Skyrad 0 #1 November 15, 2007 If Pakistan ousts General Musharaf and a non moderate Islamist party take over the government of Pakistan what should the US do? I'm looking for answers from Americans.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #2 November 15, 2007 QuoteIf Pakistan ousts General Musharaf and a non moderate Islamist party take over the government of Pakistan what should the US do? I'm looking for answers from Americans. In that scenario -- which is not completely unforeseen if democratic elections occurs -- do you expect control over the nuclear weapons (MPC&A) will shift from the Pakistan Army to the civilian government? In the event such a transition of government occurs, my first recommendation would be maintaining ties with the Pakistani Army, increasing the security on the current arsenal and HEU, and advocating (principally via diplomacy) for nuclear reduction somewhat akin to what happened with Kazakstan, Ukraine, and Belarus after the USSR collapsed. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #3 November 15, 2007 Nice reply. If democracy was installed in Pakistan the Army would be answerable to the Gov. So I'd think that if the government wanted to use the weapons then the army would most likely follow orders. Personnally I don't think Israel would tolerate such a situation.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
b1jercat 0 #4 November 15, 2007 Get in line behind India.blues jerry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #5 November 15, 2007 QuoteNice reply. If democracy was installed in Pakistan the Army would be answerable to the Gov. So I'd think that if the government wanted to use the weapons then the army would most likely follow orders. Personnally I don't think Israel would tolerate such a situation. Talk about a scary thing that can easily happen. I agree with nerdgirl. It would be a good idea to reduce the nuclear arsenal of Pakistan, but at the same time you must do the same to India. I don’t believe you can get one to agree without the other. As usual if Israel decides to attack yet another country on a preemptive bases then it can go to shit very fast. A strike from them would fuel more extreme views and destroy a chance for diplomacy. Considering Israel Bloody past I fear they would attack, and if they do I would not be surprised or could blame a retaliatory attack.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,096 #6 November 15, 2007 >It would be a good idea to reduce the nuclear arsenal of Pakistan, but >at the same time you must do the same to India. That would be key. It is not reasonable to ask a country to disarm themselves when threatened by another enemy just across their borders. We sure as hell wouldn't do it. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle. We can try and slow it down, but the number of countries armed with nuclear weapons (and their general availability) will continue to increase. Pakistan looks like it is going to "change hands" - the same thing will happen with other nuclear-armed countries. Gun proponents have a saying that "an armed society is a polite society." Let's hope that that works globally as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #7 November 19, 2007 Per article in today's NY Times U.S. Secretly Aids Pakistan in Guarding Nuclear Arms Totally concur with sharing technology to secure Pakistani nuclear weapons arsenal and HEU. Consider the "fear" mention below a canard. It's vaguely akin to saying that giving someone a Cypres (which they might likely reverse engineer) is going to enable them to know how you skydive and how you pack your main. VR/Marg ---- ---- ---- ---- Excerpts: "Over the past six years, the Bush administration has spent almost $100 million on a highly classified program to help Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s president, secure his country’s nuclear weapons, according to current and former senior administration officials. "The American program was created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when the Bush administration debated whether to share with Pakistan one of the crown jewels of American nuclear protection technology, known as “permissive action links,” or PALS, a system used to keep a weapon from detonating without proper codes and authorizations." "In addition, the Pakistanis were suspicious that any American-made technology in their warheads could include a secret “kill switch,” enabling the Americans to turn off their weapons. "While many nuclear experts in the federal government favored offering the PALS system because they considered Pakistan’s arsenal among the world’s most vulnerable to terrorist groups, some administration officials feared that sharing the technology would teach Pakistan too much about American weaponry. The same concern kept the Clinton administration from sharing the technology with China in the early 1990s. "The New York Times has known details of the secret program for more than three years, based on interviews with a range of American officials and nuclear experts, some of whom were concerned that Pakistan’s arsenal remained vulnerable. The newspaper agreed to delay publication of the article after considering a request from the Bush administration, which argued that premature disclosure could hurt the effort to secure the weapons." Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #8 November 19, 2007 Yes, PAL's should be a high priority. Is there time though? I assume they have assembled devices, and it's not likely that PAL's could be simply installed in the existing weapons. Do you think Musharraf would consider disassembling/disabling their devices temporarily? "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #9 November 19, 2007 QuoteYes, PAL's should be a high priority. Is there time though? I assume they have assembled devices, and it's not likely that PAL's could be simply installed in the existing weapons.Quote Yes, they can. Additionally PALs vary in sophistication. Gregory Giles' "Safeguarding Undeclared Nuclear Arsenals” The Washington Quaterly (Spring 1993) provides a high-level overview of different options. Another more recent brief (2005). Btw - some British nucs didn't have PALs until quite recently, the US offered the Chinese PAL technology in the 1990s, it's thought the Russian strategic weapons (unclear w/r/t tactical weapons) and French arsenal do have electronic safeguards. Israel? