US Special Forces on Standby Over Nuclear Threat

[tekisui]

US special forces snatch squads are on standby to seize or disable Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in the event of a collapse of government authority or the outbreak of civil war following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

The troops, augmented by volunteer scientists from America's Nuclear Emergency Search Team organisation, are under orders to take control of an estimated 60 warheads dispersed around six to 10 high-security Pakistani military bases.

Military sources say contingency plans have been reviewed over the past three days to prevent any of Pakistan's atomic weapons falling into the hands of Islamic extremists if the administration of President Pervez Musharraf appears threatened by civil unrest.

Some of the special forces are already believed to be in neighbouring Afghanistan and on alert for the mission. It is also understood that satellite surveillance of Pakistan has been stepped up to keep track of the possible movement of nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems.

According to a US Congressional report published in November, Pakistan's nuclear deterrent consists of warheads for missiles and bombs dropped from aircraft.

To maintain security, the weapons are not stored fully-assembled. Warheads, detonators and missiles are kept separately, but able to be married up "fairly quickly" in the event of a national crisis such as confrontation with India.

While the US has stated publicly its confidence that Pakistan's military has the weapons "under effective technical control", Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice admitted two years ago that if there was a radical Islamic coup, the US was "prepared to try to deal with it".

more at link: http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/foreign/display.var.1933388.0.Special_forces_on_standby_over_nuclear_threat.php

[boricua79]

1. hate to say it

but these type of contigencies are some of the few places where are I think there is a paramount world interest in a stable outcome. Therefore, I'd support a special forces incursion into sovereign Pakistani territory if there was a collapse of civil authority and a danger that nukes would get into the hands of Islamic extremists.

And I didn't support the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, for the record.

[Didereaux]

4. Futile effort, do you think Musharraf actually told us where all the nukes are hidden? He may not..

know himself. Two thirds oir more of the top military brass are extemists and only tolerate Musharraf for the money he brings in from the US. Also the ISI is notoriously anti-American and paranoid of India. No, troops are not really a good idea, in my estimation. They have nothing to reach us, but the indications are that India would definitely be a target, some say Israel as well. I doubt that they would try from Pakistan, but might very well smuggle one to western Iran and light it off from there, less warning time and much improved accuracy.

India, nor Israel would be sitting idly by waiting for the flashes!

[tekisui]

11. We don't even know how many. How can we know where each

are or how they're protected?

[JDPriestly]

20. I don't think that they rely on what Musharraf tells them

to find out where the nuclear sites are. They have other ways. Don't ask me what they are, but I'm sure they have other ways of figuring/finding out where nuclear materials are located in Pakistan.

[Didereaux]

25. you'll have to trust an anon on the internet, but when I tell you they do not know...it is the truth

[JDPriestly]

26. But they knew right where the WMDs were in Iraq. How could you doubt them?

[Didereaux]

32. LOL

[TomInTib]

23. Fantasy.

I think the SF are being used as a dampening threat.

The shit would absolutely hit the fan if we attempted to seize and secure those sites.

[Kutjara]

2. Henceforth, the project shall be known by the codename:

"Operation Debacle."

This has clusterfuck written all over it.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

5. it's all about pinpoint accuracy

We'll drop the scientist from the C130 from 1500 feet at midnight...I don't see what could go wrong.

[Kutjara]

8. It's a guaranteed lose-lose situation.

If the operation screws up, a lot of people die.

If it succeeds, we'll have to endure 20 years of unendurable Hollywood blockbusters about the "heroic raid," no doubt starring "The Rock."

Personally, I'd rather be nuked.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

15. Time to crank out more Jessica Lynch-style stories

I think everyone would like to see the Rock not only save the world, but also save the girl, work the love interest, that sort of thing. It would play better in test screenings. All we lack is the data massaging necessary to make it a true story, but I'm sure some of Rumsfeld's old hands are still skulking around the Pentagon.

[TheWraith]

3. Good.

This is something we don't want to fuck around with, and it's not optional. In the event that there were a coup, we'd want to be able to grab or destroy all the warheads and/or detonators. Even if it meant casualties on one or both sides. Even if, in the end, it came down to vaporizing all the major Pakistani military bases to insure that the warheads didn't go rogue.

I'm not one to overexaggerate the threat of nuclear weapons, but when you're talking about a single warhead being able to kill upwards of a quarter million people, virtually any losses are acceptable to insure that you control that warhead.

[gateley]

6. I know this is putting the horse after the cart, but

The Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (:7) repeatedly has been warning this administration about the fragile situation in Pakistan. He TWICE wrote letters to Musharraf STRONGLY suggesting that Bhutto receive adequate security. He said this situation was foreseeable.

Now, because Bush doesn't listen to anyone but his own private circle, look at the situation. We're on standby for a possible "nuclear threat".

It just gets worse. And Richardson suggests sending CHENEY over there for talks?

No point to this post, other than our "Leader's" actions, and refusal to listen to REAL experts, has put this entire fucking world at risk.

