In an unstable Pakistan, can nuclear warheads be kept safe? Sy Hersh - The New Yorker »
Posted By deathray 1 week ago in Political News
ANNALS OF NATIONAL SECURITY
about U.S.-Pakistani relations and fears that militants might gain access to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal…
Read Full Story at newyorker.com »
241 Views Share Story 33 Comments Report
Submitted By:
deathray
Hm...summarizing a life...Investment banker, sailor, unintentional gourmet cook. Ex US Naval officer, also Foreign Service. Split my time between NYC and Miami Beach ...
Who Also Submitted:
Other Related Articles:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 33 (view all)
-
100%
Progressive1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA:
Reply
Asked this question the day after the Rawalpindi raid, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “We have confidence in the Pakistani government and the military’s control over nuclear weapons.” Clinton—whose own visit to Pakistan, two weeks later, would be disrupted by more terrorist bombs—added that, despite the attacks by the Taliban, “we see no evidence that they are going to take over the state.”
Clinton’s words sounded reassuring, and several current and former officials also said in interviews that the Pakistan Army was in full control of the nuclear arsenal. But the Taliban overrunning Islamabad is not the only, or even the greatest, concern. The principal fear is mutiny—that extremists inside the Pakistani military might stage a coup, take control of some nuclear assets, or even divert a warhead.
On April 29th, President Obama was asked at a news conference whether he could reassure the American people that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal could be kept away from terrorists. Obama’s answer remains the clearest delineation of the Administration’s public posture. He was, he said, “gravely concerned” about the fragility of the civilian government of President Asif Ali Zardari. “Their biggest threat right now comes internally,” Obama said. “We have huge . . . national-security interests in making sure that Pakistan is stable and that you don’t end up having a nuclear-armed militant state.” The United States, he said, could “make sure that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is secure—primarily, initially, because the Pakistan Army, I think, recognizes the hazards of those weapons’ falling into the wrong hands.”-
100%
deathray1 week ago
-
-
100%
hyperbola6 days, 23 hours ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We Americans seem to be incredeibly naive about the meddling imperialism of our elite class all over the world. We have been meddling in Pakistan for about 50 years now and like most other countries where we have played imperialist, they are fed up with it.
Reply
Frankly we would be better off to simply get out of Af-Pak altogether. There is nothing to make anyone think that the "moslem fanatics" are any more bloodthirsty and insane than the american elite imperialists. Indeed, going on recent history, we have killed many millions more people all around the world.
-
-
100%
tchef1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is a very scary situation. It's a good question as to how we proceed in this area of the world. You don't want to intrude so much that you continue to turn the local population against us which results in helping to feed the ranks of the radicals but you also can't leave things uncontrolled so that radical elements will be able to set up training camps and plan operations against us like we saw in Afghanistan pre 9/11.
Reply-
100%
hyperbola6 days, 23 hours ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have news for you. We have been "interfering" in Pakistan for half a century already. Not quite as long as in places like Iraq and Iran (over 70 years now) because Pakistan doesn't have oil or isn't so close to our masters in israel. Nonetheless, the population is already against our meddling. And as they see what our meddling in Afghanistan has achieved, their resolve becomes greater.
Reply
US Is Doing No Good in Afghanistan
As an Afghan woman who was elected to Parliament, I am in the United States to ask President Barack Obama to immediately end the occupation of my country.
Eight years ago, women's rights were used as one of the excuses to start this war. But today, Afghanistan is still facing a women's rights catastrophe. Life for most Afghan women resembles a type of hell that is never reflected in the Western mainstream media.
In 2001, the U.S. helped return to power the worst misogynist criminals, such as the Northern Alliance warlords and druglords. These men ought to be considered a photocopy of the Taliban. The only difference is that the Northern Alliance warlords wear suits and ties and cover their faces with the mask of democracy while they occupy government positions. But they are responsible for much of the disaster today in Afghanistan, thanks to the U.S. support they enjoy.
The U.S. and its allies are getting ready to offer power to the medieval Taliban by creating an imaginary category called the "moderate Taliban" and inviting them to join the government. A man who was near the top of the list of most-wanted terrorists eight years ago, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, has been invited to join the government.
Over the past eight years the U.S. has helped turn my country into the drug capital of the world through its support of drug lords. Today, 93 percent of all opium in the world is produced in Afghanistan. Many members of Parliament and high ranking officials openly benefit from the drug trade. President Karzai's own brother is a well known drug trafficker....
