the absence of isotopic markers extremely difficult is an understatement. If China, India and Pakistan refused to participate in the effort to control nuclear materials smuggling, what make anyone believe Saddam Hussein would?

Take a look at this cooperation between US and Russia...

Key Issues: Nuclear Energy: Issues: US and Russian Plutonium Disposition

The Trilateral Initiative was launched in September 1996 to develop a new IAEA verification system for weapons-origin material designated as released from defense programs by the US and the Russian Federation. IAEA verification of this initiative will promote international confidence that fissile material subjected to the IAEA by either the US or Russia remains irreversibly removed from nuclear weapons programs.

What if the US and Russia 'dope' their weapons grade plutonium with isotopic markers that not only is distinctive but also decay to varying degrees over time and publish this information? Remember that the US and Russia are suppliers to other nuclear states fissionable materials for R/D and energy related purposes. Isotopes decay at different rates. A 'doping' mixture that includes several isotopes would assist investigators in seeing their different decay rates track down not only national origins but also the date of manufacture or even when/where some materials were stolen. The US and Russia WANT to be identified as origin nations in that scenario. One cannot help but wonder why China, India and Pakistan are so reluctant. Of course, my information could be out of date so do correct me if I am in error regarding Pakistan's refusal to contribute to the ITWG.

Come on US wasted hundreds of billions of $ (much of which was loaned money) which directly affected you economy and while doing so suffered thousands of casualties just to "liberate" iraq. There must be some return on investment.

You are avoiding the question I asked. Your charge is that we overthrew Saddam Hussein 'for oil'. I presented to you an argument that absolutely debunked that silly charge. Reason -- financial stupidity. It is cheaper to let the Iraqis starve and want medicines and buy oil from Saddam Hussein at a discount rate than to go to war to overthrow him and put ourselves at the mercy of OPEC. You did know that oil was at $100/barrel for a while, right? Please re-read what I presented and respond accordingly.

 

[Zulfiqar]

Do not include Israel

Israel tested a nuclear weapon with South Africa.It is known as Vela incident. Source: The Samson Option by Seymour Hersh. I can give you the link to the ebook version if need be.

You are avoiding the question I asked. Your charge is that we overthrew Saddam Hussein 'for oil'. I presented to you an argument that absolutely debunked that silly charge. Reason -- financial stupidity. It is cheaper to let the Iraqis starve and want medicines and buy oil from Saddam Hussein at a discount rate than to go to war to overthrow him and put ourselves at the mercy of OPEC. You did know that oil was at $100/barrel for a while, right? Please re-read what I presented and respond accordingly.

If the oil was economical to you when there were sanctions then there must be some other reason. You don't just waste hundreds of billions of dollars on war without any return on investment.

There were many other ways of stopping iraq from becoming a nuclear power using much cheaper ways.

 

[gambit]

Israel tested a nuclear weapon with South Africa.It is known as Vela incident. Source: The Samson Option by Seymour Hersh. I can give you the link to the ebook version if need be.

Old news that was speculative at best. My opinion, and opinion has the possibility of being wrong, is that it was a South African nuclear test detonation. Israel may have contributed some technical assistance for reciprocal technical information.

If the oil was economical to you when there were sanctions then there must be some other reason.

I already listed those reasons -- the ones that you found.

You don't just waste hundreds of billions of dollars on war without any return on investment.

An ROI does not have to be financial. That is a clear sign of limited thinking. When it comes to nuclear destruction, the preferred ROI is peace thru deterrence. Denial of the same is an option.

There were many other ways of stopping iraq from becoming a nuclear power using much cheaper ways.

Yes...And we had 10yrs of those 'other ways' and it was called 'the sanction years'. Remember that? During those years, there were assorted violence done and even attempted murders of UN/IAEA inspectors, delays of inspections...etc...etc...These events were testified by all three NON-AMERICAN inspection leaders. FYI...These inspection teams were structured so that no American was allowed in the top position. Subordinated technical team leaders, yes, but no American was allowed to be the one reporting to the UN Security Council. Ekeus and Blix were Swedes and Butler was Australian. All three men each had long history, as technician and diplomat, in the nuclear disarmament field. So we can immediately rule out any silly notions that the teams were under US controls.

How long do you think the UN/IAEA could sustain the inspection and enforcement regime? The US was already paying the majority of the financial burden. If we withdraw financial support, who will take over that burden? Russia? China? France? Each was already dealing with Saddam Hussein under the table.

You cannot dismiss the truth that there as to be an end sometime. Either the violator comply to the fullest of the required conditions and will be left in probation. Or he face the severe consequences due his intransigence. Attempted murders of UN/IAEA inspectors, as testified by Richard Butler, is not very conducive towards leniency. At least in my view, anyway but I do understand if you have sympathies for Saddam Hussein.

