Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons (Questions)

[SABRE]

Another question sabre:
it was once reported in the media that saudi arabia had funded pakistan's nuclear program...some $1 billion.in return pakistan allegedly agreed to station nuclear weapons in SA if the need ever arose.but saudi hopes were said to be dashed after the coup, in which newaz sharif was toppled.how much truth is there to this claim??
(personally i think it is b.s because any such move wud be suicidal for pakistan.but cudnt just ignore the bbc documentary )

Saudis have funded a lot of projects, with their share in most of them. Funding was only required in the initial stages perhaps, as Pakistan had just come out of the war (in 1971) & economy was at record low. Saudis "may" have provided the funds for nuclear program but there never was a chance of deployment of nuclear weapons outside Pakistan. The Pakistani nuclear weapons from day one have been Indo-Centric, although use can be diverted given a situation. So minusing the funding part (which too is subject of debate) I doubt that the bomb was going to be deployed in Saudi Arabia.

In addition KSA is a member of NPT; which means it cannot receive nuclear weapons, nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons & explosive devices.

Further more the NCA, setup in 2001, strictly prohibits transfer of nuclear technology or weapons to any country. It follows similar principles as nuclear weapon states do under NPT - although Pakistan is not a member of the treaty.

Similar is the case said to be with Libya. Libya is said to have provided the largest amount. However, no tangible or visible proof has been provided so far regarding the funds. These fundings are only reported in the CIA files & may be that of MI6.

 

[Khairul Alam]

Saudis have funded a lot of projects, with their share in most of them. Funding was only required in the initial stages perhaps, as Pakistan had just come out of the war (in 1971) & economy was at record low. Saudis "may" have provided the funds for nuclear program but there never was a chance of deployment of nuclear weapons outside Pakistan. The Pakistani nuclear weapons from day one have been Indo-Centric, although use can be diverted given a situation. So minusing the funding part (which too is subject of debate) I doubt that the bomb was going to be deployed in Saudi Arabia.

In addition KSA is a member of NPT; which means it cannot receive nuclear weapons, nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons & explosive devices.

Further more the NCA, setup in 2001, strictly prohibits transfer of nuclear technology or weapons to any country. It follows similar principles as nuclear weapon states do under NPT - although Pakistan is not a member of the treaty.

Similar is the case said to be with Libya. Libya is said to have provided the largest amount. However, no tangible or visible proof has been provided so far regarding the funds. These fundings are only reported in the CIA files & may be that of MI6.

Well do u think SA will have any regard for the NPT in case a war breaks out with a nuclear power, such as israel (maybe even iran)??deterrence will be the first thing in their mind.
as for nca prohibitting transfer of nuclear materials, well,
i only want to say that SA would not have philanthropically given $1 billion without asking for anything in return.

 

[SABRE]

Well do u think SA will have any regard for the NPT in case a war breaks out with a nuclear power, such as israel (maybe even iran)??deterrence will be the first thing in their mind.
as for nca prohibitting transfer of nuclear materials, well,
i only want to say that SA would not have philanthropically given $1 billion without asking for anything in return.

I don't think KSA is going to or is capable enough of fighting Israel. Even though it is greater in size, has great amount of oil money, has the main Muslim holly cities & considers it self to be leader of Muslim & Arab world it still wouldn't go up against the Israelis - as witnessed during the Arab-Israel Wars. The Americans have too much of an influence there (similarly Americans wouldn't want Israel to do something to the KSA ... however Israel would least regard it if they have to).

Anyways putting the political side aside ... KSA would have to withdraw from the NPT before taking the weapons in. It would have to submit the withdrawal reasons (which should prove that the treaty is not in favor of KSA's supreme national interest) to depositary & would be out of the treaty after 3 months. But in those 3 months various concerned countries, especially the P5 would pressurize Saudis to reconsider - behind the curtains Saudis would get a possible harsh treatment & pressure or may be given security assurance by any nuclear country, most probably the USA.