...Now President Obama is considering increasing troops to Afghanistan and simply extending former President Bush's wrong policies. In fact, the worst massacres since 9/11 were during Obama's tenure. My native province of Farah was bombed by the U.S. this past May. A hundred and fifty people were killed, most of them women and children. On Sept. 9, the U.S. bombed Kunduz Province, killing 200 civilians.
My people are fed up. That is why we want an immediate end to the U.S. occupation.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23...
-
-
100%
tadair9191 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the same people who sold us the idea that sadam had wmd's and that it was going to be a cakewalk, are the same people who have pitched the idea that terrorists are knocking on pakistan nuclear weapon door.
Reply
why do we constantly buy in to this nonsense?
it's like we can only think in 5-second sound bytes.
they attacked us because we are free
fight them there so we dont fight them here
next sign will come in the shape of a mushroom cloud
and on and on and on.
it's all fear-based nonsense designed to galvanize opponents of war, and the support the illusion that invading pakistan is somehow justified.
tomorrow, they will tell us terrorists will have spilled into turkey and syria, enabling us to invade those countries, too. -
100%
cowboygrandpa1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The world is not safe when any have nuclear capabilities.
Reply
That said, we opened Pandora's box and there is no closing it.
We must now constantly monitor all the insane who would indeed trigger an unwise attack to gain revenge, or their so called freedom. -
100%
fiftynine6 days, 23 hours ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The reasons i see for staying in Afghanistan are for keeping AQ and the Taliban on the ropes and getting to (killing) their leaders..Another is because as we put pressure on AQ and the Taliban in Afghanistan and they move more into Pakistan (which we have seen happen)it makes the threat of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands more possible..Pakistan seems to have stepped up the fight against the radicals but at the expense of alienating a large portion of their population which makes the country even more unstable.Having a large force in Afghanistan could be to our advantage if their nukes are threatened..maybe not.Very complicated scenarios no matter how you look at it.
Reply -
100%
gamahuche6 days, 19 hours ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Let's not forget this story!
Reply
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/06/nuclea...
Khan admitted to selling nuclear technology to Iran, Libya, and North Korea - and was later found not guilty in a Pakistani Court of doing the same.
Pakistan is a VERY dangerous and highly undemocratic country that has nevertheless managed to play the Western Powers very effectively. -
-
0%
Daylight6 days, 11 hours ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
gamahuche
Reply
Most dangerous country in the world is not Pakistan but the United States and insane Israel. You are just making claims that the Taliban are bad people and they will get their hands on those Nukes and then use it as a revenge attack. I don't think or believe they would do this in the name of God, if they are Islamists as you already identified them but my fear is that Israel is the one who would do this and blame it on any of these groups because Israelis feel they are unstable in a peaceful world because they will be forgotten and will not get the support of the Western world. Israel is at war with the Muslim world and the US is at war with the Muslim world today that it is because of Israel not because Muslims hate US. One more thing, Islam is not an Atheistic and oppressive religion for anyone to kill millions of innocent people in one stroke and destroy everything that breathe (sound familiar? read the Bible) and every Muslims whether he is a moderate or extremist as you like to define them clearly knows Muslims cannot kill people the way you kill people. It all happens in your radical media.-
100%
gamahuche6 days, 10 hours ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"You are just making claims that the Taliban are bad people and they will get their hands on those Nukes and then use it as a revenge attack. I don't think or believe they would do this in the name of God, if they are Islamists as you already identified them but my fear is that Israel is the one who would do this"
Reply
I am not JUST doing anything daylight!
I am as appalled by Israel having - still, as best I can recall, undeclared and unadmitted - nuclear weapons. This has been one of the most destabilising factors in the Middle East.
Do not make the mistake of putting words in my mouth or making assumptions about what I think. -
100%
alakazam6 days, 6 hours ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You wrote this as a reply to gama but I will choose to respond myself
Reply
"Most dangerous country in the world is not Pakistan but the United States and insane Israel. You are just making claims that the Taliban are bad people and they will get their hands on those Nukes and then use it as a revenge attack."
I must disagree strongly with your assessment on practically every count.
There really is a War on...it's just not the one most people think it is.
Aggression will get you killed quick these days.
You should perhaps learn to temper your Hate...there may be Men of Peace where you expect them least.
-
More News
The Huffington Post
Edward Jay Epstein: Annals of Unsolved Crime: The Oswald Mystery
Andy Borowitz: Inspired By Oprah, Homeless Guy Ends 25 Years of Shouting at Passersby
William Bradley: Mad Men: Three Seasons On and Looking Forward
Tara Stiles: Should Insurance Companies Pay For Preventive Care?
Wes Anderson: Behind The Filming Of One Of My Favorite Fantastic Mr. Fox Performances
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.