It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'US admn allowed Pak to acquire nuke tech'

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 03:47 AM
link   

'US admn allowed Pak to acquire nuke tech'


timesofindia.indiatimes.com

WASHINGTON: The US allowed Pakistan to manufacture and acquire nuclear weapons without informing the Congress, a non-profit corruption watchdog has said, quoting a whistleblower who was fired for objecting to the policy.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 03:47 AM
link   
Well i guess that old question of how the supposedly the world and the U.S. were caught in their sleep has been answered.

Yes people, according to this article the U.S. had helped and were fully aware of the knowledge being handed over to the Pakistan Government regarding nuclear weapons.

This was obvious since India has been a long supporter of the former U.S.S.R. , now Russian politics which secured billions of dollars in aid and military hardware. Well, there is another coffin for the so called truth behind what is being reported in every aspect of the media.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   
I don't get it? Since when does the USA have the right to 'allow' other countries to do anything?

If Pakistan wants to make nukes, then that's their business - not the business of the USA.

Did anyone complain about the USA making nuclear weapons? Oh, yeah... Japan...


Originally posted by tristar
Yes people, according to this article the U.S. had helped and were fully aware of the knowledge being handed over to the Pakistan Government regarding nuclear weapons.

I'm not sure if you read your own article or not, but I can't see where it mentioned that the USA *helped* Pakistan make nukes. I can only read that the USA *allowed* Pakistan to make the nukes. There's a difference between helping and allowing.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 04:00 AM
link   
The USA , France , Norway and the UK were all involved in making ISrael`s nukes as well - again a case of `do as i say not as i do`.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 04:00 AM
link   
I guess the distinction between allow and help are two different things. I always had the notion if you allow someone to break into a home or steal while you are aware of that you are indirectly helping the crime in progress. In this case the U.S. allowed the Pakistan to develop nukes therefore they were and had full knowledge of that and thus helping them develop nuclear weapons. I do think its very straight forward.

[edit on 16-6-2009 by tristar]



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by tristar
In this case the U.S. allowed the Pakistan to develop nukes therefore they were had full knowledge of that and thus helping them develop nuclear weapons. I do thin its very straight forward.

But the USA has no World Police powers to stop Pakistan.

There's no reason why the USA should disallow it to happen. Pakistan is perfectly capable of taking care of its own affairs.

The article did not mention that the USA helped Pakistan. You can try to draw the implication, but it's false.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


I guess words do play a role when people look for them, but since as you state and as the article states that no "help" was mentioned, the intentions and the outcome are evident.

As for allowing other nations and if they have any say in the matter, perhaps you have been away, but that is why the U.S. attacked Iraq (WMD), and are now gearing up to attack Iran. Sound familiar, well they same goes for N.Korea, both of these two nation's feel that they too need nuclear ability to deter any future threat from external pressure. As the U.S. and Russia had nukes in the 60's and no one dared to challenge their authority so to are other nation only now catching up. Love it or hate it, its the new political weapon of our day and age.

Just to place a cherry on the cake and make this even more interesting is the following.


Instead of taking the help of the US to make its nuclear weapons safe from falling into the hands of jehadis if the Musharraf Government is toppled, Pakistan is inclined to move them to China in such an eventuality. Lately, US intelligence sources had expressed the fear that a prolonged military action in Afghanistan will arouse such a strong public anger in Pakistan that President Musharraf may be toppled by Islamic radicals who are leading the public stir against him. This will mean the nuclear arsenal falling into the hands of the jehadi groups which may simply load the loose nuclear warheads on to helicopters or move around a region foaming with fundamentalist turmoil. In a bid to defuse such a catastrophic scenairo, the US officials are understood to have offered Pakistan high tech assistance to improve the security of its missile vaults and the multiple-code custody arrangements that theoretically prevent rogue missile launches. The issue was reportedly discussed by US Secretary of State Colin Powell during his recent visit to Pakistan. The sources, however, said Pakistan refused to accept US help to make its nuclear assets secure for fear that it might be bugged by the CIA in order to establish the whereabouts the warheads.

Instead of taking US help to make the rogue elements difficult to trigger the bomb even if it falls into their hands, Pakistan is working out an arrangement with China to remove the nuclear warheads to that country. China and Pakistan are strategically close allies and China’s nuclear relations with Pakistan have long been the focus of controversy. Chinese scientists are believed to have played a key role in developing Pakistan’s nuclear programme in the early 1980s. The two countries share a mistrust of India which has also developed nuclear weapons.

news.indiamart.com...

Note: Only last week India was warned about troop build up near the boarder with China. China stated that removal of such troops should be immediate or it will be forced to consider it as a hostile threat.


edit: 2


A number of United States laws, amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, applied to Pakistan and its program of nuclear weapons development. The 1976 Symington Amendment stipulated that economic assistance be terminated to any country that imported uranium enrichment technology. The Glenn Amendment of 1977 similarly called for an end to aid to countries that imported reprocessing technology--Pakistan had from France. United States economic assistance, except for food aid, was terminated under the Symington Amendment in April 1979.

www.globalsecurity.org...

