Indian Nuclear Missile Capable of Hitting China

India to Test Fire Nuclear Missile Capable of Hitting China
India’s Strategic Forces Command is reportedly getting ready to test launch the Agni-V intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) in its final operational configuration from Wheeler Island, off the coast of the eastern Indian state of Odisha, in late December or early January, according to local media reports.

The Strategic Forces Command has previously conducted three test-launches of India’s first ICBM, the last of which occurred in January 2015. While two of the previous launches, taking place in April 2012 and September 2013 respectively, had the Agni-V tested in “open configuration,” the January 2015 test involved the launch of ICBM from a hermetically sealed canister mounted on a mobile transporter erector launcher in so-called “deliverable configuration.”

The upcoming test had to be delayed due to some technical issues. “There were some minor technical snags in Agni-V, which required tweaking of its internal battery and electronic configurations after its last test in January 2015,” an unnamed source told The Times of India. “This will be the final test of the three-stage Agni-V, which will be tested for its full range, before the Strategic Forces Command begins its user trials,” the source added.

The Agni-V, a three-stage solid fueled missile, has an approximate range of 5,500-5,800 kilometers, and can carry a 1,500-kilogram (3,300-pound) nuclear warhead. India has reportedly also been working on multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRV) for the Agni-V in order to ensure a credible second strike capability. In addition, India is already working on the Agni-V’s successor, the Agni-VI, most likely a four-stage ICBM with MIRV and a maneuverable reentry vehicle (MaRV) capability.

“India has successfully test fired [the] nuclear capable Agni-V missile recently, which has a range of 5,000 kms. But we are capable of developing ICBM that can hit targets beyond the range of 10,000 kilometers,” K. Salwan, the chairman of the Armament Research Board at India’s Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO), announced in April 2015, as The Diplomat reported. The DRDO chairman was likely referring to the Agni-VI.

Whereas previous Agni variants, the Agni-I, Agni-II, and Agni-III, were specifically developed to offset Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, the Agni-IV and Agni-V, given their longer ranges, are specifically designed to deter China. The Agni-V will be fully road mobile. There have also been reports that the ICBM will be stationed aboard India’s first domestically developed and built ballistic missile nuclear submarine (SSBN) class.

India has a nuclear warfare policy centered on a No First-Use (NFU) doctrine and keeps its nuclear warheads de-mated from the actual missiles. Consequently, parts of India’s nuclear doctrine will need to be revised should future Indian Navy submarines carry nuclear-capable submarine-launched ballistic missiles and conduct deterrence patrols.

Preparing For Revelation 8

India Pakistan War Update: Pakistan Nuclear Threat Real? Will It Destroy India?

Published on Oct 3, 2016 | Updated 21 hours ago By Nidhi Tewari | In Featured

The tensions between two Asian nations India and Pakistan have escalated over past couple of weeks. According to latest reports, Pakistan has threatened to use nuclear weapons on India too. Pakistan Defence Minister Khawaja Asif has repeatedly said that there are chances that his country could use nuclear weapons against India.

“We will destroy India if it dares to impose war on us,” Asif had told a local Pakistani news channel, according to Indian Express. “Pakistan army is fully prepared to answer any misadventure of India. We have not made atomic device to display in a showcase. If a such a situation arises we will use it (nuclear weapons) and eliminate India,” he added.

However, the United States has reportedly given a stern warning to Pakistan against its use of nuclear weapons. According to a senior State Department official, who did not reveal his identity for security reasons, US “repeatedly” made it clear to Pakistan that any “nuclear threat” to India will not be tolerated, Indian Express reported. The official called the threat of Pakistan to use nukes against India in India Pakistan possible par as “very concerning” and “serious thing.”

The US is now keeping a close watch on Pakistan and its movement of weapons of mass destruction. Pakistan is equipped with all military and chemical materials required for a nuclear attack against its neighbor.

“The safety of these weapons is always a concern for us. So we are always monitoring it, regardless of what they said on this particular occasion,” the State Department official added.

According to CNN, Pakistan has an estimate 110 and 130 nuclear weapon as of August estimates. Its nuclear stockpile is ever growing and is dangerous. In 1999, Pakistan became a declared nuclear weapons state but it has also signed a strict no first-use policy. The policy means that the Asian nation will not use nuclear weapons unless someone strikes it first.

India prepares for nuclear war

'India may deploy nuclear-capable Rafale jets on China, Pakistan borders'

Times of India

BEIJING: China apprehends that India will deploy the 36 nuclear-capable Rafale fighter jets to be acquired from France in the border regions of China and Pakistan to enhance its deterrence capability, a media report here said.

India will deploy the new French-made fighters in the disputed areas bordering Pakistan and China, state-run Global Times reported quoting Shenzhen Television.

A recent report by Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) said India is the largest arms importer in the world, the newspaper said.

Increased arms imports into the Asian region are primarily due to the unstable security environment in the Middle East and concerns from China's neighbours over its rise.

The Rafale fighters in flyaway condition carry tactical nuclear warheads, and this means India's nuclear deterrence capability will be greatly improved, Shenzhen Television reported.

"India also wants to purchase the Rafale technology from Dassault but France refused, meaning France has no intention to help India promote its military industrial system," Zhao Gancheng, director of South Asia Studies at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies said.

While India is rapidly expanding its military capabilities spending an estimated $100 billion on new defence systems, many other countries with an advanced military industry are also competing for India's market, such as Russia, the US and Israel, the daily quoted SIPRI report as saying.

Zhao said before this deal with France, India was also considering the US-made F-16s.

"India picked French-made jet fighters because they are cheaper and have a nuclear deterrence capability," he said.