I have never hated someone as much as I hate Bush -- and his minions. This has all been a fucking game to them.

[sjdnb]

7. Why this worries me ...

If we've been so bloody wrong on so many things in the past and executed everything so poorly (Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, etc.) just what makes anyone think they'd get it right this time?

And, the consequences are much more dire.

I'd feel much better if Clinton (Bill) and/or Gore were in office right now.

There is a report in the Hindustantimes that states:

"We know how to defend our nuclear assets," Foreign Office spokesman Mohammad Sadiq was quoted as saying by the state-run APP news agency.

He was reacting to a report in British newspaper The Herald, which quoted military sources as saying that a US Special Forces squad and volunteer scientists from the Nuclear Emergency Search Team had orders to take control of Pakistan's estimated 60 nuclear warheads dispersed around six to 10 high-security military bases to prevent them falling into the hands of "Islamic extremists".

The report also said some of the US forces were already in neighbouring Afghanistan to "seize or disable" Pakistan's nuclear weapons in the event of the collapse of the administration following the killing of Bhutto.

Sadiq rejected the report as "baseless and ridiculous", saying Pakistan has an effective command and control system.

A US embassy official, requesting not to be named, too said, "any such action would be contrary to our long standing military and diplomatic cooperation with Pakistan"."

[tekisui]

9. Exactly. We can't trust chimpy/dickie to be an honest broker.

This is seed planting for another invasion.

[SpiralHawk]

10. "Don't worry, I'm in charge. Smirk." - Commander AWOL

"And remember, I am backed up by a republicon VP with five (5) military deferments, so you can - smirk - be confident we are, um, competent. Smirk."

- Commander AWOL

[gateley]

13. Okay, I really wasn't going to use this thread to tout Biden, but HE wasn't wrong

on the situation of Pakistan. He's been warning Bush for years. He KNEW an attempt on Bhutto's life was a strong possibility, and HE took steps to warn Musharraf that we were watching to make sure he provided adequate security for her. Did Bush listen? Did Bush get on the phone with Musharraf and demand security?

Even after the assassination, Bush's spokesperson said his conversation with Musharraf was "short". Can you imagine Biden's conversation with Musharraf being brief after an incident like that?

If Clinton and/or Gore or Kerry were in the White House now, this wouldn't have happened. Iraq, either.

[JDPriestly]

22. No wonder I like Biden. I have been warning on DU for a long time.

I don't have Biden's expertise, but I have lived in a couple of other countries, and I know how people think. Pakistan has been the problem the whole time. And it is odd because many Pakistanis are very friendly toward America. But the Muslim fanaticism emanates primarily from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

[gateley]

24. Biden's stance on Saudi Arabia is pretty spot-on, too. He really knows

his stuff.

[JDPriestly]

27. He is great on foreign policy.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

12. For the sake of stability ...

the Nov '08 elections are indefinitely suspended.

That is all.

[gateley]

14. I don't think any one of us would be surprised by such an announcement. nt

[OzarkDem]

16. This should be done w/ UN

We need to get over Bush's idea that we do all this stuff unilaterally. We can't afford it. Other countries have an interest, too.

[RL3AO]

18. The UN? Are their little peace keepers gonna walk to a base and say "Can we have your nukes?"

[midlife_mo_Jo]

29. Agreed.

The U.N. might be the place to talk global warming, but if we wait for the U.N. to act, the only living thing left on earth will be cockroaches. (I'm convinced cockroaches can survive any nuclear blast. :yoiks: )

But, DAMN, what a bunch of incompetent idiots calling the shots. Thankfully, those on the ground will have more competence in their little finger than Bush has in his whole body.

[OzarkDem]

30. Disagree

We need to get over cowboy diplomacy and begin working with our allies, a process that has worked successfully in the past.

Playing policeman for the entire world is not economically sustainable nor sensible. Treaties, alliances and the UN were established for a purpose and they worked well. The US is bankrupting its present and future with the "go it alone" strategy.

You should ignore the right wing talking points, they're wrong.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

31. The U.N. was the place to decide whether we go to war

I agree with that.

The U.N. is not the place to act very quickly on anything as dangerous as nuclear weapons in the hands of Muslim extremists. The U.N. has no special forces.

[OzarkDem]

34. and our Allies

Sorry, you're not going to convince me the US needs to act unilaterally on these missions. It might help to review US history after WWI until 2000 to understand a little better how the US used to work with other countries in foreign policy.

[RL3AO]

17. I'm guessing the military have had plans for years. And well they should.

Need to be prepared.

[Wizard777]

19. Bush won't allow it. Especillay if there is a snowballs chance in hell that they might find

Bin Laden instead of the nukes. Bush just can't risk that.

[sam sarrha]

21. insanity..

[Swamp Rat]

28. Bushler on standby to take over the USA as Emperor after he cancels elections.

[Ganja Ninja]

33. Sleep well tonight, Dubya is on the case.

:yoiks: