Special forces on standby over nuclear threat (Pakistan)

Who ever had the nuke would sell it - the more hands it goes through the easier it would be to find the monkey.

If lots of nukes go missing (Pakistan has bout 100 I think) then it will be real hard to find all of them.

Uugh. I realize something needs to be done to ensure their nukes are safe, but why does it have to be us (the U.S.). Let another country handle this one. China can go in for all I care, they sold them the crap in the first place.

Since Bhutto showed back up on the scene, something has stunk to high Heaven. I would normally never say something so bold, but in my opinion Musharraf is nothing more than a dead man walking.

Supposedly, Pakistan's arsenal isn't assembled, and the warheads are stored seperately from their delivery systems.

Who really knows these things?

[edit on 1-1-2008 by Myrtales Instinct]

reply to post by Myrtales Instinct


The "delivery system" could be some dude with a warhead in a backpack. Check out the 1997 move The Peacemaker.

Besides, the ten-thousand Pakistanis guarding the nukes are compromised.

Do not be surprised if a nuclear explosion occurs in the suspected area of the Al Q. hide-out. A small tactical nuke to sterilize about 500 sq.mi. should do it, I would think.

Of course the blame will fall on the terrorists, they, not having a clue as to how to use it, of course, blew themselves up. And, we won't be seeing further videos from OBL.

Theft of a bomb from the arsenal would not even have to happen, just reported to the world that it had.

reply to post by pyrytyes


Good thought. US nukes Pakistani frontier to wipe out al-Qaeda/Taliban hideouts, blames Pakistan for nuking themselves. Interesting.

Originally posted by pyrytyes
Do not be surprised if a nuclear explosion occurs in the suspected area of the Al Q. hide-out. A small tactical nuke to sterilize about 500 sq.mi. should do it, I would think.

Don't overestimate the potency of a small tactical nuke.

It would destroy about 1-2 square miles.

en.wikipedia.org...www.isis-online.org... ml

First of all, if the USA does send SF's, I believe they would get their mission accomplished what ever it may be.
People think about it, do you think the USA works alone, do you think China, India, or even Russia would like just anyone in control of these nukes.
America and Russia both do military trainig excercises together, and are able to cooperate when it comes to international security.

Also it would be very dangerous if these nukes were in the wrong hands. It is believed that there are no special measures keeping these nukes from being detonated. The only thing that is keeping these nukes out of the wrong hands, are the very secret military locations.

Pakistan's nuclear weapons are not thought to be "one-point safe" or equipped with permissive action links (PALs)

It should be noted that Pakistan turned down the offer of PALS technology, a sophisticated "weapon release" program which initiates use via specific checks and balances as it feared the secret implanting of "dead switches". [16]

Scary I would say. Not much to keeping the wrong person initiating a nuclear war.

And say if the SF's do go in, it would probably just be for the warheads. That then would leave another situation behind; The nuclear facilities that created them.

So after you think about it this would probably be an operation that would consist of more than just the USA and Asian countries. Most likely some European countries too, like the UK, France, Germany,etc...

I dont think anyone wants warheads going itno the wrong hands. Remember Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union, noone knew where these weapons were going to end up.

The world is a scary place and I just dont want some scary guy who wants to destroy the modern world with a nuke.

Any action to keep the world I live in safe, I will support.

When all else fails send in Chuck Norris….

No seriously…. The nukes being controlled and protected by a neutral party seems like a good idea.

With India’s economy on the run I don’t think it’s really interested in a war at the moment.

Someone said why send in the US military (SF) and not China. Well even though I’m not American, Americans are one of the most highly trained soldiers in the world along with the British and Australian SAS and maybe Israel and Russia as well. I would prefer them going in then a less trained soldier to fix an issue as big as this.

Well, the good news is that it sounds like their Nukes are pretty low yield. The bad news is that they seem to be spread out pretty well with an unknown number of what is really out there.

www.fas.org...

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) estimates that Pakistan has built 24-48 HEU-based nuclear warheads, and Carnegie reports that they have produced 585-800 kg of HEU, enough for 30-55 weapons. Pakistan's nuclear warheads are based on an implosion design that uses a solid core of highly enriched uranium and requires an estimated 15-20 kg of material per warhead. According to Carnegie, Pakistan has also produced a small but unknown quantity of weapons grade plutonium, which is sufficient for an estimated 3-5 nuclear weapons.

Pakistani authorities claim that their nuclear weapons are not assembled. They maintain that the fissile cores are stored separately from the non-nuclear explosives packages, and that the warheads are stored separately from the delivery systems. In a 2001 report, the Defense Department contends that "Islamabad's nuclear weapons are probably stored in component form" and that "Pakistan probably could assemble the weapons fairly quickly." However, no one has been able to ascertain the validity of Pakistan's assurances about their nuclear weapons security.

Pakistan's reliance primarily on HEU makes its fissile materials particularly vulnerable to diversion. HEU can be used in a relatively simple gun-barrel-type design, which could be within the means of non-state actors that intend to assemble a crude nuclear weapon.

The terrorist attacks on September 11th raised concerns about the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. According to press reports, within two days of the attacks, Pakistan's military began relocating nuclear weapons components to six new secret locations. Shortly thereafter, Gen. Pervez Musharraf fired his intelligence chief and other officers and detained several suspected retired nuclear weapons scientists, in an attempt to root out extremist elements that posed a potential threat to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

Concerns have also been raised about Pakistan as a proliferant of nuclear materials and expertise. In November, 2002, shortly after North Korea admitted to pursuing a nuclear weapons program, the press reported allegations that Pakistan had provided assistance in the development of its uranium enrichment program in exchange for North Korean missile technologies.

reply to post by MuLongQun


I would say that other than India, the US also has the most to lose if one of these does fall into the wrong hands.

by ncbrian

Also it would be very dangerous if these nukes were in the wrong hands.

