Link



So....US forces are on standby to take over the Pakistan nuclear arsenal in the event of a civil breakdown.

Questions to be debated:
1)Is this a sensible precaution?
2) Is this legal under international law? Please explain your reasoning.
3) If your answer to the above is no, is this still a good thing to do? Is this a case where the potential harm of having several loose nukes in the hands of fanatics justifies the use of military force?

Edited to add optional question: Where is the UN? Surely every country has a vested interest in the outcome here.

Man, you know how to ask the tough questions Mrs P- you think you may be the reincarnation of an old Poli sci prof that I had such a hard time with back in the 80s

1)Is this a sensible precaution?

Well, yes and no. We should probably war game it, train for it, and devote some resources for it- but it is a tough call. Jimmy Carter got all the blame for what happened back when we attempted something like this back in the 70s- though it was bad luck and the generals that really bear the blame- and the same here- if it goes down and fails, we will have left ourselves with NO options. Who knows that there 61 or more in reality? Is our intel so good that we can say that without a shadow of a doubt? What if they start moving around the nukes as soon as things start to destabilize?

Anyone in the military will tell you- intel poeple claim to be right- but are just as often wrong. "Good intel" is almost a curse word at times - do we risk something like this, with stakes as high as they are, to try to pull off something as complex as this?

You said "10 high security installations"- okay- with this, everyone knows about the attack that may happen. Including those guarding those installations. I believe our SF folks are good- but no one is that good, those Pakistani forces that are guarding those installations are probably elite troops themselves, and have gamed several different ways they could be attacked. AFter all, we are talking about the single most important assets in that country, and we have a very unstable situation, everyone is gong to be hyper aware of an attack at that point.

So you have a highly defensible position, that probably needs a very, very high ratio of SF to guarding personel at those instalation, probably at least 3 to 1, just guessing. A small surgical attack force would probably not work on an profesional military installation.

Cruise missle bombing may work- but they have sophisticated radar and detection equipment at installations like that- I don't even know if they can stealth it enough to prevent a launch upon detection, and, on top of that, it depends on how hair trigger the lauching codes will be in this situation. You would have to hit all 10 installations (if that is the right number) simultaneously, with no mistakes. Perfect strike, no room for error. One piece of bad luck, or piece of intel wrong, we have global nuclear holocaust going down,

Hey Mrs P- I don't know if you know this, your husband being a pilot and all? Did you know that your Husband, if he really is clocking the flight hours, will have the highest yearly allowable dosage of gamma rays of any other type of proffession in the world? I know this because I just certified for my NRC safety certification, in order to do industrial radiograhy. You get more Rems of exposure at 30,000 feet for 3000 miles than you do from an X-ray at the ER or dentist office? - and what would this have to do with the price of tea in china you may ask

We all get an average yearly dose of radiation. X-ray technicians and industrial radiograhers get the next most average yearly and lifetime radiation exposure,

But the average human being in the US, 25-50% of the exposure they recieve in a year and in a lifetime come from above ground testing done in the past, depending on where you live (higher altitudes, naturally occuring radon in the earth, some other things), how many x-rays you take in a lifetime, how much you fly- and, back ground radiation that gets through the Ozone layer and the atmosphere.

There might not be a single nuke that makes it to the US, considering what Pakistan has for missles, but the nuke war that would start with Pakistan launching, oh, 30 or so nukes, I didn't see how many warheads per missle, or if it is a single warhead per missle- and then India, North Korea, China, Russia go all launch-arific. If the rest of the world nuke superpowers don't get hit and don't launch, well then, there is a good possibility that we will all still die of radiation poisoning. Or kill off enough of the fauna of the planet that we all die anyway. Disrupt the entire ecosystem that allows us to provide life on earth.

In other words, still contained, we all could die by our own action in this, the fire starter as it were.

Now, we don't invade, are we really quite sure enough that Pakistan is so instable that they actually don't maintain absolute control over thier nukes?


2) Is this legal under international law? Please explain your reasoning.

I seriously don't know. I don't think we could do it alone, we would have blame to spread around for killing ourselves I suppose?