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #10 November 19, 2007 I thought I'd read somewhere that the current PAL's would render the device permanently inoperable if tampered with. Seems like they mentioned a small explosive charge built into the weapon that would disrupt the geometry or destroy the neutron generator or something, without breaching the housing. Might not work on gun-type bombs anyway. Will look for the source. It's good to know they might be quickly installed. If Musharaf is willing to have them installed, then it should be done ASAP. Ditto for any other country willing to do it. Here's an idea. You know about One Laptop Per Child (OLPC)? How about "One Pal Per Nuke" (OPPN), a program providing IAEA-designed PAL's at little or no cost to any nation? "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #11 November 19, 2007 QuoteI thought I'd read somewhere that the current PAL's would render the device permanently inoperable if tampered with. Seems like they mentioned a small explosive charge built into the weapon that would disrupt the geometry or destroy the neutron generator or something, without breaching the housing. Might not work on gun-type bombs anyway. Will look for the source. Here is the reference: "CAT D There are a number of selectable mechanisms to disable the bomb. In addition, there are "violent or nonviolent methods for destroying the warhead or making it irreparably nonfunctional". (One report, which I have not yet seen confirmed in the literature, is that the violent option involves a shaped charge which destroys the symmetry of the pit. It is thus no longer able to fission until it has been remachined -- and machining plutonium is non-trivial.) From: http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/nsam-160/pal.html#C87b "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,096 #12 November 19, 2007 > I thought I'd read somewhere that the current PAL's would render >the device permanently inoperable if tampered with. A simpler and perhaps more effective method is to use (or encourage) initiators with specific half-lifes (like tritium.) Such devices require regular maintenance, and will eventually make a weapon unable to go critical. Naturally this only works with implosion-type plutonium weapons. The "PAL for free" idea is nice in concept. But I have a feeling giving our enemies nuclear weapons technology isn't going to be too popular, even if the likely eventual outcome is beneficial to us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cloudseeker2001 0 #13 November 19, 2007 sure hope they do not forget the off switch!!!!!!! "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #14 November 19, 2007 Quote> I thought I'd read somewhere that the current PAL's would render >the device permanently inoperable if tampered with. A simpler and perhaps more effective method is to use (or encourage) initiators with specific half-lifes (like tritium.) Such devices require regular maintenance, and will eventually make a weapon unable to go critical. Naturally this only works with implosion-type plutonium weapons. The "PAL for free" idea is nice in concept. But I have a feeling giving our enemies nuclear weapons technology isn't going to be too popular, even if the likely eventual outcome is beneficial to us. Interesting idea, but how short of a lifespan would the initiator need to have in order to be an effective way to prevent unauthorized use? It's possible someone ccould steal a bomb and use it the same day, so the neutron initiator might need a lifespan of hours to be effective. Regarding the One Pal Per Nuke comment, which wasn't meant all that seriousely, the idea is to have an "neutral" group design it so that und users will be assured that there is no hidden remotely controlled device that the US, for example, could use to disable the weapon. That would maked the PAl's more acceptable to end-users. It would also not require us to disclose our PAL technology because the IAEA or whoever would design them. They would either have to be impossible to reverse-engineer or be designed differently for each end-user. I was kidding around, but it could be doable. Would any nations use them? If so, then why haven't they designed their own already? Re the instant case of Pakistan, if there is a real possibility that their devices could end up in the "wrong hands," and Musharaf is willing to allow the US to install some sort of PAL's, we should do it immediately. Re possibly giving sensitive technology to our enemies, see Nerdgirl's posts and links to PAL info. My opinion is that the security concerns about disclosure of PAL technology don't apply in this case, but I want to run my logic and assumptions past NerdGirl for a sanity check. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #15 November 19, 2007 QuoteThe "PAL for free" idea is nice in concept. But I have a feeling giving our enemies nuclear weapons technology isn't going to be too popular, even if the likely eventual outcome is beneficial to us. Regardless of the potential popularity (if one asserts/accepts Pakistan as 'enemies' is a different thread), there are international and domestic law issues, i.e., the NPT and the domestic legislation ratifying the NPT. It's a question of parsing whether PALs are an integral part of weapon design and whether supplying them to another state (that isn't a signatory) can be considered nuclear assistance under Article I of the NPT. ---- ---- ---- ---- NB: the NY Times article mentions PALs; it doesn't mention what kind of PALs or PAL-like security measures. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #16 November 19, 2007 An interesting post thanks.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #17 November 19, 2007 QuoteRegarding the One Pal Per Nuke comment, which wasn't meant all that seriousely, the idea is to have an "neutral" group design it so that und users will be assured that there is no hidden remotely controlled device that the US, for example, could use to disable the weapon. That would maked the PAl's more acceptable to end-users. It would also not require us to disclose our PAL technology because the IAEA or whoever would design them. They would either have to be impossible to reverse-engineer or be designed differently for each end-user. I was kidding around, but it could be doable. Would any nations use them? If so, then why haven't they designed their own already? International oversight: I can’t speak authoritatively w/r/t IAEA. They do have a technical cooperation (nee technical assistance) program, which includes safeguards and nuclear security along with nuclear energy and nuclear science/applications topics. I don’t know how effective toward developing and implementing safeguards that program has been. We all can imagine and hurdles … which isn’t to say it shouldn’t be attempted/fostered as you propose, especially for developing safeguards on nuclear energy and research reactors. Pakistan is an NPT non-signatory; the IAEA has limited ability to work with them. Through the US Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Programs, the US has been doing this with Russia … & not on a tremendous amount of funding. For example, the DoD DTRA & DOE NNSA TOBOS (it’s a Russian acronym) develops, tests, evaluates, and implements technologies to increase the safety, security and accountability of nuclear weapons or components of nuclear weapons under Russian Federation MOD custody. DTRA funded technology development of the Automated Monitoring and Inventory System (AMIS) for storage and transportation of Russia nuclear material & warheads. DTRA pays for and oversees the concept development, facility upgrades, equipment purchases, and actual AMIS system testing. Old write-up on TOBOS, p. 5; more recent, shorter write-up, p.2-3 under “Advanced Stockpile Monitoring.” These are less than $10M/year programs. Comment from fielding: General Starodubtsev, Chief Engineer, 12th Main Directorate: “These projects are taken very seriously by MOD, and they have a great future. They are trailblazers for further development of advanced technologies for monitoring nuclear warheads. We are on the right track.” The most effective programs are ones that are developed together (whether bilaterally, trilaterally, or multilaterally). Given Russia’s current economic status (i.e., relative wealth from oil & natural gas compared to early 1990s), one option is an expansion of CTR, in which Russia is a more active partner (read: contributes $), to Pakistan and India. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
1969912 0 #10 November 19, 2007 I thought I'd read somewhere that the current PAL's would render the device permanently inoperable if tampered with. Seems like they mentioned a small explosive charge built into the weapon that would disrupt the geometry or destroy the neutron generator or something, without breaching the housing. Might not work on gun-type bombs anyway. Will look for the source. It's good to know they might be quickly installed. If Musharaf is willing to have them installed, then it should be done ASAP. Ditto for any other country willing to do it. Here's an idea. You know about One Laptop Per Child (OLPC)? How about "One Pal Per Nuke" (OPPN), a program providing IAEA-designed PAL's at little or no cost to any nation? "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #11 November 19, 2007 QuoteI thought I'd read somewhere that the current PAL's would render the device permanently inoperable if tampered with. Seems like they mentioned a small explosive charge built into the weapon that would disrupt the geometry or destroy the neutron generator or something, without breaching the housing. Might not work on gun-type bombs anyway. Will look for the source. Here is the reference: "CAT D There are a number of selectable mechanisms to disable the bomb. In addition, there are "violent or nonviolent methods for destroying the warhead or making it irreparably nonfunctional". (One report, which I have not yet seen confirmed in the literature, is that the violent option involves a shaped charge which destroys the symmetry of the pit. It is thus no longer able to fission until it has been remachined -- and machining plutonium is non-trivial.) From: http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/nsam-160/pal.html#C87b "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,096 #12 November 19, 2007 > I thought I'd read somewhere that the current PAL's would render >the device permanently inoperable if tampered with. A simpler and perhaps more effective method is to use (or encourage) initiators with specific half-lifes (like tritium.) Such devices require regular maintenance, and will eventually make a weapon unable to go critical. Naturally this only works with implosion-type plutonium weapons. The "PAL for free" idea is nice in concept. But I have a feeling giving our enemies nuclear weapons technology isn't going to be too popular, even if the likely eventual outcome is beneficial to us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloudseeker2001 0 #13 November 19, 2007 sure hope they do not forget the off switch!!!!!!! "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #14 November 19, 2007 