SIPRI's list of the top 10 arms importers for 2011-2015 has nine Asian or Asia-Pacific countries.

Many of China's neighbours are also on the list of top 10 importers, such as Vietnam, South Korea and India, he said.

"Due to the South China Sea dispute and the increasing power of the Chinese navy, countries like Vietnam and the Philippines are very concerned, but the US is not helping China solve the problem peacefully," said Song Zhongping, a Beijing-based military expert.

"The US government and media are hyping the 'China Threat Theory,' trying to convince countries in Asia that China is on the offensive," he said.

India Strikes Back With Missiles Against Pakistan

 

India Says It Has Struck Militants Across Kashmir Frontier

New York Times

NEW DELHI — India said Thursday it carried out "surgical strikes" against militants across the highly militarized frontier that divides the Kashmir region between India and Pakistan, in an exchange that escalated tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbors.

Pakistan dismissed the reports that India's military had targeted "terrorist launch pads" inside the Pakistan-controlled part of Kashmir. Islamabad said instead that two of its soldiers were killed in "unprovoked" firing by India across the border.

Tensions, which are always simmering between India and Pakistan, spiked after an attack earlier this month on an Indian military base in Kashmir. India accused Pakistan of sending militants belonging to the outlawed Jaish-e-Mohammed group, headquartered in Pakistan, to carry out the attack. Pakistan denied the charge.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been under heavy pressure to respond to the attack on the military base.

Pakistan Will Soon Nuke India

Pakistan threatens to DESTROY India with nuclear bomb as atomic enemies edge to the brink of war

BY SARA KAMOUNI

30th September 2016, 12:21 am

PAKISTAN’S Defence Minister has threatened to “destroy” India – after India said on Thursday it had carried out “surgical strikes” on suspected militants preparing to infiltrate from Pakistan-ruled Kashmir.

The strikes, which were a response to shots fired across the de facto border through the disputed Himalayan territory, could lead to a military escalation between the two nuclear-armed neighbours – risking a ceasefire agreed in 2003

Tensions have been heightened since an attack on an Indian military base in Kashmir earlier this month, which left 18 soldiers dead.

Both countries claim Kashmir in full, but rule separate parts – and have fought three wars over Kashmir since gaining independence from Britain in 1947.

Responding to India’s latest strikes, Defence Minister Khawaja Asif said: “We will destroy India if it dares to impose war on us.

“Pakistan army is fully prepared to answer any misadventure of India.

“We have not made atomic device to display in a showcase.

“If a such a situation arises we will use it and eliminate India.”

Defence Minister Khawaja Asif said: “We will destroy India if it dares to impose war on us.”
Meanwhile, US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter said: “Pakistan nuclear weapons are entangled in a history of tension, and while they are not a threat to the United States directly, we work with Pakistan to ensure stability.”

China, a traditional Pakistani ally, has also called for dialogue between the two nations.

The First Nuclear Attack (Revelation 8)

War between India and Pakistan: Under nuclear warfare, 21 million lives to be lost, climatic catastrophe in South Asia
By India.com News Desk on September 29, 2016 at 9:49

New Delhi, Sept 29: The bilateral friction between India and Pakistan escalated to a whole new level on Thursday. In retaliation to the terror attack in Uri, Indian army launched a cross-border surgical strike, which ended up killing nearly 35-40 terrorists across the border. Following the attack, Pakistan showed a knee-jerk reaction, warning India to exercise restraint or face full-blown retaliation from its forces. Not only did Pakistan reject the claims of India carrying out cross-border surgical strikes, but instead accused the eastern neighbour of violating the ceasefire which ended up killing 2 soldiers, and left at least 9 critically injured. In response to the surgical strike, several chauvinistic opinion-makers in Pakistan have suggested nuclear strikes against India.

Important to note is that both India and Pakistan are equipped with nuclear weapons. According to a report in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a global disarmament advocacy published in 2015, India had a total of 110-120 nuclear warheads. Whereas, Pakistan has 120-130 nuclear warheads. With such heavily loaded nuclear artillery, both the nations would cause maximum collateral damage. The possibility of carrying out precision strike is virtually impossible, as seen in the air raids conducted by US and Russian forces in Syria.

If India and Pakistan end up detonating 100 nuclear warheads each, the estimated collateral damage is stated to be 21 million lives. According to an analysis of IndiaSpend on terrorism in South Asia, the amount of casualties due to nuclear strike would be 2,221 times more than the number of people killed in terror attacks over the past nine years in India. (ALSO READ: LIVE Updates on Surgical Strike by India across LOC, Pakistan threatens to wage nuclear war)

In the words of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Subramanian Swamy, an estimated 100 million people in India would be killed in nuclear attack, but in response India would wipe out the entire state of Pakistan. Similar provocative statements were made by the Pakistani Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif who openly threatened to use nuclear strikes against India, if the latter poses a threat to the existence of Pakistan.

Apart from the massive amount of casualties, the nuclear war would also cause immense climatic damage in the region. Nearly half of the ozone layer could be vanished due to the nuclear warfare. Rainfall would be adversely affected and the agriculture sector would be significantly destroyed.

The impact of the nuclear warfare would be felt for generations. The estimated casualty is only for the first week of warfare. The impact of the nuclear attack would lead to deaths in the months to come. As seen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (which were subjected to nuclear attack in World War-II), the impact of the nuclear attack would be felt for generations to come.