It would probably be a joint thing anyway. It would be best to come from Russian airspace anyway. Russian also has the best missle systems right now, IIRC, and our SF "painting" them may make it possible to take them all out in one shot.

So, there would be no jail time for anyone or something, but if it goes wrong, we all die anyway.

3) If your answer to the above is no, is this still a good thing to do? Is this a case where the potential harm of having several loose nukes in the hands of fanatics justifies the use of military force?

See above. I don't think the risk is worth the gamble on this one. Too many things can go wrong, and our entire world's collective lives depends on Vegas-kinds-of odds-of-good -luck.

Okay- Mrs P- who do you think is most likely to get thier hands on nukes?

I would bet it will still be the military in charge, with a extremist muslim goverment ruling with the blessing of the military. Pakistan is a more unstable model of Turkey, don't you think? The military itself is the check in muslim extremism? I would say somewhere between the Iraq Saddam as strongman model of military that is "protecting" the religion of the land. Myammar uses this, Franco of Spain uses this, Turkey Uses this model. Myammar has been the "protector" of the traditional "buhdist" religion - which made this last demostration a real problem for the Myammar generals (hey, BTW- don't hate because of the mispelling of the nations here, mm'kay?) Franco made Catholicism the state religion, and the Turkish military stages a coup every once in a while to make sure things stay on an even keel.

Who is, in your best guess, going to be the ones gaining control of those nukes Mrs P? Would round out the debate a bit better, to hear couple of posters opinions and info on Pakistani politics to see who the main players are. It could be Nawaz Sharif (sp?) that takew power- I think those folks are probably too professional politician to really do something stupid with the nukes, personally.

The whole thing strikes me as absurd. The Pakistani armed forces have about 620,000 active duty members with another 300,000 in reserve. If they can't control their nukes there is little American special forces can add to the equation. That's assuming their army is supportive of our intervention, which is highly unlikely. If they oppose it, then any intervention with troops becomes suicidal.

What does make sense is to actively engage the Pakistani military in contingency discussions about what to do if specific weapons are threatened. They might approve of well contained air strikes to destroy threatened weapons. It also makes sense to careful monitor each and every one of these weapons, something that I'm sure has been going on for some time.



1) No, for the reasons stated above and because even discussing it publicly is likely to inflame Pakistani nationalism.
2) Not likely unless circumstances make it clear that the US is directly threatened. On the other hand, legalities haven't inhibited the Bush crowd in the past.
3) No, because its impractical and counter productive. Loose nukes in the hands of fanatics is a hypothetical and justifies nothing. Military force might be justified subject to the approval of the Pakistani government (military) to destroy or contain specific nuclear weapons that are clearly threatened.

Ted5, to explain a bit of the military mind- any scenario that the Pakistani military leaders allow US intervention will be just to seize the weapons and make sure the "right elements" are in charge of those installations. No military man with that kind of power (the power to help US forces) would sacrifice the asset, I think. Too much potential power thrown away there.

1)Is this a sensible precaution?

Yep, controlling nukes is sensible. Ten thousand Pakistani troops are on the job, so now there are US special forces and some kind of super kung fu scientists on it too. Apparently this is not classified information, which makes me wonder if it is just make-believe.

2) Is this legal under international law? Please explain your reasoning.

I don't know because I don't. If this is true then I imagine the Pakistani government and armed forces know about it and welcome the help. I sure would.

3) If your answer to the above is no, is this still a good thing to do? Is this a case where the potential harm of having several loose nukes in the hands of fanatics justifies the use of military force?

Of course. Loose nukes scare everyone. You don't want them in the hands of fanatics because even a botched job has international consequences. Oops, blew that multi-megaton thing off in the wrong town. Oh well, still took out half the country. The fallout will follow the wind. Call it a day.

Edited to add optional question: Where is the UN? Surely every country has a vested interest in the outcome here.

I don't know that either, other than the wiseacre take that it's in NYC. Does the UN read the papers?

Overall I get the feeling that this is a story meant to calm fears about loose nukes coming into the hands of international terrorists. I like the idea of Rambos and ninja Professors ready to parachute in and stop Dr. Evil. Hope it's true. I also liked to read that the nuke components are kept separate, thus making it harder to steal a working nuke. Plus the terrorists would need to know how to put a nuke together. That's probably difficult, left-handed threads and codes, keys, retina scanners . . . one would hope.

