Analysis The agonizing problem of Pakistan’s nukes

Jackdaws

Experienced member
Messages
2,759
Reactions
1 1,583
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
From the Brookings Institute


"This is a new world,” President Joe Biden declared, when justifying his pullout from Afghanistan and explaining his administration’s war on global terrorism in an August 31 speech. It will go “well beyond Afghanistan,” he alerted the world, focusing on “the threats of 2021 and tomorrow.”

The president will not have to look too far. Bordering Afghanistan, now again under Taliban rule, is Pakistan, one of America’s oddest “allies.” Governed by a shaky coalition of ineffective politicians and trained military leaders trying desperately to contain the challenge of domestic terrorism, Pakistan may be the best definition yet of a highly combustible threat that, if left unchecked, might lead to the nightmare of nightmares: jihadis taking control of a nuclear weapons arsenal of something in the neighborhood of 200 warheads.

Ever since May 1998, when Pakistan first began testing nuclear weapons, claiming its national security demanded it, American presidents have been haunted by the fear that Pakistan’s stockpile of nukes would fall into the wrong hands. That fear now includes the possibility that jihadis in Pakistan, freshly inspired by the Taliban victory in Afghanistan, might try to seize power at home.

Trying, of course, is not the same as succeeding. If history is a reliable guide, Pakistan’s professional military would almost certainly respond, and in time probably succeed; but only after the floodgates of a new round of domestic warfare between the government and extremist gangs has been opened, leaving Pakistan again shaken by political and economic uncertainty. And when Pakistan is shaken, so too is India, its less than neighborly rival and nuclear competitor.

Pakistani jihadis come in many different shapes and sizes, but no matter: The possibility of a nuclear-armed terrorist regime in Pakistan has now grown from a fear into a strategic challenge that no American president can afford to ignore.

Former President Barack Obama translated this challenge into carefully chosen words: “The single biggest threat to U.S. security, both short term, medium term and long term,” he asserted, “would be the possibility of a terrorist organization obtaining a nuclear weapon.” (Author’s italics).

The nation that has both nuclear weapons and a dangerous mix of terrorists was — and remains — Pakistan.

No problem, really, Pakistan’s political and military leaders have quickly assured a succession of anxious presidents. Whether it be Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, the Haqqani network, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Tehreek-e-Labaik, al-Qaida, or the Afghan Taliban’s Quetta Shura — these terrorist organizations have always been under our constant surveillance, checked and rechecked. We keep a close eye on everything, even the Islamic madrassas, where more than 2 million students are more likely studying sharia law than economics or history. We know who these terrorists are and what they’re doing, and we’re ready to take immediate action.

These official assurances have fallen largely on deaf ears at the White House, principally because one president after another has learned from American intelligence that these same Pakistani leaders have often been working surreptitiously with the terrorists to achieve common goals. One such goal was the recent defeat of the Kabul regime, which had been supported by the U.S. for 20 years. During this time, the victorious Taliban secretly received political and military support from Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency. Shortly after 9/11, for example, the terrorist mastermind, Osama bin Laden, escaped U.S. capture, in part because sympathetic of ISI colleagues. Bin Laden fled to the one place where his security could be assured — Pakistan. In 2011, when the U.S. finally caught up with bin Laden and killed him, Obama chose not to inform Pakistani leaders of the super-secret operation, even though the target was down the street from a Pakistani military academy, fearful that once again bin Laden would be tipped off and escape.

The U.S. has learned over the years not to trust Pakistan, realizing that a lie here and there might be part of the diplomatic game but that this level of continuing deception was beyond acceptable bounds. That Pakistan was also known to have helped North Korea and Iran develop their nuclear programs has only deepened the distrust.

Indeed, since the shock of 9/11, Pakistan has come to represent such an exasperating problem that the U.S. has reportedly developed a secret plan to arbitrarily seize control of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal if a terrorist group in Pakistan seemed on the edge of capturing some or all of its nuclear warheads. When repeatedly questioned about the plan, U.S. officials have strung together an artful, if unpersuasive, collection of “no comments.”