According to a report, nearly 66 per cent of nuclear artillery comprises of ballistic missiles. Pakistan could use nuclear-tipped medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs) to attack metropolitan cities in India, including Mumbai, Bengaluru and Chennai. The report further claims that nearly 40 ballistic missiles of Pakistan could be mated with the warhead Ghauri. Using this nuclear arsenal, Pakistan could attack targets over the range of 1,300 kms. Almost all major cities of India, including Nagpur and Bhopal could be attacked using this missile-set.

Modified Date: September 29, 2016 9:49 PM

Pakistan Threatens India With Nuclear War

Pakistani defence minister threatens India of nuclear war
Damini Dawar

Asif clearly threatened India of launching nuclear attack saying, "We have not made atomic device to display in a showcase. If such a situation arises we will use it and eliminate India."

On the other hand, two men Faizal Hussain Awan (20) and Yasin Khursheed (19) who were arrested by Indian agencies regarding Uri attack case clearly told the agencies that they had helped the four terrorists to cross the border, serving as guides.

Meanwhile, the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has decided not to attend the SAARC summit in Islamabad in November amidst the present tensions between India and Pakistan.

External Affairs Ministry in a statement announced this and said, "India has conveyed to current SAARC Chair Nepal that increasing cross-border terrorist attacks in the region and growing interference in the internal affairs of Member States by one country have created an environment that is not conducive to the successful holding of the 19th SAARC Summit in Islamabad in November 2016," reported Huffington Post.

Amid India's warning that it may suspend the56-year-old Indus Water treaty, Pakistan has, reportedly, approached the United Nations and the International court of Justice.

Sartaz Aziz, Advisor to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on Foreign Affairs said, "The international law states that India cannot unilaterally separate itself from the treaty…..Between the two countries, this act of revocation can be taken as an act of war."

The Age of "Conventional" Nuclear Weapons

Pakistan may use tactical nukes if it’s unable to push back Indian Army

Sachin Parashar | TNN | Sep 21, 2016, 07.49AM IST

A potential low-yield, tactical nuclear weapon strike by Pakistan is perhaps the single most important factor preventing the Modi government from taking military action against Pakistan in haste. While the threat from these weapons has been described by some in India as just a Pakistani red herring, the same will play on the minds of policy makers if they indeed decide to go ahead with any cross-border strike.

As the director of Federation of American Scientists' Nuclear Information Project, Hans Kristensen remains one of the world's leading authorities on Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme. He first wrote in 2011 that Pakistan's production of the nuclear-capable 60-km Nasr missile was not intended to target any Indian ci ty but to check an Indian Army advance. TOI caught up with Kristensen to find out how credible was the threat from Pakistan's tactical nukes:

Does the prospect of a flare-up between India and Pakistan, both nuclear powers, after the Uri attack worry you?

Yes, that is potentially a dangerous situation. However, a Pakistani decision to use nuclear weapons in response to an Indian incursion is not automatic but would very much depend on the magnitude of the Indian incursion.

When exactly do you think Pakistan could put to use its tactical nuclear weapons?

Smaller operations would be very unlikely to trigger nuclear use but would certainly trigger conventional responses. And once a conventional confrontation breaks out and more forces are thrown into the battle, it would potentially escalate to nuclear weapons use if Pakistan concluded that it couldn't push back the Indian attack.

What about the effectiveness of these weapons for Pakistan?

As for the effectiveness, nuclear weapons could no doubt create significant problems for an attacking force. But it very much depends on how the attack is structured. Indian forces would have to attack in fairly concentrated formations for nuclear weapons to be useful. And a nuclear counter-attack could actually end up requiring a large number of warheads. When the US examined potential use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iraq it concluded that it would not be a limited matter but require a significant number of weapons.

What can Indian forces do to limit the damage from a low-yield nuclear weapon?

If the Indian forces were not coming in a heavily concentrated form but more dispersed and from different directions, it would be much more complicated to counter them.

Could Pakistan itself not suffer from the radioactive fallout of its tactical nukes?

The radioactive fallout from the weapons would be indiscriminate; it would fall wherever the wind blows. So if the Indian forces were attacking with the wind in their back, the radioactive fallout would drift across Pakistan, not India.

In these circumstances, can India afford to use the military option?

Because of these risks, it would be reckless and highly risky for India to strike into Pakistan in revenge for the terrorist attacks. It would carry with it consequences that would far exceed the damage caused by the terrorist attacks. Sound strategy —especially nuclear strategy -— requires cool heads, not hasty reactive military spasms.

The Pakistani Horn Refuses Any Nuclear Limits

Pakistan's nuclear program will not be limited: Maleeha Lodhi

NEW YORK: Pakistan's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Maleeha Lodhi, said on Wednesday that Pakistan's nuclear program could not be limited.

Addressing a joint press conference with Foreign Secretary Aizaz Chaudhry, Maleeha Lodhi said that US Secretary of State John Kerry had urged Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to limit Pakistan's atomic program. However, she said that it had been conveyed to the US Secretary of State that the proposals which were expected from Pakistan should also be implemented by India.

"Pakistan's nuclear program cannot be limited," she said. "The world should first put an end to nuclear activities undertaken by India," she added.

Foreign Secretary Aizaz Chaudhry said that PM Nawaz had raised the issue of Indian-occupied Kashmir with Japanese PM Shinzo Abe and also attended a lunch hosted by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. He also disclosed that Sartaj Aziz had met with his counterparts from Austria, Switzerland and Japan. In the meeting, Aziz informed his counterparts regarding the abuse of human rights in occupied Kashmir.

"Pakistan's inclusion in the Nuclear Suppliers Group was also discussed during the meeting," she said.

Aizaz said that no other state had acted against terrorism as much as Pakistan had. He said that Pakistan's representatives had arrived at the United Nations with their agenda.