Furthermore the P5s, especially America & other countries (especially in the region) would start questioning KSA's motives behind the withdrawal.

To put it in simple international pressure would be too high on KSA.

But lets hypothetically suppose that KSA is under threat & has no regard for the NPT &/or has withdrawn from it, still Pakistan wont give away its nuclear weapons to KSA, especially under the current constitutional framework of NCA. So its not just what KSA regards or least regards, its also what the Pakistan's NCA gives importance to. Moreover, I don't think KSA has expertise (political, military, scientific & technical) to possess nuclear weapons.

Also Pakistan's giving away nuclear weapons to KSA would have created more trouble for Pakistan itself. The King of KSA was rumored to have asked Musharaf for nuclear weapons, missiles & team of scientists & engineers during his visit few years back but Pakistan denied it KSA outright. I find it completely baseless. King Abdulah may have asked for either peaceful assistance or a security assurance but not more than that.

I can only say that Pakistan can provide KSA a security assurance (nuclear umbrella) only when threat is to the Holly Cities & Sites.

 

[SaudiArabian]

I don't think KSA is going to or is capable enough of fighting Israel. Even though it is greater in size, has great amount of oil money, has the main Muslim holly cities & considers it self to be leader of Muslim & Arab world it still wouldn't go up against the Israelis - as witnessed during the Arab-Israel Wars. The Americans have too much of an influence there (similarly Americans wouldn't want Israel to do something to the KSA ... however Israel would least regard it if they have to).

just a correction , KSA participated in all Arab-israeli wars with its military. the USA has no influence whatsoever on KSA's military decisions on that regard.

 

[SABRE]

just a correction , KSA participated in all Arab-israeli wars with its military. the USA has no influence whatsoever on KSA's military decisions on that regard.

I don't want to get into political debate & also this would be off topic. Just talking on the basis of international war literature based on Arab-Israel wars.

As for American influence ... neither I want to talk nor there is a need.

Thats the end of this discussion.

 

[abhaystgy]

What if extramists somehow get the all the parts required for exploding nuclear bomb and then by the help of one(or more) of the Pakistan's nuclear scientist they can assemble it? Then they can launch attack on whichever country they want to attack (India or USA).

 

[layer3]

What if extramists somehow get the all the parts required for exploding nuclear bomb and then by the help of one(or more) of the Pakistan's nuclear scientist they can assemble it? Then they can launch attack on whichever country they want to attack (India or USA).

It above happens then I would say Bad luck. Can you please explain how that somehow works. The only way I can think of above happening if terrorists find a Missile loaded with a nuke a couple blocks down the street with a note of FIRE ME PLEASE on top of it.

I think chances of that happening with Pak's Nuke is same as much as with any other country possesing the similar capabilities. I don't think any one can argue with never ending WHAT IF senarios.

It really amuses me with the fact that the countries which feel threatened already have more sophisticated weaponary.

Well the solution I guess in that scenario would be an advertisement in newspaper for the job of James Bond. :nutkick

 

[Stryker001]

^*

No one liners or one words or codes.

Removed as per DT rules.

 

[abhaystgy]

Actually thought about this scenario came into my mind from movies only. Extremists can attack a place where the nuke is actually stored and took control over it. Then they can take the help of come scientists to make it operational. Then they can easily threaten any enemy country or they can sell the same to some friendly country.

Hope this will never happen. Otherwise atleast one country will have to suffer a lot.

 

[Stryker001]

!

OFF TOPIC

No dicussion on Iran nuclear issue here, unless relevant to the topic of the thread.

Removed as per DT rules.

 

[Stryker001]

!

OFF TOPIC

Removed as per DT rules.

 

[SABRE]

It above happens then I would say Bad luck. Can you please explain how that somehow works. The only way I can think of above happening if terrorists find a Missile loaded with a nuke a couple blocks down the street with a note of FIRE ME PLEASE on top of it.