Even though U.S. economic and military aid has continued to flow into Pakistan — reaching $4.5 billion in fiscal 2010, though on other occasions capriciously cut — America’s concerns about Pakistan’s stability and reliability have only worsened. Since the debacle in Afghanistan, and Pakistan’s barely disguised role in it, serious questions have been raised about America’s embarrassing predisposition to look the other way whenever Pakistan has been caught with its hand in a terrorist’s cookie jar. How long can America look the other way?

The anguishing problem for the Biden administration is now coming into sharper focus: Even if the president decided to challenge Pakistan’s dangerous flirtation with domestic and regional terrorism, what specific policies could he adopt that would satisfy America’s obvious desire to disengage from Afghan-like civil wars without at the same time getting itself involved in another nation’s domestic struggles with terrorists? Disengagement has become the name of the game in Washington.

One approach, already widely discussed, is that the U.S. can contain the spread of terrorism in South Asia by relying on its “over-the-horizon” capabilities. Though almost every senior official, including Biden, has embraced this approach, it’s doubtful they really believe it’s a viable substitute for “boots on the ground.”

Another possibility would be the Central Intelligence Agency striking a new under-the-table deal with the ISI that would set new goals and guidelines for both services to cooperate more aggressively in the war against domestic and regional terrorism. Unfortunately, prospects for such expanded cooperation, though rhetorically appealing, are actually quite slim. Veterans of both services shake their heads, reluctantly admitting it is unrealistic, given the degree of distrust on both sides.

But even if Biden, despite knowing better, decided to continue to look the other way, hoping against hope that Pakistan would be able to contain the terrorists and keep them from acquiring nuclear warheads, he will find that Prime Minister Imran Khan is not a ready and eager ally, if he ever was one. Lately he’s been painting the Biden administration as damaged goods after its hurried exit from Afghanistan. And he has been rearranging Pakistan’s regional relationships by strengthening his ties with China and extending a welcoming hand to Russia. Also Khan may soon discover that his pro-Taliban policy runs the risk of backfiring and inspiring Pakistani terrorists to turn against him. To whom would he then turn for help?

Khan, who won his mandate in 2018, surely knows by now that he runs a decidedly unhappy country, beset by major economic and political problems, waves of societal corruption and the no-nonsense challenge coming from domestic terrorists eager to impose a severe Islamic code of conduct on the Pakistani people. Sixty-four percent of the population are under the age of 30 and more desirous of iPhones and apps than of religious zealotry.

Pakistan is a looming problem with no satisfactory solutions. For Biden, no matter what policies he pursues, it remains a recurring nightmare, the stuff of a paperback thriller: a scary mix of terrorists who may one day be able to seize power and, with it, control over the nation’s stockpile of nuclear warheads — all of this happening in a shaky, strategically-located country that was once an ally.

Since the American withdrawal from Afghanistan, geostrategic relationships on the Asian subcontinent have been undergoing important changes. Pakistan has tilted its future towards a closer relationship with China, while its principal adversary, India, has tightened its ties to the United States, both of them sharing an already deep distrust of China. In this increasingly uneasy atmosphere, the U.S. remains concerned about Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile falling into terrorist hands. If this seemed to be happening, the U.S. would feel the need to intervene militarily to stop it. Pakistan would likely turn to China for help, setting the stage for the U.S. and China, because of Pakistan’s nukes, to head towards a direct and possibly deadly confrontation which neither superpower wants or needs.
 

Jackdaws

Experienced member
Messages
2,759
Reactions
1 1,583
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
This has been a big cause for concern for India too. Amongst the aforementioned terrorist organizations which find safe haven in Pakistan LeT and LeJ are rabidly India centric.
 