"PM's speech is going to be important," said Chaudhry. "PM Nawaz is going to present a strong case of occupied Kashmir in front of the world," he added.

He also said that PM Nawaz would also speak about Indian involvement in Pakistan during his address.

Pakistan Builds A New Nuclear Site

Pakistan may be building new nuclear site: Analysts

AFP | 5 hours ago

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan, estimated to have the world's fastest-growing nuclear stockpile , could be building a new uranium enrichment complex according to commercial satellite imagery analysed by Western defence experts.

The construction of a new site, based in the town of Kahuta some thirty kilometres east of Islamabad, provides fresh evidence of how Pakistan is seeking to boost its atomic arsenal — a goal which is inconsistent with the principles of the Nuclear Suppliers Group the country is seeking to join, said the analysis.

The analysis was conducted by IHS Jane's Intelligence review using satellite images taken by Airbus Defence and Space on September 28, 2015 and then again on April 18, 2016.

Pakistan, which conducted its first nuclear tests in 1998 is believed to have around 120 nuclear weapons, more than India, Israel and North Korea.

A 2015 report written by scholars at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Stimson Center said Pakistan could increase its stockpile by 20 warheads a year and have the world's third largest in a decade.

"The area of interest is approximately 1.2 hectares and is located within the secure area of the Khan Research Laboratories (KRL), in the southwestern part of the complex," said the statement.

Karl Dewey, a proliferation analyst at IHS Jane's added: "It is sited within an established centrifuge facility, has strong security and shows some of the structural features of a possible new uranium enrichment facility. This makes it a strong candidate for a new centrifuge facility."

The structure of the site also bears strong resemblance to facilities built by nuclear fuel company URENCO which also operates several nuclear plants in Europe, it said.

"This may be more than coincidence as A Q Khan, considered by many to be the founder of Pakistan's nuclear programme, worked at URENCO before stealing centrifuge designs and returning to Pakistan," said Charlie Cartwright, an imagery analyst for IHS Jane's.

Pakistan is currently seeking to join the 48-member Nuclear Suppliers Group that seeks to prevent nuclear proliferation by controlling the export of materials, equipment and technology that can be used to manufacture atomic weapons.

"It is difficult to see how these actions are consistent with the principles of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a group of responsible nuclear exporters which Pakistan is seeking to join," said Ian Stewart, head of research group Project Alpha at King's College London.

Pakistani physicist A H Nayyar told AFP if the site was indeed a centrifuge, "then primarily because they are being built inside KRL I would conclude they are being for weapons," adding that the country's nuclear power plants were supplied by imported uranium from China.

He however cautioned it was not possible to be definitive about the site's purpose based on imagery alone.

Pakistan Nuclear Horn Threatens Babylon the Great

Pakistan's growing nukes 'thorny challenge' to US interests: Expert

Press Trust of India | Washington Sep 09, 2016 06:42 AM IST

Stating that Pakistan has close to 120 nuclear weapons, an American think-tank expert said that its growing nuclear arsenal poses a "thorny challenge" to the US interests.

"The growth in Pakistan's nuclear capabilities and the broadening of its deterrence objectives raise thorny challenges for US interests to prevent a nuclear explosion and to maintain effective security on nuclear weapons and materials," Toby Dalton, co-director Nuclear Policy Program, at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace told members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during a Congressional hearing yesterday on Pakistan.

In his testimony, Dalton said Pakistan has the capability to expand its arsenal by 20 nuclear weapons every year and the over the past decade the nation had significantly expanded the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons.

Dalton said Pakistan places increasing emphasis on nuclear weapons to counter Indian military threats.

"From Pakistan's few official pronouncements on nuclear doctrine and statements by government officials, it is clear that deterrence is understood to be elastic: whenever the Indian threat grows, more or new nuclear capabilities are needed," he said.

In his testimony, Dalton praised the safeguards put in place by the nation when it comes to protecting its nuclear arsenal.

"To be fair, Pakistan is not given sufficient credit for the nuclear security practises it has put in place. By most indicators, its security is probably quite good, but not foolproof.It has learnt lessons from the AQ Khan affair and it has responded to international fears about terrorists acquiring weapons by putting in place a comprehensive security strategy run by a professional branch within the military," he said.

"The prominence given to nuclear weapons in Pakistan's national security strategy means that the government has a very strong interest to protect them. To date, there is no public information that indicates any close calls of material going missing, and no hints of further technology leakage after the Khan proliferation network was dismantled," he added.y

The Pakistani Nuclear Threat

 
Pakistan’s nuclear programme and US concerns

By Dr. Muhammad Reza Kazimi
September 03, 2016

A defence pact was concluded between India and the United States on August 29, 2016. Simultaneously, Pakistan’s Ambassador to the United States has stepped up his efforts to gain a place for his country in the 48-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group. Pakistan had applied for membership on May 19 but the request was denied citing allegations that some of its scientists had shared nuclear technology with Iran and Libya. Prima facie this can be countered by saying that had Pakistan shared nuclear secrets with Libya, its country could not have been over-run. If Iran already had nuclear weapons, the United States would not have successfully concluded its nuclear deal with Iran in July 2015. However, arguments like these may have little effect in helping Pakistan gain a wedge into the nuclear club. US concerns about the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are at the bottom of its attitude. Earlier, on February 12, 2016 the United States had expressed concerns over Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Deputy Spokesman of the US State Department Mark Toner said that the US had concerns about the safety of Pakistan’s tactical nuclear weapons. In part this concern stems out of having asymmetrical relations between two nuclear armed neighbours. To explain this a little background is needed

From October 1947 to August 7, 1952, India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had made at least eight public promises to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir. Nehru went back on his solemn pledges on February 24, 1955, on the ground that Pakistan had become a military ally of the United States. That position stands completely reversed today, when Kashmir is again in turmoil. However, this is not a sudden development. The fact that during the Sino-Indian war of 1962, Nehru himself sought an alliance with the United States and even when the US and India entered into a strategic nuclear partnership they did not review their stance on the undertaking to hold a UN supervised plebiscite in Kashmir. It is true that Dana Rohabracher, now known for his pro-India stance, had criticized his own government over inaction on Kashmir and had even savaged the Indian Ambassador but such instances are rare.