 

[Zulfiqar]

At least in my view, anyway but I do understand if you have sympathies for Saddam Hussein.

No sympathies for him or any other dictator but sympathies for the people killed,injured,displaced and pimped(like in syria) and sympathies for expected civil war in the future. The region was already in trouble with or without your intervention. Soon we may expect the kurds,sunnis and shias to fight among themselves for several reason. Obviously iran will support shias and arabs would hate the influence of iran in their region.

I don't like Col Ralph peter's map(everything cannot be split on nationality) but it does show how the future iraq may look like.

Old news that was speculative at best. My opinion, and opinion has the possibility of being wrong, is that it was a South African nuclear test detonation. Israel may have contributed some technical assistance for reciprocal technical information.

I would rather believe that Israel does possess nuclear warheads and tested some. We all know about that christian scientist who blew the whistle along with pictures.

 

[gambit]

I don't know what you're on about but I was referring to the rule of law regarding public safety and basic human rights. Like I said, all governments, Western and Muslim, should prosecute anyone who incites violence. Not sure why you find that so hard to understand.

I understand 'the rule of law' well enough. My point was in response to this silly statement...

I only wish Muslim governments were more diligent in maintaining rule of law.

When it comes to protest about America and Israel. What laws are there regarding mass demonstrations where muslims chant 'Death to America'? If there are no laws against chanting 'Death to America' the next question is should there be? We can see what happened in Iran as indicative that if there is a mass demonstration by the people who demand some form of 'Death' to the current regime they are living under, no doubt the muslim government at that time will waste no time in executing the law that ban any call for revolution. In that, muslim governments are quite diligent.

And the Western equivalent of people marching "Death To America" are well-dressed, terrorism and security "experts" advocating invasion of Iraq, Iran, or whatever. Just because these people are more polished and well versed in public relations and double-speak doesn't mean they are any less fanatical.

Are you saying that neither Iraq nor Iran have no such people roaming the corridors of their governments?



Or how about some of them in clerical garbs who, in their exhortations to muslims to smite us infidels, peppered their orations with verses from holy scriptures? You think imams do not have PR people working for them?

My argument remains intact. I never said the media should not report crimes by Muslims. I said that they should devote equal space to positive stories about Muslims to present a more balanced picture.

No...Your arguments felled apart a while ago. The Western media is under no obligations to report anything under anyone's or any group's dictates. Freedom of the press means the freedom to excel as well as to fail. People expect their lives to be unexciting unless it is they who induced their own excitement, such as in vacations or even from a night of binge drinking. We do not expect to see and hear threats from a group whose threats call for our annihilation. People expect muslims to live peaceful lives among non-muslims' peaceful lives. Normalcy do not generate excitement and interests. Do you think this is normal for church going children?

There is no incitement to violence there, just sheer hatred for homosexuals. But that is news. And so SHOULD this be newsworthy...

'EXTERMINATE THOSE WHO SLANDER ISLAM' is eyecatching, natch? Falling back to legalism? It is irrelevant if making such exhortations to violence is 'against the law' or not. What is relevant is the threat that is clear and unequivocal from those who made that threat. The laws has nothing to do with perceptions. If there is no law then there is no 'law-breaking' but the threat to do harm is still there. The Western media is obliged to report any event, especially when the event carry such a clear and unequivocal message, that constitute a threat to peaceful lives.

So you prove my point that Arab, and Muslim, newspapers published the cartoons. I notice there are a number of those newspapers whose editors were not fired. By contrast, there were almost no Western newspapers that published the Holocaust cartoons.

No...What I proved was that the Western media are far more aware of their freedoms and obligations than the cowed muslim media, whose cowardliness contributed to those not very positive perceptions of muslims. Like I said earlier, it is a delicious irony that only in the West do muslims are able to express their opinions, their satisfactions and discontents, and their threats to violence to the very society that guaranteed their basic human rights. Is 'the media' forbidden to point out this contradiction?

Speaking of freedom of speech, here's the latest...
Dutch to prosecute Arabs over Holocaust cartoon - Yahoo! News
"Prosecutors plan to press charges for "insulting a group and distributing an insulting image."

No double standards. None whatsoever...

By all means complain to the Dutch. But remember that your charge is about the Western media at large. For US, we have Holocaust denial organizations that publishes their tripe under the First Amendment right. This goes back to the many 'brands' under the 'Western media' umbrella.