I'd booby trap the suckers too. Throw some nerve gas into the mix. If you don't know what you're doing, poof! Game over.

1)Is this a sensible precaution?

I think that depends on the reality of what is planned as opposed to the story as leaked to the media. I have no doubt that this story is probably an exersize in crowd control. Hollywood has already suggested this scenario in enough films for the possibility of rogue nukes to be widely appreciated by the general public as a serious threat. Now such a possibility is looking ever likely again, we must decide if we are Denzel Washington or Gene Hackman... The trouble is, living in a post Cold War world, this problem is never going to go away, and sooner or later Denzel, for all his good intentions, is gong to be the one who gets it wrong. Then we are left with the world worst lottery. Who wants to live in the first city to be nuked by terrorists?

The Pakistani military is rife with Muslim extremists, but I cannot even guess as to how many they are and how high their influence extends. Potentially the Pakistani military may prove to be a serious problem that must be neutralized so I think its a good idea to take steps towards taking control of, or to simply destroy Pakistan's nuclear weaponry.


2) Is this legal under international law? Please explain your reasoning.

I can't see how unless the Pakistani government agrees to it in order to prevent their nuclear arsenal falling into the wrong hands.


3) If your answer to the above is no, is this still a good thing to do? Is this a case where the potential harm of having several loose nukes in the hands of fanatics justifies the use of military force?

Yes, without a doubt. This is no time for pacifism. It was Ghandi's weakness that got us all into this problem in the first place.

If I were in charge of the US miiltary I'd certainly not hesitate to have several submarines in close proximity to Pakistan. If necessary, I'd destroy Pakistan's nuclear weapons rather than allow them to fall into the hands of people who would strike at western city's.

Well, it won't be someone like Ghandi. Pakistan's own intelligence agency is heavily Taliban-connected. It ultimately probably depends on the military population. I don't know a lot about the types of individuals who occupy the Pakistan military at large, but I'm not overly optimistic myself.



I was thinking something similar.

1)Is this a sensible precaution?
IMO, yes it is.

2) Is this legal under international law? Please explain your reasoning.
At this point in time, I think the plan is legal because (the article implies at least) the current government has agreed with it. If and when all hell breaks loose, I'm not sure. In that case, the current government would no longer be in charge, so I don't think that (legally) the decisions it made before losing power could technically be enforced by the US without violating international law. We'd have to defer to the one that takes over (I guess?). I'm sure international lawyers would (try to) come up with a good case for pre-emptive self defense here, though...We'd probably say that we were carrying out the wishes of the former regime and, gosh, didn't notice that it wasn't in power anymore. Speed is crucial. But, then, we couldn't carry out the orders of the former regime until we know it has been taken over. Tricky. I don't know.

3) If your answer to the above is no, is this still a good thing to do? Is this a case where the potential harm of having several loose nukes in the hands of fanatics justifies the use of military force?

I still think it's a good thing to do.

It is a sensible solution, there is no argument that would justify allowing nuclear arms to fall into the hands of a radical Imam or ruler that we just don't know about. I disagree with TedN5's assertion that the Pakistan military would resent our presence. We fund them to the tune of billions that have been squandered away, we also have a long history of mutual agreements and military exercises. The history has been a long and helpful one. While the brass likes us, the younger soldiers are the ones we have to worry about.

The legality under international law will be easily achieved when Musharraf or some other senior leader appeals for U.S./international support. The appeal will help us avoid the legal requirement in article II of the U.N. charter that deals with respecting the international boundaries of other nations.



I bet plans have been made behind closed doors for some time now should something happen. We haven't heard anything publicly about it, or from the U.N. as we don't want to undermine Musharraf and make him look like a dead duck.

What hasn't been addressed is why the hearts and minds of the majority of Pakistan is not in our corner. Between the Islamists and the democratic reform parties, it's clear that our side will be viewed very negatively should the election be delayed. Are we supporting the Pakistani version of the Shah? Will we have an Ayatollah who will kick us out?