Pakistan did not acquire nuclear weapons to satisfy some passing whim, nor is it naturally a terrorist state. Terrorism is rampant in Pakistan, but then there are more than two million Internally Displaced Persons but besides, it has a floating population of millions of Afghan nationals, whose deadline for their return to their country is forever being extended. Biometric regulation of people entering Pakistan has time and again been resisted by Afghanistan. The Afghan nationals came in the millions in the wake of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and grew far more with the American invasion of Afghanistan. Apart from the Af-Pak border area, Pakistan’s port city of Karachi is now the city with the largest Afghan population in the world.

Indeed, Hilary Clinton,, the US presidential candidate while she as Secretary of State had admitted to the American role: “The problems we face now, to some extent we have to take responsibility for having contributed to it…the people we are fighting today, we funded them twenty-five years ago”. Gratifying though it is, Hilary Clinton’s testimony stops a quarter of an inch short of revealing the full extent of the US responsibility for having funded Islamic militants. It did not begin with the Afghan Jihad against the USSR. It began in 1977 when Islamic militants were empowered and funded to destabilize the Pakistan People’s Party regime of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. The intention was to punish him for seeking to match the Indian nuclear tests of 1974.

The ultimate result of empowering the religious element, hitherto rejected by the Pakistani electorate, was to make American think tanks consider how to neutralise the nuclearisation of Pakistan, instead of considering how to prevent it. It is amply clear that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s execution must have given rise to a feeling of triumph because Jimmy Carter sanctioned Pakistan only two days after his execution.

This would have remained the nature of US-Pakistan relations had the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan not brought about a sea change in the US policy. This still did not prevent United States legislators from expressing concern over the new stance. On July 9, 2009, Senator Tom Casper voiced his fears that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons could fall in the hands of the militants. Although Paul Jones, Deputy Special Envoy replied that he was confident that nuclear weapons were being closely guarded by Pakistani authorities, it was transparently clear that Paul Jones was keeping his options open. His deposition was therefore re-assuring neither to the United States nor to Pakistan.

In this context, the following news items need consideration of all security agencies, wherever they may be:

1. On August 28, 2003, Taiwanese custom authorities intercepted a ship carrying missile making material bound to North Korea from India.
2. Two containers carrying uranium have been stolen in India. The Chief Minister of Jharkand, Madhu Khoda said in November 2006, a container carrying uranium had been stolen. The same report revealed that uranium had been stolen from Assam the previous year. It seems that no international entity wants access to those thieves.
3. There is a book, a bestseller in India which may interest all strategist analysts The Writing on the Wall: India Checkmates America 2017 by General S. Padmanbhan, ISBN: 81-7049-175-4, New Delhi, Manar Publications, 2004. The title says it all. Shall it come as a surprise that someone in India considers the United States a long-term adversary? This fantasy of India defeating America just next year now was nurtured not by any member of a lunatic fringe, but by a former Chief of the Indian Army Staff. These references aside, the range of India’s missiles itself proves that they are not aimed at Pakistan or even China, but the United States of America. Being the sole superpower yet, the US can be defeated only by a country it empowers.

The only National Security Advisor to weigh Hindu fanaticism against Muslim fundamentalism has been Zbignew Brezizinski: “Irrationality might overwhelm the strategic restraint inherent in the nuclear calculus”. (The Choice, New York, Basic Books, 2004,p.76)

In fact, Zbignew Brezizinski factors in admissions regarding the nuclearization of Pakistan. On May 3, 2007, Richard Barlow, a former CIA analyst disclosed that the Reagan administration deliberately let Pakistan go nuclear because they needed Pakistan’s help in the Afghan war against the Russians.Two years later, on June 28,2009, Andrew Cockburn reported that the US is helping Pakistan modernize its nuclear arsenal. This author recalls what Ronald Reagan’s view on Pakistan’ nuclear program had been: “I just don’t think that it’s any of our business.” Similarly, Zbignew Brezizinski stated that “our security policy towards Pakistan cannot be dictated by our non-proliferation policy.”

In his own book Zbignew Brezizinski made a comment that leaves no doubt that Andrew Cockburn was representing him accurately: “When critics charge that the recent US concerns with proliferation have been late in coming they have a point” (The Choice, p.32). Andrew Cockburn further claimed that when Dr. AQ Khan was peddling his uranium technology, his shipping manager was CIA agent. This too, is credible, given the statement of Ruud Lubbers, former prime minister of Netherlands, that the CIA had blocked action against A.Q. Khan in 1975 and 1979.

Despite his confession and dubious connections, AQ Khan’s role in proliferation and the extent of proliferation itself seems exaggerated. Bureaucratic bungling would be more in character. Pakistan’s Ministry of Commerce published a full page advertisement on July 24, 2000, offering nuclear material for sale. Of course, it carried the usual rider that a No Objection Certificate had to be obtained before a sale was sanctioned, but clearly, unless there was an intention to sell there was no point in publishing an Ad at all.

This is not to say that concerns should not be addressed, but they should be addressed objectively, because the stakes are as high as the survival of this world.