I use Fox News because it demonstrates the mindset you display continually with your monolithic view of the Islamic world. You tend to equate Arab with Muslim. I would invite you to become more familiar with media from Turkey, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, to name a few countries. Just within Pakistan, you can read DAWN.com among others. People like Nadeem Paracha, Cyril Almeida, Pervez Hoodbhoy and others would make Noam Chomsky look like a Pentagon spokesman.

Once again, your misconceptions about media in Muslim countries is clouding your judgement. I encourage you to familiarize yourself with non-Arab media in the Muslim world.

No...You used Fox News simply because it is a convenient rhetorical tool. As for my 'monolithic' view of the Islamic world...Show me a single country in the ME, awash with oil wealth, that is a functional democracy that guarantee you the right to call its leader vile names. Ever seen that dance bit by the American actor James Carey on the television show In Living Color where he parodied President Bill Clinton on his sexual escapades? What Carey did was crude and would be personally insulting to anyone. But also in the same world are serious discussions about the moral responsibilities of a leader and why it is important that Clinton should (or not) be impeached. The range of disagreements to a President of the US is clear, from respectful discussions to sexually offensive parodies. If you cannot show me a pattern of independence of the public from its government, and 'the media' is part of that public, then try to understand that the lack of whatever we take for granted contributed to this 'monolithic' view of the Islamic world. No need to go into details about women's issues or scientific progress or several others.

Utter BS. The US have no such laws regarding the Muhammad cartoons nor disputing the Holocaust nor headscarves.

Court: Muslim cop can’t wear head scarf | Philadelphia Daily News | 04/08/2009

Is that it? THAT is a sign that the US has a national law regarding muslim head covering? Looky here, Perfessor...That is by the local authority.

Head Games | News and Opinion | Philadelphia Weekly

The state court has held that the policy--known as Directive No. 78--"reflects the fact that the police force is a para-military organization in which personal preferences must be subordinated to the overall policing mission ... "

The crucial difference that make the US case different than France's law and merit serious discussions is this...

Perhaps the most notable difference in this case is that Webb is--as city attorney Ewing stated--an "armed agent" of the city.

A police officer is not merely a representative, or a bureaucrat, from the government but an ARMED AGENT of a government. Governments are naturally coercive and when a representative of the government carries a weapon, has the power of arrest and display a religious preference, it can be perceived that the government has a clear and unequivocal biased towards a particular religion at its most extreme -- armed coercion. The French law apply to the general public. We can now see how pervasive this victimhood mentality is in the ummah when you did not bother to even try to see if this local authority's policy has any merit and comparative value to France's law.

There is no contradiction. Bias relates to particular issues or ideologies. The American media has diversity of opinion when it comes to domestic policy. There are liberal and right wing camps, each accusing the other of bias. But when it comes to Middle Eastern politics or Muslim issues, then the American media becomes much more monolithic. Almost any media debate on Middle Eastern issues lacks a first-hand Palestinian perspective. Debates regarding Afghanistan and Pakistan policy rarely have people from the region presentign their point of view. There are a handful of programs like Lehrer Report and Charlie Rose on PBS which are better, but most of the media has two American "experts" debating each other.

Sure it is...Not...

Boycott Israel -- latimes.com

Another 15secs wasted. You can dismiss this if you want but it is already clear that even though the contents of any of 'the media' article may not be to your liking, the US and the Western media at large is far more diverse in reportage in one year than any of your muslim media in ten, including ME issues and the LA Times is a nationally known newspaper, in print and electronics. Also, there is no shortage of dissenters who are more than willing to criticize Israel and the US on behalf of the Palestinians, even when one of them is a Jew like the article above. It is further difficult to swallow your claim in this Internet age when there are plenty of support for the Palestinians at counterpunch or democraticunderground. Lay off it already.

As stated earlier, you are under the same misconception that plagues many Westerners: you equate Arab with Muslim. FYI, about 20% of Muslims live in Arab countries, 30% in the Indian Subcontinent, and 15.6% in Indonesia alone, the largest Muslim country in absolute numbers (Source: Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

The Saudis fund the education of Wahabism in Asia to the point that on many of the Asian forums I frequent, the 'Arabization of Asia' is a serious discussion among Asians and Asian-Americans.

Reuters AlertNet - SE Asian Muslims want state support for madrasas

"We're alienating our children from our history, culture and sense of nationalism because we're not producing enough books and materials for our madrasas," Salipada Tamano, a professor of Islamic Studies in the Philippines, told Reuters.

"It doesn't surprise me if our children were more oriented to Islamic teaching from the Middle East because we've been getting most of our reading materials and our Arabic teachers from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Libya."

It is only natural that the dominant will attempt to replace the subordinate's culture and even language if possible. The Arabs are not ignorant of what they are doing to Asians. They do not care and they found many willing agents among the Asian muslims.