[edit on 16-6-2009 by tristar]

[edit on 16-6-2009 by tristar]



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by tristar
As for allowing other nations and if they have any say in the matter, perhaps you have been away, but that is why the U.S. attacked Iraq (WMD),

No way. That was the cover story, sold on the back of 9/11 lies.

I don't think that the common man will ever know the real reason why they invaded Iraq. Oil? Possibly. However, I don't think that it was as clear-cut as that.



and are now gearing up to attack Iran.

Propaganda. The USA won't invade Iran. They don't have the manpower to fund a war in a third country and they don't have the moral support like they did post 9/11.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by tristar
As for allowing other nations and if they have any say in the matter, perhaps you have been away, but that is why the U.S. attacked Iraq (WMD),

No way. That was the cover story, sold on the back of 9/11 lies.

I don't think that the common man will ever know the real reason why they invaded Iraq. Oil? Possibly. However, I don't think that it was as clear-cut as that.



and are now gearing up to attack Iran.

Propaganda. The USA won't invade Iran. They don't have the manpower to fund a war in a third country and they don't have the moral support like they did post 9/11.


I agree with you on the 911 side, its so far wrapped up in covert and secret deals that it will never see the light just like the Kennedy case.

As we speak, the playing card of WMD and Iran has already been used and will be played even more as the months wind up to the closing of 2009 since that is when the time line will expire for Iran. Naturally the U.S. will not invade or attack Iran but will play a support role for the Israel armed forces. This has been openly discussed and is widely acknowledged.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 05:49 AM
link   
The US has had nuclear weapons for over 60 years now.
Despite being involved in several military confrontations since 1945 they have not used their nuclear weapons in anger.
The Russians have had nuclear weapons the same length of time and even when The Cold War was at it's worst they never used their nuclear weapons.
China have had nuclear weapons for a long time now and have never used them.
Neither have the UK or France.
These countries understand the MAD theory and would only use their weaponry as a last resort.

I am uneasy with Israel having nuclear capability but genuinely believe they would only use them if they were threatened with something similar.
I also think the US would exert immense pressure on them not to use them.
Israel can not afford to loose US support.

It is worrying that Iran seems intent on developing nuclear weapons.
Iran is also in direct contravention of it being a signatury of the NPT, unlike India, Pakistan and North Korea who have not signed it.

Enough is being said about North Korea in other ATS threads to comment here.
I personally am certain that neither Russia or China will allow this to continue further.

It is noteworthy to mention that South Africa had nuclear weaponry but unilaterally disarmed them before signing up to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
How easy would it be for them to re-arm?

That leaves India and Pakistan.
I think both would be prepared to use nuclear weaponry on each other if at war and were losing.
However, India seems much more progressive and has a much larger and seemingly better equipped and trained Armed Forces.

In the event of any major conventional military confrontation between Pakistan abd India, Pakistan would undoubtedly be defeated.
The hatred between the countries runs very deep.
Pakistan having nuclear weapons ensures that any military confrontations are relatively minor thus maintaining the status quo and 'stability' within the region.
The danger is if the moderates loose control in Pakistan and the extremists gain control of the country and it's nuclear arsenal.
That could pose a danger to world peace that far exceeds that posed even by North Korea at present.
I honestly believe that extremists like The Taliban would have no compunction in using nuclear weapons on their perceived enemies, (all non-Muslims!).
Fortunately The Taliban now seems to be in retreat in Pakistan.
They can not be allowed to gain control of anywhere, let alone such a strategically important country as Pakistan.

The US 'allowed' Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons to provide balance and ensure a certain amount of stability in the region.

The US, along with Russia, China, the UK and France have proved they can maintain nuclear arsenals in a capable manner and fully understand why they would want to control the nuclear capabilities of other countries.

I for one am grateful for their efforts in preventing the spread of nuclear weapon capability.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


NK withdreew from the NPT and you also forgot 1 other nuclear club country that has a first strike policy and hasn`t signed it


israel.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


That's true, but Israel will do as the US tell's it.
It can not afford to loose US support.
Any first use of nuclear arms will be US sanctioned, and that will not happen.

As stated before, NK is being discussed all over ATS; but I genuinely believe either China and / or Russia will deal with this when necessary.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
That's true, but Israel will do as the US tell's it.
It can not afford to loose US support.

That's kind of funny. I always thought that it was the other way around.

With so many key US figures holding duel Israeli passports, you have to wonder who they really answer to.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Just my take on thing's as an outsider looking in.

I honestly don't think Israel does anything without first informing the US.
I suspect the US turns a blind eye to some thing's but give's the final say so on the really important thing's.

Could be wrong, I am often am.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join