The State Of The Pakistani Nuclear Horn

 
The state of Pakistan

By Ayaz Ahmed
August 20, 2016

A thorough analysis of Pakistan’s chequered past makes it abundantly clear that the country has spent much of its history in political instability, a downward economic trajectory, educational backwardness and security malaise.

The 1973 constitution, our credible nuclear deterrence and the incumbent democratic setup are our main achievements since Independence. The constitution has continued to provide a comprehensive legal framework to the democratic institutions of the country. Since 1998, our nuclear power has stopped India from launching a full-fledged war against Pakistan despite the 2001-02 and 2008 border standoffs between both the countries.

Although surrounded by a range of complex crises and uncertainties, the current democratic system provides a glimmer of hope for inclusive, responsive and transparent governance in the near future. More importantly, the present military leadership under General Raheel Sharif has categorically reiterated the army’s unflinching support for democracy – which bodes well for the “government of the people” to take stronger roots in the foreseeable future.

The entire picture is not satisfactory, however. Persistent bad governance has brought about a raft of multifaceted issues for the country. Almost all political parties have been dominated by dynastic, plutocratic and hereditary rulers. Massive horse-trading and floor-crossing are still being widely practised.

Besides, staggering political and bureaucratic corruption has reached its pinnacle as clearly exposed by the Panama leaks. So-called public representatives often display indifference to active parliamentary debates and discussions. The main organs of the government spend much of their time in creating formidable hurdles for one another rather than facilitating and complementing the tasks each other.

Since its foundation, the country has miserably failed to make any laudable economic stride. The faltering economy cannot sustain itself for a month without timely bailouts from international financial institutions and donor countries.

The State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) data shows that the country’s total debt has jumped up to Rs19.040 trillion indicating that every person in the country is burdened with Rs105,777 debt.

Despite reforming the stagnant economy, it has become an established norm for the party at the helm to heap blame on the previous governments for all economic ills.

And despite lofty promises and tall rhetoric of our governments including the current one, the looming energy crisis continues to increase, leaving some parts of the country without power for 18 to 20 hours in the scorching summer. Lack of power has resulted in industries having to be shut down, soaring unemployment and poverty, thereby stunting proper industrialisation and making it a pipedream. The CPEC, the much-touted economic corridor, is facing ever-increasing political, economic, administrative and geo-strategic hurdles.

Much of the bureaucracy still functions as an agent of obstruction and impediment rather than instigating needed change in the country. Its obstructive red tape, elitism, gigantic corruption and nepotism have created stumbling blocks for the toothless local bodies to acquire requisite administrative and financial powers so as to serve the people at the grassroots level.
Since much of the bureaucracy works in direct complicit with the government in siphoning off dwindling public resources, the latter has so far deliberately refrained from prudently reforming the institution of civil services.

Education remains perhaps the greatest challenge, with the state-run education sector still massively underfunded and poorly resourced at every level. The burgeoning youth population – making up some 60 percent of the country’s inhabitants – has yet to be endowed with quality education. The federal government’s education data shows that 5.7 million children are out of school at the primary level in all four provinces, and 6.2 million children are out of primary schools overall including AJK, Gilgit-Baltistan and Fata. In a recent report prepared by Unesco, Pakistan ranked 106th out of 113 countries in terms of providing education to its population.

Though Operation Zarb-e-Azb has resulted in the elimination of 3,500 terrorists, destruction of 992 hideouts and an area of 3,600sq km cleared in North Waziristan, the spectre of resurgent terrorism and militancy continues to pose an existentialist threat while causing irreparable damage as seen from the recent deadly attack on lawyers in Quetta.

Despite sacrificing around 50,000 lives and losing approximately $100 billion in the ongoing war on terror, the state has dragged its feet in terms of reviving Nactaand executing NAP.

Despite the ominous presence of Daesh in the country, the government has flatly denied the oufit’s links to terror attacks in order to avoid having to initiate stringent measures against it. At present, outlawed militant and sectarian outfits of all stripes continue to organise rallies throughout the country with impunity. The police force is under-resourced, poorly-trained and impotent to tackle even a small group like the infamous Chotoo gang.

On the foreign policy front, despite possessing a vital geo-strategic and geo-economic location, the country is largely isolated. Due to lingering economic issues, the country has dismally failed to reap the benefits of the GSP Plus status provided by the EU.

Alarmingly, some regional powers are bent upon blatantly fomenting insurgency and militancy inside Pakistan to maximise their nefarious designs. But the country neither has a full-time competent foreign minister nor a well-articulated external policy to elicit and mobilise adequate international support against such flagrant regional terrorism.

The leadership has yet to grasp the oft-cited example that there are neither permanent friends nor enemies in the game of international politics; it is only national interest which makes all-weather friends and arch foes in the international arena.

India has nimbly exploited our flawed, ill-conceived and directionless external policy to bring energy-rich Iran, Afghanistan and some Arab countries into its regional bandwagon. The world does not pay heed to our repeated complaints against India’s brazen atrocities in Indian-held Kashmir and its clandestine role in Balochistan because we do not have an experienced foreign minister to convince the world. Despite us blaming India, the world watches us with a sneaking suspicion as the incubator and exporter of terrorism and militancy in the region.

The above-mentioned myriad issues of the country cannot be resolved by piecemeal and thoughtless measures. Resource-rich Pakistan desperately needs patriotic, sincere and competent leadership to bring it back on track. Unluckily, the incumbent political setup does not seem to possess the will to steer the country out of its unending adversities.