Even if they find it, with the note you are mentioning on it, they still can't fire it for several hundred reasons. With 1st the launch capability & even with that they wont be able to fire it since they wont have neither knowledge to work out the complex mechanism & computer system nor will they have launch codes.

Its not a fire cracker you can ignite from the rim & off it goes.

 

[SABRE]

Actually thought about this scenario came into my mind from movies only. Extremists can attack a place where the nuke is actually stored and took control over it. Then they can take the help of come scientists to make it operational. Then they can easily threaten any enemy country or they can sell the same to some friendly country.

Hope this will never happen. Otherwise atleast one country will have to suffer a lot.

Movies do defy the reality you do know that.

Unlike movies the terrorists would be facing a stiff resistance from a much larger force securing the weapons with way much advance weapons.

Attacking a place with get them where? The weapons are for sure kept in a multi-layered security facility with bio-matrix system required for authorized personnel. The most damage the terrorists can do is blow up the gate of the facility - that is if they know where it is. But even before that they would probably be facing aerial attacks & commando actions.

Unlike the American nuclear missiles during the Cold War the Pakistani missiles are not kept launch on alarm ready. Even they warheads are kept aside. This means the weapons are not 'deployed' outside or under the open skies.

 

[layer3]

Movies do defy the reality you do know that.
Unlike the American nuclear missiles during the Cold War the Pakistani missiles are not kept launch on alarm ready. Even they warheads are kept aside. This means the weapons are not 'deployed' outside or under the open skies.

I know nukes are not fire crackers which can be set off. I was just mocking the innocent scenario.

Interesting point you made which made me think a couple of WHAT IFs.
The US is still having assembled nukes with delivery systems, I will back up my claim with the last year's incident where some nuclear warhead loaded cruise missiles were accidently plugged to an aircraft (A not ideal text book example of US Nuclear safety).

then my what ifs would be:

What if the pilot had decided to test the accuracy of missile (Considering him completely dumb).
What if that mission would have been a live test run exercise.

How can people and media feel secure with their own nukes flying above their heads without any one's knowledge while feeling threatened by some unrealistic danger. To my knowledge it didn't stirr up any major debate with media circles maybe due to sensitivity of incident (A typical dual standards).

I know I am going off the topic but the only reason I went ahead is simply because I am sick of all the posts which appear in any Pakistan related threads fearing of technology transfer to either China or terrorists.

These kind of posts put the thread off topic and then as a novice I don't see enough information flowing out of discussion afterwards. :lul

 

[SABRE]

I know nukes are not fire crackers which can be set off. I was just mocking the innocent scenario.

I was doing the same. In fact continuing your mocking. I guess I didn't bridge it

Interesting point you made which made me think a couple of WHAT IFs.
The US is still having assembled nukes with delivery systems, I will back up my claim with the last year's incident where some nuclear warhead loaded cruise missiles were accidentally plugged to an aircraft (A not ideal text book example of US Nuclear safety).

then my what ifs would be:

What if the pilot had decided to test the accuracy of missile (Considering him completely dumb).
What if that mission would have been a live test run exercise.

Its the "What ifs" that the major factor of nuclear weapons. They create the deterrence which prevails in negative peace. But to above "What ifs" the answer is obvious: Mass Destruction.

If the bomb had went on my question would be how good US National Technical Means are to asses if it was nuclear accident at it's on fault or an external activity?

Pakistan & India have established a hot line for this very purpose, just to make sure of nuclear accidents. Even if they launch nukes on each other I think they would be calling each other to say good bye - information till the last seconds.

How can people and media feel secure with their own nukes flying above their heads without any one's knowledge while feeling threatened by some unrealistic danger. To my knowledge it didn't stirr up any major debate with media circles maybe due to sensitivity of incident (A typical dual standards).

Well think about it & the answer is obvious. Which country would allow its media to talk on such a thing? Plus Media wouldn't like to degrade nuclear security of its own state.

I know I am going off the topic but the only reason I went ahead is simply because I am sick of all the posts which appear in any Pakistan related threads fearing of technology transfer to either China or terrorists.