You bet its sensible and this is one of the primary reasons Delta Force was created. Weather it is “legal” or not is beside the point. To allow a government headed potentially by the Taliban to have control of nuclear weapons is out of the question.

Is this a sensible precaution?
I think so. It depends on how it all goes down. Musharraf alternately has his hands crossed when dealing with extremists and/or panders to them. I'm not sure he'd ask us to take/destroy the nukes in the event of a rout. I think some Americans are foolishly comfortable with Musharraf's dictatorship because of our transitional support for and success with Brazil and Chile's juntas.

Is this legal under international law?
I've no idea. I think legalities, if they exist, depend on circumstances surrounding the seizure/destruction of nukes.

Is this a case where the potential harm of having several loose nukes in the hands of fanatics justifies the use of military force?
Who's to say nukes aren't already in their hands? The Inter-Services Intelligence, the largest intelligence agency in Pakistan, is thought to be infiltrated by AQ/Taliban sympathizers if not double agents and suspected (along with police) of having something to do with Bhutto's assassination. Musharraf's 1999 coup d'etat would not have been possible without the assistance of Lt. Gen. Ahmad, former head of the ISI. Ahmad is suspected of ordering Ahmed Sheikh (Daniel Pearl's alleged killer) to wire $100k to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta. UPI journalist Richard Sale recently posted on a former intelligence official's blog: As a serving US intelligence analyst said to me in 2003, "It's worrying when half of your lower and mid-level Pakistani intelligence analysts have bin Laden screen savers on their computers."

Your average Pakistani looks up to bin Laden, too.

If extremists take over I think they'll use the threat of nukes to end our presence in the Middle East. ISI may be sympathetic to jihadists but I don't see military autocrats giving up their power/influence to accommodate a religious government. Power corrupts and Islam can't change this basic fact. Especially when your intelligence/military/police forces have so many new "crime fighting" tools at their disposal paid by U.S. taxpayers to help them preserve choice aspects of the status quo and their positions within it.

I agree. I think the military will do, if required, whatever is required to keep the radical islamists out of power and control of the nukes. In our case it is the old conundrum of supporting the lesser of 2 evils.

Certainly other local countries like Hindu India is very concerned as well – and they have nukes as well.

The situation could not get much worse.

And recent pictures seem to show that Bhutto was shot from behind which conflicts with the std. government position.

Also it seems she was negotiating for protection with Black Water. Too bad because if they were guarding her she would be alive today.

1)Is this a sensible precaution?
I can't see Pakistanis being any more understanding than Americans accepting Russian action to shut down and secure the miltary in case of theft. Considering the size of the army noted above (TedN5), I think any action which requires the military to response defensively to be reckless and foolhardy.

2) Is this legal under international law? Please explain your reasoning.
There might be but I am not aware of any such action which involves liquidating an existing military surplus. In the absence of a tyrant I can't see unilateral action gaining traction.

3) If your answer to the above is no, is this still a good thing to do? Is this a case where the potential harm of having several loose nukes in the hands of fanatics justifies the use of military force?

This strikes me as sensible as poking your finger through the cage at the zoo. The opposing question is what will happens if all the loose nukes aren't grabbed in tandem? At that point anything goes.

I have worked and known delta force and SF soldiers in my lifetime- and they know thier limitations as well as anyone. In a single strike, real surgical, in and out, I would say they have a very high likelihood of coming out on top- 10+ targets simultaenously? No way, no how. ESECIALLY against a well trained superior force, on defendable positions.

Someone watches to much Clancy or something.

For instace- look at our invasion of Grenada- a successful invasion by any measure, and one of the very rare times America was CLEARLY "the good guy".

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/urgent_fury.htm

Bad intel, etc etc, had us bogged down for a bit, and the delta force and ranger battalions suffered the heaviest losses, due to bad intell, again.

the pakistani military IS NOT the Grenadin military and cuban nationals. they have been trained by the US, and have thier own elite forces, and though we may have better elite forces than they do- they have alot more of them, and are in a tactical advantage, big time.

Speaking of SF, I'd be quite interested to hear your assessment of Operation Gothic Serpent. What administrative decisions led to it's failures?