The writer is an independent researcher and columnist based in Karachi.
Email: ayazahmed6666@gmail.com
Twitter: @ayazahmed66665

Pakistani Nuclear Terrorism (Daniel 8:8)

Instability in Pakistan could impact safety of nuclear weapons: CRS

BY: PTI | WASHINGTON |
Published On:August 3, 2016 10:23 Pm

Continued instability in Pakistan could impact safety of its nuclear weapons and materials, a latest US Congressional report has said as it described the sale of two nuclear reactors by China to Pakistan a violation of the NSG guidelines.

“While US and Pakistani officials continue to express confidence in controls over Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, continued instability in the country could impact these safeguards. Furthermore, continued Indian and Pakistani nuclear weapons development could jeopardise strategic stability between the two countries,” the Congressional Research Service (CRS) said in its latest report on nuclear weapons of Pakistan.

CRS, which is an independent and bipartisan research body of the US Congress, prepares periodic reports on issues of importance for lawmakers for them to take informed decisions. It is not considered as an official view or report of the US Congress.

In its 30-page report dated August 1, the CRS said that the China selling nuclear reactors to Pakistan for Chasa-3 and Chasma-4 are in violation of the current Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) guidelines.
“US officials and other NSG members have said that the Chasma-3 and -4 sales by China are inconsistent with current Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) guidelines,” CRS said in its reports, days after another US-based think-tank Arms Control Association (ACA) made similar allegations. Contracts for Chasma-1 and -2 were concluded before China joined the NSG in 2004.

At that time, other NSG members agreed “to grandfather construction of plants in Pakistan which China had initiated,” Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Countryman said during a May 12, 2015 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.

In 2008, China and Pakistan agreed to the Chasma-3 and -4 construction “in response to the US-India Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation Agreement”, according to a 2015 Nuclear Proliferation Assessment Statement submitted by the Obama Administration to Congress, it said.

China argues that the contracts for Chasma -3 and -4 are grandfathered, but Countryman stated that the NSG did not agree to grandfather any additional reactors.

The NSG changed its guidelines in 2008 to allow nuclear trade with India, but the group does not allow trade with Pakistan. “At present, China is apparently the only country planning to sell nuclear power reactors to Pakistan,” CRS said.

According to CRS report, although Pakistan has made significant reforms in this area, many observers continue to be concerned that other states or terrorist organisations could obtain material or expertise related to nuclear weapons from elements in Pakistan.

CRS said, according to some observers, spent fuel from Pakistan’s Karachi and Chasma nuclear power plants could be vulnerable to theft or attack.

However, Pakistani officials have expressed confidence in the security of its facilities and have said that Islamabad has no plans to transport spent fuel from either reactor, it said.

Furthermore, CRS said chronic political instability in Pakistan and Islamabad’s military efforts against the Taliban and al-Qaeda have raised concerns about the security of the country’s nuclear weapons.

“Some observers fear that Pakistan’s strategic nuclear assets could be obtained by terrorists or used by elements in the Pakistani government. However, US officials have generally expressed confidence in the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons,” it said.

“The collapse or near-collapse of the Pakistani government is probably the most likely scenario in which militants or terrorists could acquire Pakistani nuclear weapons,” it said.

Noting that the main security challenges for Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal are keeping the integrity of the command structure, ensuring physical security, and preventing illicit proliferation from insiders, the report said some observers are also concerned about the risk of nuclear war between India and Pakistan.

“The two countries most recently came to the brink of full-scale war in 1999 and 2002, and, realizing the dangers, have developed some risk reduction measures to prevent accidental nuclear war,” it said.
“Nevertheless, Pakistan continues to produce fissile material for weapons and appears to be augmenting its weapons production facilities as well as deploying additional delivery vehicles— steps that will enable both quantitative and qualitative improvements in Islamabad’s nuclear arsenal,” it added.

Some observers have also argued that Pakistan’s expansion of its nuclear arsenal, development of new types of nuclear weapons, and adoption of a doctrine called “full spectrum deterrence” indicate “the growing nuclearising of Pakistan’s national security policy.”

These developments have “sparked international concerns about the safety and security” of the country’s nuclear weapons, as well as raised “concerns that these weapons might be used through intentional, inadvertent, or accidental launch in a crisis or in limited warfare with India,” CRS said.

Making Pakistan A Nuclear Threat (Daniel 8:8)

ISIS Has A New Partner, And The Duo Immediately Launched A Deadly Attack In Pakistan

Yochanan Visser
August 9, 2016 at 11:57am

On Monday news broke that the Islamic State had formed an official alliance with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The pact between the two jihadist movements could have repercussions beyond the battlefield in Afghanistan, as was proved Monday in neighboring Pakistan, which is the only Muslim country known to be in the possession of nuclear weapons.

The Taliban and Islamic State carried out one of the worst terrorist attacks ever in Pakistan when a suicide bomber blew himself up in a crowd of mourners at a hospital in the city of Quetta in the southwest of the country.

The blast killed 70 people and wounded more than 112 others. Authorities expected that the death toll would rise even further.

“The bomber struck as a crowd of mostly lawyers and journalists crammed into the emergency department to accompany the body of a prominent lawyer who had been shot and killed in the city earlier in the day,” Reuters reported, citing a local reporter.

Both the Taliban, via its Pakistani branch Jamaat-ur-Ahrar, and the Islamic State, via its news agency Amaq, took responsibility for the attack.