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,072
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
Good to know some people are 'agonizing'. As far as the risk of them falling into Taliban hands is about in equal measure as Indian nukes might fall in the Hindutva extremists like RSS or American nukes falling into hands of far right militia;s and such radical groups as QAnon crazies like the Shaman and US Airforce colonel. The attack on the Capitol pointed to far right groups having links within the security establishment.
 

TR_123456

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
4,874
Reactions
12,000
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Turkey
the U.S. would feel the need to intervene militarily
Yeah sure,they cant even touch Iran but would dare to intervene in Pakistan.
Didnt know the Brookings Institute did comedy.
 

Jackdaws

Experienced member
Messages
2,759
Reactions
1 1,583
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
Yeah sure,they cant even touch Iran but would dare to intervene in Pakistan.
Didnt know the Brookings Institute did comedy.
Didn't they come in and kill Osama in Pak? You think they'd dare to do that to Iran? Can't compare Iran to Pak.
 

TR_123456

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
4,874
Reactions
12,000
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Turkey
Didn't they come in and kill Osama in Pak? You think they'd dare to do that to Iran? Can't compare Iran to Pak.
They had permission from Pakistan as allies against terrorism and yes the drone attacks on Pakistani soil were also allowed by the Pakistani military.
"'If you find any,kill em''.
 

Jackdaws

Experienced member
Messages
2,759
Reactions
1 1,583
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
They had permission from Pakistan as allies against terrorism and yes the drone attacks on Pakistani soil were also allowed by the Pakistani military.
"'If you find any,kill em''.
They didn't even inform the Pakistanis that the American troops were coming in and taking out Osama.

 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,502
Reactions
111 19,268
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
brookings.edu

Marvin Kalb.

Both sound Indian to me.
 

TR_123456

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
4,874
Reactions
12,000
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Turkey
They didn't even inform the Pakistanis that the American troops were coming in and taking out Osama.

They dont need to.
My country has a deal with Iraq where we can enter Iraqi territory at will to hunt for terrorists.
The US and Pakistan have a similar deal.
But would you inform them when you know they hid him?
 

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,072
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
Yeah sure,they cant even touch Iran but would dare to intervene in Pakistan.
I can assure you the consequences would be catastrophic. To militarly disable or remove Pakistani nukes would require a major operation involving 10,000s of US soldiers. Pakistani nukes are not exactly all stored in one house on outskirts of Abottabad. They are dispersed and some are continously being moved. It would require a major invasion by USA to militarly remove the nukes. Just take my word for this the consequences would be deadly and actually make the very danger Brookings is harping on about real.

The reality is this 'threat' has been used as convenient drum to just put pressure on Pakistan. The US got humiliated in Afghanistan and the same experts at Brookings after 20 years of croaking had no idea that ANA would be gone in 60 seconds and Kabul would fall in 24 hours. This alone tells you their grip on what goes on in Af-Pak region.

The time to defang Pakistan's nukes has long gone by decades now. The stockpile is now one of the largest in the world and growing. The US, the Indians are gonna have to live with it - take plenty of Alka Salzer tablets for all that 'agonizing'.

I still feel sorry for Obama who never got a sleep for 8 years of his presidency because of the worry about Pakistan's nukes/ Bless him his hair went grey over it.


File photo of US President Barack Obama shaking hands with Pakistan's Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington.PTI File Photo.

Read more at: https://www.deccanherald.com/what-keeps-obama-awake-at-night-its-pakistan-434114.html

File Photo: Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif meets President Obama 2015

1633121895607.png



PM Nawaz "sorry about your hair going grey" Obama "Its your darned nukes"
 

VCheng

Contributor
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
488
Reactions
536
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Pakistan

Jackdaws

Experienced member
Messages
2,759
Reactions
1 1,583
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
Indians bitching about other peoples nukes while having nukes? Irony
This thread isn't about India. Whatever issues you have with India including its nuclear programme, please address them in the appropriate forum.
 

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,072
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
I had not read the report but this is what it actually says after 'agonizing' over Pakistan.

