History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:47 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2015 3:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:02 am
Posts: 15664
Location: Planet Earth, Milky Way, Universe
Pakistan Carts Its Nukes Around In Delivery Vans
Pakistan is taking nuclear paranoia to a horrifying new low. And it’s making the world a vastly more dangerous place in the process.

Freaked out about the insecurity of its nuclear arsenal, the Pakistani military’s Strategic Plans Division has begun carting the nukes around in clandestine ways. That might make some sense on the surface: no military wants to let others know exactly where its most powerful weapons are at any given moment. But Pakistan is going to an extreme.

The nukes travel “ in civilian-style vehicles without noticeable defenses, in the regular flow of traffic,” according to a blockbuster story on the U.S.-Pakistan relationship in The Atlantic. Marc Ambinder and Jeffrey Goldberg write that tactical nuclear weapons travel down the streets in “vans with a modest security profile.” Somewhere on a highway around, say, Karachi, is the world’s most dangerous 1-800-FLOWERS truck.

Tom Clancy should be suing Pakistani generals for ripping off the basic idea behind The Sum Of All Fears. You’ll recall that Pakistan is home to al-Qaida, a particularly fearsome version of the Taliban, the leadership of the old-school Taliban, its friends in the Haqqani Network and a host of anti-Indian terrorist groups that the Pakistani intelligence service employ as proxies. Sometimes the Pakistani military helps these terrorist and insurgent groups attack U.S. troops in Afghanistan. And any one of these groups would love a chance to wield a nuclear weapon.

Except that Pakistan isn’t trying to safeguard its nukes from them. It’s trying to safeguard its nukes from us. The Navy SEAL raid in Abbottabad that killed Osama bin Laden has made important Pakistani generals think that the U.S. military’s next target is Pakistani nukes. So off the vans go, along what Ambinder and Goldberg term “congested and dangerous roads,” trying to throw off the scent of the U.S., with little more than hope to protect them from an adventurous highwayman.

The irony is that the U.S. isn’t planning to steal Pakistan’s nukes — but Pakistan’s cavalier attitude toward nuclear security is making the U.S. think twice about whether it should revise some worst-case-scenario contingency planning.

Should any of the nukes go missing, an “Abbottabad redux” would likely occur, Ambinder and Goldberg report. An anonymous military official tells the pair that the Joint Special Operations Command “has units and aircraft and parachutes on alert in the region for nuclear issues, and regularly inserts units and equipment for prep.” Seizing Pakistani nukes during or after a military coup is a much harder mission, but the reporters consider it doable. “[I]t’s wise for the U.S. to try to design a plan for seizing Pakistan’s nuclear weapons in a low-risk manner,” Goldberg and Ambinder advise, placing a lot of rhetorical freight on the words “low-risk.”

That is, if the U.S. actually knows where the nukes are. “Anyone who tells you that they know where all of Pakistan’s nukes are is lying to you,” ex-national security adviser Jim Jones allegedly said. The Econolines of Doom make that knowledge even more uncertain.

All of which points to the self-reinforcing downward spiral of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship. U.S. cash continues to go into the Pakistanis’ pockets, and from there into the hands of anti-American terrorists. There is, for many justified reasons, absolutely no trust between either side’s security services and militaries. There is also no alternative to the toxic relationship that anyone cited in the Atlantic piece is willing to contemplate. (When I recently suggested that the U.S. cut off aid and continue the drone war until Pakistan reins in terror groups, I got blasted on Twitter as a warmonger.) “There is no escaping this vexed relationship,” Ambinder and Goldberg conclude, reflecting the conventional wisdom in Washington and Islamabad.

Which sinks the U.S. into the nadir of absurdity. It funds a terrorist-sponsoring state while conducting a massive undeclared war on part of that state’s territory. It wants that state’s assistance to end the Afghanistan war while that state’s soldiers help insurgents wage it. And seeking a world without nuclear weapons while its “Major Non-NATO Ally” drastically increases the probability that terrorists will acquire a the most dangerous weapon of all.

http://www.wired.com/2011/11/pakistan-n ... very-vans/

_________________
I am Charlie


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2015 2:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 6:48 pm
Posts: 4049
Location: UK
I'm reminded of the sight-gag in a 'James Bond' movie where his parked super-car has a 'Thief Proof' sticker.

Hyper-paranoid guard tries to force the door, eventually shatters side-glass with AK butt.

Car alarm responds by triggering car's 'self destruct'...

_________________
'P for Pleistocene' A camp-out goes impossibly wrong...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 12:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 4:58 pm
Posts: 95
This is old, from 4-5 years ago. Debunked within days of its original posting IIRC.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 7:47 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10393
Demon Lord Razgriz wrote:
This is old, from 4-5 years ago. Debunked within days of its original posting IIRC.


Yes and no. The story dates back to November 2011 (November 5 2011 to be precise) with a report that Pakistan was using road-mobile delivery systems for some of its nuclear weapons. This story was correct at the time, was repeated in January 2014 and again a few days ago and remains correct.

However, a road-mobile delivery system is not a delivery van. The systems are actually short-range ballistic missiles mounted on specially-designed TEVs (Transporter-Erector Vehicles) which are copies of a Chinese copy of a Russian TEV.

Transporting armed missiles around on TEVs is not a good idea at all. It means if one gets hijacked, the hijackers have acquired both nuclear warhead and delivery system. Pakistani nuclear command and control is appallingly deficient.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 8:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6006
Location: Cambs, UK
OK, so not quite the same league but would anyone want to take a guess at how much of Britain's war stocks of ammunition, high explosives etc were in permanent transit by British Rail in unmarked cargo cars?

"A lot" is the correct answer I believe, and for a long time too.

(Oh and because they were in permanent transit, not actually being delivered, the MoD was charged at a very low rate for them).

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:55 am
Posts: 4654
Location: D88 by night, D20 by day
Craiglxviii wrote:
(Oh and because they were in permanent transit, not actually being delivered, the MoD was charged at a very low rate for them).

I believe the Dutch employed a very similar wheeze with their P-3s. They had a permanent detachment to Keflavik of one aircraft. When it required maintenance, another went out to replace it, then it came home. Since this detachment began before the last of the aircraft arrived in the Netherlands, they had never taken delivery of the full order and didn't need to make the full payment.

Or so the story goes...

_________________
If the BBC told me that it was dark outside at two o'clock in the morning on a stormy day in December, I would feel obliged to check their facts.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group