Those nukes are already in the wrong hands and those hands belong to the ego maniacal dictator, President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan murderer of former Prime Minister Bhutto and the gracious recipient since 9/11 of 10 BILLION dollars from Bushco to put on a show called, "Don't Worry, We'll Find Bin Laden!" ... sure.

I would think the prudent thing for the US to do now is to confiscate every nuke in that country NOW, if not sooner. IMHO.



[edit on 2-1-2008 by Palasheea]

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
Interfereing in a Civil War wouldn't be very smart IMO. What makes them think they can successfully seize these nukes? Special Forces is fine and dandy but they are still just soldiers, and a limited number of them at that. I would think full on airstrikes would be the surest and fastest way to neutralize the threat. At which point China, Iran, etc... might have a little something to say about it.

Actually for an operation of this size there are plenty of special forces outfits available, more than enough. Bombings would likely coincide with special ops missions. It's doubtful all sites could be taken over simultaneously for reasons other than operational capability.

Well, the question is when and how does one take out Pakistani nuclear and related facilities? This is easier said than done! Needless to say, each important site is well guarded by at least battalion strength of regular troops, Special Forces (SSG) of company strength and other para military forces. That makes it a total of about 1500 troops at each nuke-related site. Add to that the small quick reaction mechanized forces geographically and strategically located to react as reinforcements for any threat that may develop within their area of responsibility.

Pakistan’s Nuclear Related Facilities


Courtesy: Carnegie Endowment.

Now the question of ‘when’. In the present context it is well neigh impossible for American or even NATO forces to go in there to secure these sites and therefore not an option. It would only be possible if there is clear and present danger in the event of a coup by Islamic fundamentalists, wherein all nuclear assets fall under their control.

As to the ‘how’, it is clear that the only strategy than can work in this scenario is by neutralizing and destroying all nuclear and related assets by air power alone. Ground action is not a viable option.

I hope its not heading in that direction! But then, considering the volatile situation in Pakistan with Muslim fundamentalists ruling the roost with active support from a section of the ISI and elements within the defense forces, anything is possible.

so it only took a week for the US to expose their plan to infiltrate Pakistan.

I get it.

Its the same ol' formula.

Simply replace Iraq with Pakistan, WMDs with nukes and WMD threat/Saddam with Pakistan going rogue and/or entering a civil war.


THe more time goes on the more it seems tht the US simply wants control of the entire region - Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and now Pakistan. I know its a troubled region but the US should keep its nose out of it.

This goes much further than oil.

Maybe its just me but everything seems to convenient.. and connected....

looks like the potato is between Iran and Pakistan... its hot and one of is gonna get it first... either way its gonna go to both of them eventually....


are people not seeing a pattern here? Friend Enemy, Friend Enemy, Friend Enemy? before long this pattern will have us in every M.E country.. with us left wondering to ourselves wait a second wtf?

I mean its just so blatantly retarded that no one realizes this is all a bunch of bs...


I mean lets just make it official and start calling it WW3 now....

Something is going on here and its not extremists, Its not nukes, I don't know what it is exactly but it stinks... and will lead to a world of bad...

[edit on 2-1-2008 by C0le]

Originally posted by NGC2736
reply to post by marg6043

 

Now if some Pak nukes lite up the area, everyone would be in favor of the US using force to stabilize that nation, and return Mashariff to power. And there's no connection between us having standby forces around when..er.. if it happens.

And if one blew in the area controlled by the Taliban, not only would that be an indicator that everything bad is connected to AQ, but since it would be an AQ stronghold that turned into a glass parking lot, there wouldn't be much sympathy for the dead.

Gee, I bet Bushco could get a coalition up after that. And the next president of the US could win on a war platform to wipe out terrorism in our lifetime.

It is so easy to kill on paper. You don't know them. They are just numbers.
You must be a Wolfowitz fan. Your idea sounds like a fine PNAC chapter.

I will give you the energetical counterbalance. More violence and death (nukes) creates more trauma and fear > brings down our emotional and rational abiltities to cope > which create more opportunities for violence and control through weaponization. As a species we are shrinking in abiltity and opportunity if we keep on this track.

I'm looking at a bigger picture here... why publicize their intended actions at all. Why release somewhat covert information to the MSM, unless they have another goal.

The article claims they are on 'Stand-By', why mention anything at all unless something else their main objective.

Has any other country (with vested interest of course ), made mention of plans to do the same, or another type of safeguard??

I may be off track, but it seems more is at stake then just the nukes.

reply to post by Pjotr


I thought everyone could see that I was speaking 'tongue-in-cheek' in the post you quoted. Actually I don't trust the CIA not to "oversee" an accident with a nuke in the area. And it would give the US all the excuse it needed to then station a permanent force on that side of Iran.

Besides, being unable to locate several nukes would serve a double purpose. It would allow use of the fear factor to keep America accepting of any and all "safety" measures, and it would allow us to nuke various places and blame it on those inept Arab Terrorists.

PNAC? Me? I'm flattered that you feel I'm figuring out the thought process of those scumbags. It's like being a serial killer profiler, you put your mind into their dark and evil place. People who plan for world conquest, even if it's only on paper, are not to be trusted.

This is not going to happen

`secure` a countries independant weapons? thats a pretext to war - and `use them or lose` them type war

so you can all go gung ho about charging in and grabbing the material - but it won`t happen.

hmm... this sounds alot like in the video game Call of Duty 4. US forces fail to disarm a nuke and the whole US force in that area in the country was destroyed within the blast radius. this is what might happen.






[edit on 2-1-2008 by a-stupid-dvd-case]

[edit on 2-1-2008 by a-stupid-dvd-case]