Why Secure Only Pakistani Nukes?

By Adnan Gill

For last few months, Pakistan's sovereignty and the security of her nuclear arsenal has become the lightning rod for the American opinion-makers, especially for its presidential hopefuls. Pakistan has become the litmus test to grade the foreign policy expertise of the White House hopefuls. Impending presidential elections are only increasing the hysteria of nuclear-armed Pakistan becoming a ‘failed state’ vis-à-vis its nuclear weapons falling in the hands of blood-thirsty Muslim fundamentalists. The candidates are trampling over each other over who can scare the dickens out of Americans the most?

The Republican candidate, Mike Huckabee made a fool out of himself, when instead of commenting on Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, he decided to scare the Americans of the Pakistani bogeyman. He warned, “There were more Pakistanis who illegally crossed the border than of any other nationality except for those immediately south of our border. 660 last year. That’s a lot of illegals from Pakistan.” Such an irresponsible and baseless xenophobic alarm was sounded by a candidate who preaches tolerance.

For his part, the Democrat hopeful Barack Obama warned that he might use force in Pakistan to root out terrorists in their country. But the cake for upping the scaremongering goes to Hillary Clinton. Last year, she refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against Osama bin Laden or other terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Then this year she went even a step further by proposing a joint US-British team to oversee the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, as if they were Iraqi oilfields.

The threat to Pakistani sovereignty hardly comes from the irresponsible statements of the presidential hopefuls. These politicians are only capitalizing on the steady drumbeat of American media and the think-tanks (mostly funded by the special-interests) . The systematic ratcheting up of hysteria started when a new map of the Middle East, making circles among the opinion-makers, was leaked to the public. Among other nations, it showed a fractured Pakistan too. Soon thereafter, American news media was buzzing with the statements of undisclosed American officials about plans drawn to secure Pakistani nuclear weapons. Then out of nowhere, the Newsweek declared Pakistan as the most dangerous nation. The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other American media outlets started their own fear-derbies to win the race of ‘who can make Pakistan look the scariest?’ If we didn't know any better, the fear mongers would make us believe that the Taliban armed with the captured Pakistani nukes are on their way to the American continent.

If we were to look beyond the political rhetoric and empty bravado of the White House hopefuls we come to a sad reality, that American presidents are enslaved to the advice of special-interests, who actually form the American foreign policies. These special-interests range from oil industry mega giants to the defense conglomerates. President Bush had virtually nil foreign-policy experience when he became the president, but thanks to these special-interests, as soon as he became the president, isolating China became the focus of his government's foreign policy. Soon after, it shifted to an obsession with the oil-plush Iraq.

Even when the American establishment seemingly shows its confidence in the stability of Pakistan, it leaves a door wide-open for fear mongers. Recently, in an interview with the Washington Post, the CIA director Michael Hayden said, "We've always viewed [al-Qaeda and insurgents] to be an ultimate danger to the United States, but now it appears that it is a serious base of danger to the current well-being of Pakistan." Translation, Pakistan has become an unstable nation.

Lately, Pakistan has experienced an unprecedented number of terrorist attacks and unrest in its historically volatile tribal-belt. But how these law-and-order situations make the Pakistani nuclear arsenal accessible to the terrorists or tribals is a mystery at best? If a parallel could be drawn between the terrorist activities and the insecurity of Pakistani nuclear weapons, then arguably, the nuclear arsenal of virtually every nuclear power should be secured by a global authority.

In the last 15 years, thousands of Americans have lost their lives to the terrorists, does that mean, thousands of American nuclear weapons are about to fall in the hands of terrorists? In the 80s, when the IRA attacks on both British civilians and government were at their height, why the US did not secure Great Britain’s nukes? Maybe the fear mongers could also explain why the French nuclear weapons were not secured when the North African insurgency against the French was at its peak? Conversely, the US and its European allies should also secure Indian nuclear arsenal too; as India is bleeding from at least 50 separatist movements, and over 45% or 2/5 of Indian territory is literally under the influence of Naxalite or other separatists. Similarly, they may also want to explain, why tens of thousands of Russian nuclear weapons are anymore secure than Pakistan's; as Russia is mired in the Chechen insurgency and thousands of its jobless nuclear scientists are in the market willing to work for anyone, for as little as $100 per month?

Last but not least, the tiny nation of Israel experiences far more suicide bombings, separatist attacks, and assassinations from ultraconservative Jewish groups than anyone else. This begs the question, which American will dare to even suggest securing Israeli nuclear arsenal?

http://www.asiantri bune.com/ ?q=node/9247
http://www.thefront ierpost.com/ News.aspx? ncat=le&nid=520

that is because Pakistan is ruled by military personal rather than politicians.As you guys can easily grip from Mushy's TV interviews, he is no politician.

He might be a good person, a good military officer but too straight forward to be a political leader. In other words he is not shrewd, which is good but bad.

Military personals are trained to be efficient leaders, best in real-time military operations.

If time arrives, he will push the nuke trigger. He wont think twice. Thats what makes Pakistan's nuke dangerous. If not Mushy, another C-in-C will do it or some other military generals. Triggers are controlled by generals, which makes Pakistani nukes more trigger happy and unstable than other countries.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
First of all President Musharraf is retired. He is no longer in the army and as such direct involvement of army in ruling the country ceased to exist.

