US may control codes to Pakistans nuclear arsenal

Bush may have had good reason to remark that Pakistans arsenal was secure recently, as it turns out US specialists have been "safeguarding" Pakistans arsenal in an effort to prevent their use by unauthorized parties such as rogue generals in the Pakistani military and al Qa'ida extremists. If this story is even partly true it is an unprecedented diplomatic coup by the bush administation to convince another nuclear power to not only give access to their weapons but also possibly giving up direct control of those weapons either by agreement or subterfuge on the part of technicians having access.

news.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2004/02/09/wpak109.xml
Code changes 'secure' Pakistan warheads
By David Blair in Islamabad
(Filed: 09/02/2004)

America has mounted a covert operation to safeguard Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and prevent warheads from falling under the control of rogue commanders or Islamist terrorists.

"They are sending their experts to our nuclear sites to roll back our nuclear programme and declare Pakistan a rogue state," said Munawar Hassan, deputy leader of Jamaat-I-Islami, the main Islamist party. "Pervaiz Musharraf is playing into the hands of the US. He is not our ruler, he is serving the interests of America."

First Libya was caught red-handed and struck a deal with the US and UK to disarm its WMD, Now Pakistan has been embroiled in the proliforation scandel where it seems that the US, UN and UK have been soft on Pakistan. It seems that a backdoor deal may have been made allowing Pakistan to save face while assuring the west of safeguards in regards to its arsenal.


[Edited on 13-2-2004 by Kano]

I find it interesting that the US might have gained control of another countries WMD - and nobody seems interested about it - strange to say the least

I've just now come across a second article on the code control subject that backs up the original "Telegraph" story at "Strategypage", strategypage also provides a detailed history of "Khan's" suspected activities over the years including the fact that he was convicted of stealing the plans for uranium enrichment equipment in europe years ago but fled to Pakistan before he could be charged.

www.strategypage.com...

Quote from article:

"American nuclear security experts are working with Pakistan to equip Pakistani nukes with electronic locks that prevent the weapons from being used by anyone who does not have the proper codes. This means that if any Pakistanis try and sell an actual a-bomb, they will have to get the codes as well. This won't make it impossible for a Pakistani bomb to be sold, just more difficult. And Khan has shown that you can sell nuclear secrets and get away with it. It's a bad precedent".

You can bet that the CIA/NSA is involved with the team doing the code work to insure that the US ends up with ultimate control of these weapons.

Phoenix, we're closer to ol' Purvais M. than most can imagine. And not necessarily Pakistan in general. Remember, it was the CIA trained, Pakistani intel apparatus (ISI) that funneled $100,000 to Mohammad Atta in the weeks leading up to 9-11.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Phoenix, we're closer to ol' Purvais M. than most can imagine. And not necessarily Pakistan in general. Remember, it was the CIA trained, Pakistani intel apparatus (ISI) that funneled $100,000 to Mohammad Atta in the weeks leading up to 9-11.

I certainly agree the ISI is rife with Jihad sympathisers that definitely are working against the interest of both Pakistan and US policy for many years. Correct me if I'm wrong in believing that the original support and training was to counter the Soviet Unions invasion of Afganistan and to help the muhadajeen put up a fight.

20/20 hindsight does show that we made a deal with the devil to accomplish a goal that needed doing in the political climate of the day unfortunatly Pakistans nuclear build-up was winked at to maintain cooperation in the waning days of the cold war.

The muhadajeen's goal of ending all influence by infidel western nations was ignored to our peril by the larger issue of containing the Soviets and preventing their move on the middle east which was the strategic danger at the time.

In making policy to fight the cold war many examples of shortsighted decisions can be found that we are now haunted by including Iraq and Saddams long run in power, Pakistans proliferation and backdoor support of terrorist
groups, Afganistans muhadajeen morphing into a widespread terror oganization etc. etc. etc.

What I am skeptical about is jumping to the conclusion that because we backed these countries/groups, using them as proxies to grind down and defeat the Soviets - how that leads to a belief that a conspiracy on the part of the US existed to attack itself. I am leaning more to the theory that policy makers used these entities to achieve that days goal without giving the future much thought or if they did it was a case of dealing with the larger problem first and picking up the pieces later - only they forgot to pick up those pieces in the euphoric 90s when everyone only wanted to give and recieve nothing but good news that kept their stock portfolios up.

The pawns in that chess game between the US and USSR got tired of being pawns once the players left the table, we're dealing with the results today - yes stupidity, greed and deriliction of duty all played their part - conspiracy? I'm not there yet.

Originally posted by Phoenix

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Phoenix, we're closer to ol' Purvais M. than most can imagine. And not necessarily Pakistan in general. Remember, it was the CIA trained, Pakistani intel apparatus (ISI) that funneled $100,000 to Mohammad Atta in the weeks leading up to 9-11.

I certainly agree the ISI is rife with Jihad sympathisers that definitely are working against the interest of both Pakistan and US policy for many years. Correct me if I'm wrong in believing that the original support and training was to counter the Soviet Unions invasion of Afganistan and to help the muhadajeen put up a fight.

correct.

20/20 hindsight does show that we made a deal with the devil to accomplish a goal that needed doing in the political climate of the day unfortunatly Pakistans nuclear build-up was winked at to maintain cooperation in the waning days of the cold war.

They are still under the same control and are still being used. This time, though, they're role is as our external enemy e.g. "al Qaeda". We had to have one to justify the continued expansion/budget increases in our already out of control military apparatus. REad Bzrzinski's "The Grand Chessboard." We must have that external enemy.

The muhadajeen's goal of ending all influence by infidel western nations was ignored to our peril by the larger issue of containing the Soviets and preventing their move on the middle east which was the strategic danger at the time.

This is the game played by the power elites. Hence, the grand chessboard. Things are not as they seem.

In making policy to fight the cold war many examples of shortsighted decisions can be found that we are now haunted by including Iraq and Saddams long run in power,

The CIA helped Saddam into power. Once they used him up like a dirty tampon, they merely threw him away. Same shyte, different puppet ruler.

Pakistans proliferation and backdoor support of terrorist
groups, Afganistans muhadajeen morphing into a widespread terror oganization etc. etc. etc.

That is all carefully crafted, media-ingrained fiction. The real terrorists are those who control the money. (CIA, ISI). Those fools that believe themselves to be "al Qaeda are little pawns in a deadly game. They don't even understand. They buy into that "I'm gonna be a martyr BS." It's pretty sad. Our soldiers are duped, as well.

What I am skeptical about is jumping to the conclusion that because we backed these countries/groups, using them as proxies to grind down and defeat the Soviets - how that leads to a belief that a conspiracy on the part of the US existed to attack itself. I am leaning more to the theory that policy makers used these entities to achieve that days goal without giving the future much thought or if they did it was a case of dealing with the larger problem first and picking up the pieces later - only they forgot to pick up those pieces in the euphoric 90s when everyone only wanted to give and recieve nothing but good news that kept their stock portfolios up.

The masters of war have one agenda: total global dominance. They do not care about our country or Britain or Iraq or any other country. It's all about complete control and controlling the world's remaining resources.

The pawns in that chess game between the US and USSR got tired of being pawns once the players left the table, we're dealing with the results today - yes stupidity, greed and deriliction of duty all played their part - conspiracy? I'm not there yet.

Keep searching. The pieces to the puzzle are there. But it takes time to fit them all together.

ummm, the U.S. in charge of another countries WMD... kinda makes you wonder if " the powers that be" would use those weapons against the U.S. to get something started ??????

I find it odd that some people do not want guns taken away from people but want the U.S. to have a monopoly on WMD.

Last time I checked, we had millions of barrels of Napalm (sp).

Originally posted by elevatedone
ummm, the U.S. in charge of another countries WMD... kinda makes you wonder if " the powers that be" would use those weapons against the U.S. to get something started ??????

Some say the U.S. is being controlled by another nation.