These kind of posts put the thread off topic and then as a novice I don't see enough information flowing out of discussion afterwards. :lul

Well thats the whole reason I opened this thread. To give away the information I got (& get) from one of my teachers who is closely associated with the subject of Pakistan's nuclear security.

 

[DefConGuru]

Indirectly applying that Pakistan's intelligence and nuclear defense is on par with a terror attack led by tribal fighters from the north or even your average Al Qaida operative is a gross indication of where one's intent and judgment has gone off course to. For the most part, the reason that this debate is happening is because 99% of people don't know Pakistan's capabilities because Pakistan doesn't tell anyone, its kept secret and millions of dollars are spent safeguarding the nuke's each day in a way where not even a highly motivated and ingenious group of thieves with the right technology could break its perimeter. This is a much different situation than post Soviet union, and Pakistan isn't exactly Iran or North Korea. The nukes are integrated in a maze of security apparatuses which is highly underground and kept in shadows, with the slightest knowledge of anything going wrong resulting in commando raids and complete lock down. Trust me they take it seriously, or else half the world would have been on their doorstep decades ago, and India and Pakistan would be cities of rubble.

Go find other ways to exercise your imaginations people.

 

[Stryker001]

~

This is a much different situation than post Soviet union.

After the former Soviet Union was, disbanded Alpha Group still was given top funding to secure Russia’s nuclear arsenal and reactors.

 

[noseeum]

I do not think it a matter of stealing weapons from secure facilities. It seems to be a matter of stability within the Pakistani system in general. If there is widespread unrest, who secures the nukes? If there are breakdowns within the system, how can the world be certain there will not be multiple factions with access to same? There is almost no imagination which will give Al-Qaida or tribals credible ability to steal nukes as they are, but ISI has holes. Big extremist holes. Given current system condition, the question is really what happens when the current regime fails in the next year or so. Next question is what the world is willing to do to assure security.

 

[BilalK]

I do not think it a matter of stealing weapons from secure facilities. It seems to be a matter of stability within the Pakistani system in general. If there is widespread unrest, who secures the nukes? If there are breakdowns within the system, how can the world be certain there will not be multiple factions with access to same? There is almost no imagination which will give Al-Qaida or tribals credible ability to steal nukes as they are, but ISI has holes. Big extremist holes. Given current system condition, the question is really what happens when the current regime fails in the next year or so. Next question is what the world is willing to do to assure security.

Rule number 1...separate national security systems from politics. The military is just too large and too extensive to let a break down of their system...and they will not let anything that threatens their interests take over Pakistan. The establishment of NSC guarantees it.

 

[SABRE]

I do not think it a matter of stealing weapons from secure facilities. It seems to be a matter of stability within the Pakistani system in general. If there is widespread unrest, who secures the nukes? If there are breakdowns within the system, how can the world be certain there will not be multiple factions with access to same? There is almost no imagination which will give Al-Qaida or tribals credible ability to steal nukes as they are, but ISI has holes. Big extremist holes. Given current system condition, the question is really what happens when the current regime fails in the next year or so. Next question is what the world is willing to do to assure security.

Let me tell you something. There is no question about nukes falling in the wrong hands. Nukes are in the hands of National Command Authority. The question is can NCA fall in the wrong hands? The answer is NO. NCA is a collective decision making group where members selected through Personality Reliability Program. Even if you hate India at an extreme level you would be dropped.

Since its a collective decision making body no single entity or individual can enforce his will. So even if an extremist govt comes to power, which is highly unlikely - considering the demographic & political setup, the ruler (who ever it may be) can not force the NCA to launch the missiles.

There are 5 steps Pakistan has taken after 1998 tests:

1. Established NCA
2. Security measures
3. Safety measure - Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority created
4. Technology Control
5. Dilaogue with India

The safety & security measures have been kept at extreme level since 1998. There is no possible way of breaching either safety or security or both together - without getting your self killed even before you get the glimpse of either the warhead or the missile.