Secondly the trigger is not a big red button lying about in some general's toilet which can be pressed just like that. The nukes are governed by launch codes and the decision to launch them can be taken in the National Security Council of Pakistan which consists of politicians (ruling and opposition), armed forces personnel and the president. Maybe what you describe is how Indian nukes work but in Pakistan we act a little bit more responsibly.

Well, you may want to share your pearls of wisdom with the Americans too, because unlike you, they trust Musharraf and the millitary, and not the civilians.

Launch decisions are totally made by Generals in Pakistan with no consent from politicians. This happened during Kargil operations too when one of Pakistani General did nearly went for nuke launch. (Dont ask me for links on this, if there is someone from GHQ he can enlighten you).

No matter how many council Pakistan have to control their nukes, they are controlled by end-users.. thats Pak army.

And even if Mushy is retired, he is a military dictator no matter in which paint you try to paint it. You can call him president or whatever, he will remain a dictator.

They prefer only those leaders who can walk the line they want.

Mushy has obliged to almost all Amriki wishes till now, including bombing its own area with its own air-force. No wonder they love him.

Instead of arguing for arguments sake, think about what you’re saying? You are dancing all over the place. Americans want Musharraf to be in control, and he is in control. On the other hand, you are afraid of Musharraf being in control. The point is, nobody cares what you think or what you are afraid of; what matters is what Americans want. So save your breath, and take your moronic argument to Bharatraksha where people like to believe in wild and unsubstantial nonsense.

The end user is the army/air force/navy in all the world's nuclear powers including in your India. Do some research on the Pakistani National Security Council. Read some news articles plus watch some youtube videos of our nuke scientists so you might improve your knowledge.
And anyways unless you have some proof to backup the hot air....your arguments are totally and utterly baseless as you have no knowledge about how Pakistan's nuclear safeguards work.

No offense, but I would rather trust the army with control over the nuclear weapons then some damn politicians. And btw, no one person has a button, like you're making it out to be.

Dude, here is the deal--give control of India's Nukes (if it has any) to your politicians--and I can gurantee that they will sell it to the highest bidders!! WHo are you kidding here indian--you PM down to every harry and dick is involved in corruption. And there have been plenty of bribery and commission scandals about your highest ranking politicians!! So before you open your mouth and start lecturing us--look at the mirror first and you will see someone really ugly standing there!

you guys are enraged just because its a comment by an Indian.

questions is not if Mush is good or generals are good. they are doing a good job for Pakistan and there is no denying that.

But the hallmark of military rule (read dictatorship) is uncertainty. Mush is good, lets assume Kyani will be better but what if the next guys after him in power is some tyrant hell bent on destruction or Zia look-alike.

What if tomorrow Mushy is assassinated? What process will ensure that next guy after him is no Zia or crazy guy.

You guys might try to compare military rule with elected parties in Pakistan, they certainly don't have a good track record. But no one actually gave them a honest try.

70+ years of freedom and you got a military coupe every decade. For every war army screwed up, politicians were hanged.

That brings in uncertainty and to a nuke armed state thats too big to risk.

that is because Pakistan is ruled by military personal rather than politicians.As you guys can easily grip from Mushy's TV interviews, he is no politician.

He might be a good person, a good military officer but too straight forward to be a political leader. In other words he is not shrewd, which is good but bad.

Military personals are trained to be efficient leaders, best in real-time military operations.

If time arrives, he will push the nuke trigger. He wont think twice. Thats what makes Pakistan's nuke dangerous. If not Mushy, another C-in-C will do it or some other military generals. Triggers are controlled by generals, which makes Pakistani nukes more trigger happy and unstable than other countries.

Siddharth .. your elected demoratic BSF brought both the countries at the brink of war in 2002, please show us how the General managed to cool it down ..

If your argument was correct, it would have been the General who should have started war ?

Than what actually cooled down the situation ? Had there been a political leader in Pakistan, he would have done exactly what Indian political leaders managed ! Create war.

As regards teh story of GHQ .. I have never heard it and neither has anyone in Pakistan. This is Tabaloid stuff not meant for official reference.

Siddharth, have you been watching bollywood lately?

Looks like it. I explained to him how the nuclear security protocol works through launch codes and the Pakistani National Security Council but of course he is too dumb to comprehend that as it is not the way it is done in monkeyland. Typical Indian BS. No proof or facts.....just running of the mouth.

...and we weren't the ones who actually used nukes on civilians...nor did we use DU, Agent Orange, Gitmo, etc.

And we also didn't invent nukes in oder to kill millions.

Its really quite simple, they know the nations that have a bone to pick with them and they will fear those nations if there is a potential of those nations being ruled by powers that dont lsiten to them. India doesnt have the incentive, the guts or the grudge to go up against US so stop speaking of ur sham democracy which continues to bring as much misery to india as the generals have brought to Pakistan. Israil is their spouse. Russia couldnt care less about what america sabre rattles at which really leaves pakistan which has those elements. In simple mathematics pakistan is a POTENTIAL threat and thats why its picked on. has nothing to do with musharaf really.

...and we didn't invent KKK, Nazi, colonialism, IMF, WB, RSS/BJP, Soviets, etc...

In their wet dreams we're the white man's burden, and the white man is our burden in our dry reality.