Quote> I thought I'd read somewhere that the current PAL's would render >the device permanently inoperable if tampered with. A simpler and perhaps more effective method is to use (or encourage) initiators with specific half-lifes (like tritium.) Such devices require regular maintenance, and will eventually make a weapon unable to go critical. Naturally this only works with implosion-type plutonium weapons. The "PAL for free" idea is nice in concept. But I have a feeling giving our enemies nuclear weapons technology isn't going to be too popular, even if the likely eventual outcome is beneficial to us. Interesting idea, but how short of a lifespan would the initiator need to have in order to be an effective way to prevent unauthorized use? It's possible someone ccould steal a bomb and use it the same day, so the neutron initiator might need a lifespan of hours to be effective. Regarding the One Pal Per Nuke comment, which wasn't meant all that seriousely, the idea is to have an "neutral" group design it so that und users will be assured that there is no hidden remotely controlled device that the US, for example, could use to disable the weapon. That would maked the PAl's more acceptable to end-users. It would also not require us to disclose our PAL technology because the IAEA or whoever would design them. They would either have to be impossible to reverse-engineer or be designed differently for each end-user. I was kidding around, but it could be doable. Would any nations use them? If so, then why haven't they designed their own already? Re the instant case of Pakistan, if there is a real possibility that their devices could end up in the "wrong hands," and Musharaf is willing to allow the US to install some sort of PAL's, we should do it immediately. Re possibly giving sensitive technology to our enemies, see Nerdgirl's posts and links to PAL info. My opinion is that the security concerns about disclosure of PAL technology don't apply in this case, but I want to run my logic and assumptions past NerdGirl for a sanity check. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #15 November 19, 2007 QuoteThe "PAL for free" idea is nice in concept. But I have a feeling giving our enemies nuclear weapons technology isn't going to be too popular, even if the likely eventual outcome is beneficial to us. Regardless of the potential popularity (if one asserts/accepts Pakistan as 'enemies' is a different thread), there are international and domestic law issues, i.e., the NPT and the domestic legislation ratifying the NPT. It's a question of parsing whether PALs are an integral part of weapon design and whether supplying them to another state (that isn't a signatory) can be considered nuclear assistance under Article I of the NPT. ---- ---- ---- ---- NB: the NY Times article mentions PALs; it doesn't mention what kind of PALs or PAL-like security measures. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #16 November 19, 2007 An interesting post thanks.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #17 November 19, 2007 QuoteRegarding the One Pal Per Nuke comment, which wasn't meant all that seriousely, the idea is to have an "neutral" group design it so that und users will be assured that there is no hidden remotely controlled device that the US, for example, could use to disable the weapon. That would maked the PAl's more acceptable to end-users. It would also not require us to disclose our PAL technology because the IAEA or whoever would design them. They would either have to be impossible to reverse-engineer or be designed differently for each end-user. I was kidding around, but it could be doable. Would any nations use them? If so, then why haven't they designed their own already? International oversight: I can’t speak authoritatively w/r/t IAEA. They do have a technical cooperation (nee technical assistance) program, which includes safeguards and nuclear security along with nuclear energy and nuclear science/applications topics. I don’t know how effective toward developing and implementing safeguards that program has been. We all can imagine and hurdles … which isn’t to say it shouldn’t be attempted/fostered as you propose, especially for developing safeguards on nuclear energy and research reactors. Pakistan is an NPT non-signatory; the IAEA has limited ability to work with them. Through the US Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Programs, the US has been doing this with Russia … & not on a tremendous amount of funding. For example, the DoD DTRA & DOE NNSA TOBOS (it’s a Russian acronym) develops, tests, evaluates, and implements technologies to increase the safety, security and accountability of nuclear weapons or components of nuclear weapons under Russian Federation MOD custody. DTRA funded technology development of the Automated Monitoring and Inventory System (AMIS) for storage and transportation of Russia nuclear material & warheads. DTRA pays for and oversees the concept development, facility upgrades, equipment purchases, and actual AMIS system testing. Old write-up on TOBOS, p. 5; more recent, shorter write-up, p.2-3 under “Advanced Stockpile Monitoring.” These are less than $10M/year programs. Comment from fielding: General Starodubtsev, Chief Engineer, 12th Main Directorate: “These projects are taken very seriously by MOD, and they have a great future. They are trailblazers for further development of advanced technologies for monitoring nuclear warheads. We are on the right track.” The most effective programs are ones that are developed together (whether bilaterally, trilaterally, or multilaterally). Given Russia’s current economic status (i.e., relative wealth from oil & natural gas compared to early 1990s), one option is an expansion of CTR, in which Russia is a more active partner (read: contributes $), to Pakistan and India. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