Both movements try to destabilize Pakistan and to radicalize the population of the nuclear-armed country. This common goal is apparently behind the new alliance between the former rivals.
When the Islamic State became active in Afghanistan in 2014, the Taliban sought to stamp out the movement and fought fierce battles with ISIS in several provinces of Afghanistan. As Western Journalism reported in January this year, the Islamic State originally fought the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan because it claimed that the Taliban maintains a close relationship to the Pakistani government. ISIS saw the Taliban as a proxy of Pakistan and accused Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour, the emir Taliban, of being an “apostate” whose orders should not be followed.
Recently, however, all this apparently had become less relevant and the two jihadist movements stopped fighting each other and turned their guns on U.S.-backed government forces.
The lull in the fighting with the Taliban gave the Islamic State the possibility to extend its deadly suicide bombing campaign to the Afghan capital Kabul and now to Afghanistan.

At the end of July, Kabul suffered the worst suicide bombing since 2001 when the Islamic State killed more than 80 people and wounded 231 others during a demonstration by the Shiite Hazara community in Afghanistan.

The White House responded to the new suicide attack on Pakistan and said in a statement Monday that the Obama administration would “remain resolute in joining with the people of Pakistan in confronting terrorism in Pakistan and across the region.”

The suicide attack on the hospital in Quetta marked the second time the Taliban — now together with the Islamic State — struck Pakistan in a little more than four months.

At the end of March, the Taliban murdered at least 69 Christians who gathered for Easter celebrations in a park in Lahore, Pakistan. Most of the victims in that attack were children and women who came to the park to enjoy the many attractions there.

Earlier this year the Islamic State attacked Pakistan for the first time when three terrorists from the ISIS Afghan branch Wilayat Khorasan entered the compound of the Pakistani consulate in Jalalabad and started a well-planned operation that lasted for hours, killing scores of Pakistani and Afghan employees of the consulate.

Nuclear Terror From Pakistan (Daniel 8)

Instability in Pakistan could impact safety of nuclear weapons: CRS

BY: PTI | WASHINGTON |
Published On:August 3, 2016 10:23 Pm

Continued instability in Pakistan could impact safety of its nuclear weapons and materials, a latest US Congressional report has said as it described the sale of two nuclear reactors by China to Pakistan a violation of the NSG guidelines.

“While US and Pakistani officials continue to express confidence in controls over Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, continued instability in the country could impact these safeguards. Furthermore, continued Indian and Pakistani nuclear weapons development could jeopardise strategic stability between the two countries,” the Congressional Research Service (CRS) said in its latest report on nuclear weapons of Pakistan.

CRS, which is an independent and bipartisan research body of the US Congress, prepares periodic reports on issues of importance for lawmakers for them to take informed decisions. It is not considered as an official view or report of the US Congress.

In its 30-page report dated August 1, the CRS said that the China selling nuclear reactors to Pakistan for Chasa-3 and Chasma-4 are in violation of the current Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) guidelines.
“US officials and other NSG members have said that the Chasma-3 and -4 sales by China are inconsistent with current Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) guidelines,” CRS said in its reports, days after another US-based think-tank Arms Control Association (ACA) made similar allegations. Contracts for Chasma-1 and -2 were concluded before China joined the NSG in 2004.

At that time, other NSG members agreed “to grandfather construction of plants in Pakistan which China had initiated,” Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Countryman said during a May 12, 2015 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.

In 2008, China and Pakistan agreed to the Chasma-3 and -4 construction “in response to the US-India Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation Agreement”, according to a 2015 Nuclear Proliferation Assessment Statement submitted by the Obama Administration to Congress, it said.

China argues that the contracts for Chasma -3 and -4 are grandfathered, but Countryman stated that the NSG did not agree to grandfather any additional reactors.

The NSG changed its guidelines in 2008 to allow nuclear trade with India, but the group does not allow trade with Pakistan. “At present, China is apparently the only country planning to sell nuclear power reactors to Pakistan,” CRS said.

According to CRS report, although Pakistan has made significant reforms in this area, many observers continue to be concerned that other states or terrorist organisations could obtain material or expertise related to nuclear weapons from elements in Pakistan.

CRS said, according to some observers, spent fuel from Pakistan’s Karachi and Chasma nuclear power plants could be vulnerable to theft or attack.

However, Pakistani officials have expressed confidence in the security of its facilities and have said that Islamabad has no plans to transport spent fuel from either reactor, it said.

Furthermore, CRS said chronic political instability in Pakistan and Islamabad’s military efforts against the Taliban and al-Qaeda have raised concerns about the security of the country’s nuclear weapons.

“Some observers fear that Pakistan’s strategic nuclear assets could be obtained by terrorists or used by elements in the Pakistani government. However, US officials have generally expressed confidence in the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons,” it said.

“The collapse or near-collapse of the Pakistani government is probably the most likely scenario in which militants or terrorists could acquire Pakistani nuclear weapons,” it said.

Noting that the main security challenges for Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal are keeping the integrity of the command structure, ensuring physical security, and preventing illicit proliferation from insiders, the report said some observers are also concerned about the risk of nuclear war between India and Pakistan.

“The two countries most recently came to the brink of full-scale war in 1999 and 2002, and, realizing the dangers, have developed some risk reduction measures to prevent accidental nuclear war,” it said.
“Nevertheless, Pakistan continues to produce fissile material for weapons and appears to be augmenting its weapons production facilities as well as deploying additional delivery vehicles— steps that will enable both quantitative and qualitative improvements in Islamabad’s nuclear arsenal,” it added.

Some observers have also argued that Pakistan’s expansion of its nuclear arsenal, development of new types of nuclear weapons, and adoption of a doctrine called “full spectrum deterrence” indicate “the growing nuclearising of Pakistan’s national security policy.”

These developments have “sparked international concerns about the safety and security” of the country’s nuclear weapons, as well as raised “concerns that these weapons might be used through intentional, inadvertent, or accidental launch in a crisis or in limited warfare with India,” CRS said.