“The fear now includes the possibility that jihadis in Pakistan, freshly inspired by the Taliban victory in Afghanistan, might try to seize power at home,” the report claims.

“Trying, of course, is not the same as succeeding. If history is a reliable guide, Pakistan’s professional military would almost certainly respond, and in time probably succeed,” the author, Marvin Kalb, adds.

But the report warns that even a failed attempt could reopen “the floodgates of a new round of domestic warfare between the government and extremist gangs.”

The report also notes that Pakistan’s security establishment has always closely watched various terrorist groups operating in the country.

Pakistani officials tell their American counterparts that “whether it be Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, the Haqqani network, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Tehreek-i-Labaik, (they are) under our constant surveillance, checked and rechecked.

“We keep a close eye on everything, even the madrassas, where more than 2 million students are more likely studying sharia law than economics or history. We know who these terrorists are and what they’re doing, and we’re ready to take immediate action.”
 

Jackdaws

Experienced member
Messages
2,759
Reactions
1 1,583
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
I had not read the report but this is what it actually says after 'agonizing' over Pakistan.

“The fear now includes the possibility that jihadis in Pakistan, freshly inspired by the Taliban victory in Afghanistan, might try to seize power at home,” the report claims.

“Trying, of course, is not the same as succeeding. If history is a reliable guide, Pakistan’s professional military would almost certainly respond, and in time probably succeed,” the author, Marvin Kalb, adds.

But the report warns that even a failed attempt could reopen “the floodgates of a new round of domestic warfare between the government and extremist gangs.”

The report also notes that Pakistan’s security establishment has always closely watched various terrorist groups operating in the country.

Pakistani officials tell their American counterparts that “whether it be Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, the Haqqani network, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Tehreek-i-Labaik, (they are) under our constant surveillance, checked and rechecked.

“We keep a close eye on everything, even the madrassas, where more than 2 million students are more likely studying sharia law than economics or history. We know who these terrorists are and what they’re doing, and we’re ready to take immediate action.”
The entire report is posted above including your cherry picked paragraphs.

What follows the cherry paras are these
These official assurances have fallen largely on deaf ears at the White House, principally because one president after another has learned from American intelligence that these same Pakistani leaders have often been working surreptitiously with the terrorists to achieve common goals. One such goal was the recent defeat of the Kabul regime, which had been supported by the U.S. for 20 years. During this time, the victorious Taliban secretly received political and military support from Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency. Shortly after 9/11, for example, the terrorist mastermind, Osama bin Laden, escaped U.S. capture, in part because sympathetic of ISI colleagues. Bin Laden fled to the one place where his security could be assured — Pakistan. In 2011, when the U.S. finally caught up with bin Laden and killed him, Obama chose not to inform Pakistani leaders of the super-secret operation, even though the target was down the street from a Pakistani military academy, fearful that once again bin Laden would be tipped off and escape.
 

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,072
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
which had been supported by the U.S. for 20 years.
They have had 20 years. What they gonna do now that they did not do in the last 20. This is just dirty meat for vultures to feast on. It makes jot of differance.

Important thing is US has left and India got caught with it's tail squeeling. That is agomizing and such reports are bandage for hurt egos.

The US is going to increasingly have to handle the dragon. India? It can't even handle Pakistan leave alone China.
 

GoatsMilk

Experienced member
Messages
3,442
Reactions
11 9,062
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
If were not worried by Russia, America, England, France, Isreal and China having nukes there is no reason to be worried by Pakistan having Nukes. Its actually better for the world when outside powers have it.

As Turks we have an underlying feeling that if hell befell Turkey she could at least access a Pakistan nuke or two.

Actually makes me feel more comfortable in this world knowing Pakistan has nukes.
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,631
Reactions
5 18,317
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
I wish Turkey became the first Muslim country to have nukes but.

Credit where its due.

Congrats to Pakistan for achieving this milestone.

Nukes= Best deterrent.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom