USAF COUNTERPROLIFERATION CENTER

CPC OUTREACH JOURNAL

Maxwell AFB, Alabama

Issue No. 900, 22 April 2011

Articles & Other Documents:

Tokyo Electric Admits Fuel could be Melting at A Career U.S. Intelligence Officer on Al Qaeda, Nuclear Fukushima Nuke Plant Terrorism and the Nuclear Threat

Pakistan's New Missile Aimed at 's 'Cold Start' News Analysis: One Year On, Headway and Hurdles for Doctrine: Experts Global Nuclear Security

Mullen Launches Diatribe against ISI Arab Revolutions Don‘t Mean End for Al Qaeda

Russia Says Borei Sub to Test New Missile this Year A Race to Oblivion?

Russia Abandons $1B Western Aid to Weapons Time for Plan B Program FMCT and Indo-Pak Deterrence Stability – Analysis Russia to Double its Ballistic Missiles Production from 2013 Pakistani Security Experts Respond to U.S. State Department's Concern over the Security of Pakistani U.S. to Seek Agreement with Russia on Tactical Nuclear Nuclear Weapons Weapons Reduction Rogue CIA Operatives at Large UN Calls on Countries to Implement Resolution Aimed at Nuclear, Chemical, Biological Terrorism

Welcome to the CPC Outreach Journal. As part of USAF Counterproliferation Center’s mission to counter weapons of mass destruction through education and research, we’re providing our government and civilian community a source for timely counterproliferation information. This information includes articles, papers and other documents addressing issues pertinent to US military response options for dealing with chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats and countermeasures. It’s our hope this information resource will help enhance your counterproliferation issue awareness. Established in 1998, the USAF/CPC provides education and research to present and future leaders of the Air Force, as well as to members of other branches of the armed services and Department of Defense. Our purpose is to help those agencies better prepare to counter the threat from weapons of mass destruction. Please feel free to visit our web site at http://cpc.au.af.mil/ for in-depth information and specific points of contact. The following articles, papers or documents do not necessarily reflect official endorsement of the Air Force, Department of Defense, or other US government agencies. Reproduction for private use or commercial gain is subject to original copyright restrictions. All rights are reserved.

Mainichi Daily News – Japan April 21, 2011 Tokyo Electric Admits Fuel could be Melting at Fukushima Nuke Plant OKYO (Kyodo) -- An official at Tokyo Electric Power Co., the operator of the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, admitted Wednesday that fuel of the plant's No. 1 reactor could be melting. At a press conference, TEPCO official Junichi Matsumoto said, ''I'm not saying with certainty that (the fuel) has never melted,'' while noting that the utility has not been able to confirm the condition of the reactor's core. Describing the possible meltdown, Matsumoto said it can be compared to a state in which molten fuel accumulates like lava, or a state in which fuel rods get exposed after their tubes were broken. TEPCO considers such states as a meltdown, he said. Asked whether the fuel at the No. 1 reactor is ''melting'' or ''being damaged,'' Matsumoto said TEPCO does not plan to define such conditions in haste. The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency under the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry has already reported its own estimate to the Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan, saying a serious impairment has occurred after pellets, which constitute nuclear fuel, have melted inside the reactor. http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110421p2g00m0dm044000c.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Economic Times – India 's New Missile Aimed at India's 'Cold Start' Doctrine: Experts Press Trust of India (PTI) 20 April 2011

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan's new short-range nuclear-capable Hatf-9 missile is primarily aimed at deterring India's purported Cold Start military doctrine that envisages quick thrusts by small integrated battle groups in the event of hostilities, experts and analysts here have claimed. The Hatf-9 or Nasr, described as a missile with a range of 60 km and designed to carry "nuclear warheads of appropriate yield with high accuracy", was tested for the first time at an undisclosed location yesterday. The missile will be deployed with a mobile multi-barrel launch system that has "shoot and scoot attributes", or the ability to fire at a target and immediately relocate to another position to avoid enemy counter-fire. The new system is primarily aimed at deterring India's purported Cold Start doctrine, under which the Indian army has allegedly created integrated battle groups comprising infantry and mechanised elements that could be quickly mobilised and used for launching rapid thrusts into Pakistani territory in the event of hostilities, according to an analyst who did not want to be named. The Indian army has always denied existence of any such doctrine. The Hatf-9 missile system is a tactical nuclear weapons and "low-yield battlefield deterrent" capable of inflicting damage on mechanised forces such as armed brigades and divisions, military sources told The Express Tribune newspaper. With the development of the Hatf-9's shoot and scoot capability, "Indian planners will now be deterred from considering options of limited war", the military sources said. The Pakistani military had formulated its "new war fighting concept" in response to India's purported Cold Start doctrine, the Dawn newspaper quoted unnamed sources as saying. The development of the Hatf-9 is also being seen as a major achievement in terms of miniaturisation of nuclear warheads, the daily reported. Another analyst, who did not want to be named, told PTI that weapons like the Hatf-9 missile will limit the space for "limited war under a nuclear umbrella". However, the analyst noted that the military may have to use such a system within Pakistani territory in the event of an Indian thrust and this could have adverse consequences, such as nuclear fallout or the radiation hazard from an atomic blast. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/pakistans-new-missile-aimed-at--cold-start- doctrine-experts/articleshow/8037902.cms (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Dawn.com – Pakistan Mullen Launches Diatribe against ISI By Baqir Sajjad Syed, From the Newspaper April 21, 2011 , April 20: The US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Admiral Michael Mullen, was in a mood to name and shame on Wednesday. Without mincing his words, he made it clear that ISI‘s continued links with the Haqqani network were at the core of Pakistan‘s problematic relations with the United States. He said ISI‘s relationship with the network was unacceptable to the American leadership.―The ISI has a rich history of how they operated in this part of the world, to protect their own country; I understand that some of the aspects of that we strongly disagree with and that is something that we continue to address.‖ The Haqqani network had fuelled the Afghan insurgency by supporting, training and funding fighters who were killing American and coalition troops in , said the admiral, who views himself as a soldier-statesman. Though the Haqqani network‘s presence in the tribal areas and the army‘s reluctance to go after them has been a sore point in Islamabad-Washington relations for some time now, Admiral Mullen‘s words indicate a hardening of the American stance. Rarely in the past have American officials been this open and categorical about links between the ISI and the network. It is also noteworthy that Michael Mullen did not just press for military action against the militants in North Waziristan, but also said that ISI‘s links with the Haqqanis were unacceptable. It is pertinent to mention here that the and the ISI have repeatedly denied these allegations and have asked for evidence in support of such charges. ―It is fairly well known that ISI had a relationship with the Haqqani network and addressing the Haqqani network from my perspective is critical to the solution set in Afghanistan. … that‘s at the core — it‘s not the only thing — but that‘s at the core that I think is the most difficult part of the relationship,‖ Admiral Mullen, who is quite often criticised for being soft on the Pakistan military, said in an interview with Dawn. Though President Obama‘s top military officer was in Pakistan for discussions with the military leadership on tensions between the two countries that are said to have virtually put the entire relationship on hold, it was unclear what prompted him to reproach the ISI this openly. His talks with Pakistani army commanders, which were to be held on Wednesday night, are to be followed by crucial talks between Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir and American officials in Washington on Thursday. However, the American admiral‘s blunt talk about the ISI and the Haqqanis made it clear that the rounds of talks in Pakistan and in Washington would hardly be a smooth affair. He also made it clear that the Americans were not willing to yield on other issues either, which media reports have indicated that the Pakistan military is concerned about. He indicated that there would be probably no reduction in CIA‘s footprint in Pakistan or in the drone attacks, which are mostly aimed at North Waziristan, the base of the Haqqanis, until the ISI dissociated itself from the Haqqanis. Admiral Mullen said: ―I have a sacred obligation to do all I can to make sure that‖ the network is no longer able to support insurgents in Afghanistan. The Americans consider the Haqqani network and its role in the insurgency in Afghanistan as the most difficult challenge in the fight against the militants there. That they are ratcheting up the pressure on Pakistan is not surprising. Ties between the Haqqanis and the ISI date back to the Afghan ; the former is seen as the latter‘s safest bet for retaining influence in Afghanistan after a US withdrawal. This perception was strengthened after reports last year that Pakistan tried to orchestrate a dialogue between Kabul and the Haqqanis. The top US military official‘s interview indicated that in his meetings with Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee Chairman Gen Khalid Shameem Wynne and Chief of Army Staff Gen , he would discuss US concerns about the Haqqani network as well as the growing outreach of terror networks allegedly operating from Pakistan, including the Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jamaatud Dawah and Tehrik-i-. He depicted a destabilising scenario in which terror groups such as LeT, JuD, Al Qaeda and the Haqqani network would become increasingly interlinked. ―What I worry about all these organisations, whether it is Haqqani network, Al Qaeda, JuD, LeT… there is a syndication which has occurred in the region here over the course of last three years, which is more and more worrisome and increasingly so TTP, under [Hakimullah] Mehsud, has espoused aspirations outside the region,‖ he maintained. The situation, Mullen said, led to the conclusion ―that this area… the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan is the epicenter of terrorism in the world‖. But more damning were his comments that ―it [the terrorism in the region] breeds and breeds more and more in terms of capability over time‖. On more than one occasion during the interview, he suggested a close collaboration between India, Afghanistan and Pakistan to deal with the terror threat emanating from the tribal areas. Admiral Mullen, who was at times sceptical about Pakistani counter-terrorism efforts and on other occasions grandfatherly, did of course try to offer soothing diplomatic words too — in appreciation of the army‘s fight against terrorism. ―Example of the challenge that has re-emerged in a place like Mohmand is an important one to address and does indicate that this (problem of terrorism) does not go away easily and I admire the fact that the engagement there continues on part of Pakmil,‖ he said. The latest phase of the Mohmand operation took place in March and the semi-annual White House Af-Pak report cited it as an example of Pakistan‘s inability to hold and build areas cleared of militants. He stressed that despite the challenges in bilateral ties, the military-to-military relations between the US and Pakistan had remained strong. He also very keenly spoke about the resilience of Pakistan-US bilateral ties, saying they withstood a very difficult phase over the past few months. http://www.dawn.com/2011/04/21/mullen-launches-diatribe-against-isi.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Kyiv Post – Ukraine Russia Says Borei Sub to Test New Missile this Year April 19, 2011 By Thomas Grove, Reuters Moscow - A new Russian nuclear submarine will be ready to test the next generation of intercontinental missiles this year, a military shipbuilding spokesman said on Tuesday. The Yuri Dolgoruky, the first of Russia‘s new Borei class of submarines, has yet to fire the Bulava missile it was made to carry because of numerous failures during testing. ―By the beginning of the navigation season all ships will be ready to carry out tests of the Bulava,‖ said Alexander Kholodov, a representative of submarine-building shipyard Sevmash. ―This refers above all to the submarines Dmitry Donskoy and Yuri Dolgoruky,‖ he said. The Dmitry Donskoy is an older Akula-class vessel used for previous Bulava tests while Borei-class submarines were undergoing testing. The Bulava was designed to be carried on submarines like the Yuri Dolgoruky, but repeated failures of the missile during tests have called the costly project into question. The submarine‘s entry into service, carrying the Bulava, will be a major step forward for Russia‘s military, which hopes to use rising oil revenues to increase its clout. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has promised to spend nearly 20 trillion rubles ($705.7 billion) to upgrade Russia‘s crumbling defense forces over the next 10 years. The Bulava has failed half of its 14 tests. A 15th test was scheduled last year but harsh winter weather conditions forced Moscow to delay it until this year. http://www.kyivpost.com/news/russia/detail/102488/ (Return to Articles and Documents List)

The Wichita Eagle Russia Abandons $1B Western Aid to Weapons Program April 20, 2011 By DOUGLAS BIRCH, Associated Press WASHINGTON -- Russia is pulling out of a program that poured $1 billion from the U.S. government and other foreign donors into the research labs that built the Soviet Union's vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Officials with the International Science and Technology Center are negotiating to close the Moscow headquarters of the organization, which was formed in 1994, three years after the Soviet Union collapsed. The center gave tens of thousands of experts in nuclear, chemical and biological warfare the chance to engage in civilian research and work with colleagues from the U.S. and other nations that once stood on the other side of the Iron Curtain. The program helped pay the salaries of Russian weapons scientists who otherwise might have sold their services to rogue regimes or terrorists after the , but it long outlived the crisis that inspired its creation. Russia came to regard the intergovernmental program as obsolete as the country's economy surged over the past decade. Russia's U.S. ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, who negotiated the establishment of the center, told The Associated Press that his country no longer needs it. "The mission has been accomplished," he said. "It is a little bit outdated." U.S. congressional investigators concluded that U.S. taxpayer money helped Russia's weapons institutes stay in business by recruiting younger scientists and retaining key personnel who might otherwise have moved to the West - - a finding at odds with the program's goal of reducing the threat of weapons of mass destruction. Foreign aid programs helped keep Russia afloat as it lurched from crisis to crisis in the 1990s. But the Kremlin has been phasing these programs out in recent years, saying in effect it no longer needs to be treated as a charity case. In August, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's office issued a brief statement announcing Russia's withdrawal from the program in six months. The center's director, Adriaan van der Meer, said he is negotiating the terms of the closure and hopes to win an agreement for "an orderly wind down" over the next several years of 355 Russian projects worth about $155 million. Van der Meer said the center will continue working in Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus and several Central Asian states, where it runs about $95 million worth of projects. Over the past 17 years, the center has tracked space debris, developed fusion power, searched for vaccines against deadly diseases like Ebola and much more. When the program began after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian economy was in shambles and the government struggled to pay salaries in secret cities where armies of technicians, engineers and scientists designed and built weapons. "It really provided a lifeline in the 1990s for people who were underpaid or underemployed and might otherwise have gotten desperate enough to sell their services elsewhere," said Matthew Bunn of Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Today Russia pumps more oil than Saudi Arabia, holds almost $500 billion in currency reserves and by one measure has the world's seventh-largest economy. Increasingly, the Russian government has regarded foreign aid as an embarrassing reminder of its past dependence on aid. But some arms control experts said Russia's decision may also have been motivated by security concerns. Retired U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Kevin Ryan, executive director for research at the Belfer Center, said that both Russia's Federal Security Service and the FBI have long worried that Russian and U.S. weapons scientists working together on peaceful projects might inadvertently spill state secrets. "That's the risk for everybody, but they consider it a higher risk than we do," Ryan said. The U.S. contributes about one-third of the money for the center's projects, van der Meer said, while the pays for another third, and Canada, Norway, Japan and South Korea the rest. Arms control advocates such as Ryan say the program still plays a vital role by supplementing salaries at underfunded weapons institutes and fostering ties between Russian and Western scientists. A 2007 Government Accountability Office study of U.S. Energy Department collaborative research programs in Russia found that senior officials at many former Soviet labs believed there was no longer any need for Western financial support. Lab officials in Russia and Ukraine told the GAO, Congress' investigative arm, that foreign grants had helped them recruit and retain key personnel, preventing them from emigrating to the United States or other advanced industrial nations. These officials told the GAO that there was "little danger of scientists migrating to countries of concern," according to the 2007 study. The center was prohibited from funding weapons work: The point was to introduce weapons scientists to civilian research. Congress objected when it discovered in 2008 that some of the institutes receiving U.S. aid were also working with Iran's nuclear program, specifically the recently completed nuclear power plant at Bushehr. The U.S. has long contended that Iranian officials use the Bushehr civilian power project as cover for pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Iran has always denied it is seeking to build atomic weapons. Relations between the U.S. and Russia have roller coastered since the center opened in 1994, reaching a high point after the September 2001 terrorist attacks and a post-Cold War low in the aftermath of the August 2008 war between Georgia and Russia. Under the Obama administration's reset of ties with Russia, Moscow has agreed to let the U.S. ship military supplies to Afghanistan through its territory, supported tough new U.N. sanctions against Iran and signed the New START treaty reducing the ceiling on both countries' nuclear arsenals. Despite these improvements, U.S. intelligence officials say Russia remains wary of U.S. intentions. "Russian military programs are driven largely by Moscow's perception that the United States and NATO are Russia's principal strategic challenges and greatest potential threat," James Clapper, director of national intelligence, told Congress in March. Russia has recently launched a $700 billion drive to modernize its nuclear and conventional military forces by 2020. Henry Sokolski, who once served as the Pentagon's deputy for nonproliferation policy and is now director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, a Washington-based nonprofit, said the International Science and Technology Center leaves a mixed legacy. "Whatever good it might have done to deflect weapons activities, it probably undid by supporting these institutes, which are weapons institutes," he said. Ryan said that even if Western aid has helped Russia's military institutes, they represent little threat to the U.S. compared with the weapons programs of countries like Iran and North Korea. "We have disagreements (with Russia), but we're not on the verge of war," he said. "If you look at the results of the product of the Russian military-industrial complex right now, I don't think we ought to be concerned." Van der Meer credited the Moscow center with creating almost from scratch a civilian research community in Russia, where in Soviet times 85 percent of scientists worked in military labs. Tens of thousands of them worked in "closed cities" that didn't appear on any maps. Van der Meer and several U.S. officials said they hoped the center's programs could continue in some form in Russia. "It would be very silly to destroy the investment of over $1 billion over the years," van der Meer said. http://www.kansas.com/2011/04/20/1815420/russia-abandons-1b-western-aid.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Sify News – India Russia to Double its Ballistic Missiles Production from 2013 Indo-Asian News Service (IANS) April 20, 2011 Moscow, April 20 (IANS) Russia will double its production of ballistic missiles from 2013, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said Wednesday in his annual address to the Russian parliament - his last before legislative elections later this year and presidential elections early next year. 'The armed forces will receive new strategic and tactical missile systems, such as RS-24 Yars, Bulava and Iskander M,' Putin said. Speaking to defence sector officials in Siberia in March, Putin had said Russia would invest 77 billion rubles ($2.6 billion) in the production of ballistic missiles in line with a state programme on the defense sector modernisation until 2020. Stressing on the need to strengthen Russia's defence capability, modernise and upgrade weapons, including in the Navy and the Air Force, Putin during his address outlined the blueprint for a stronger Russia. Setting out an array of far-reaching goals, he said, they should see Russia emerge as one of the 'top five global economies' within the next 10 years. 'In the modern world - if you are weak - there will always be someone who wants to come and advise you on what direction you must move in, what policies to pursue and the path you should choose for your own country,' RIA Novosti reported Putin as saying, adding: 'We must be independent and strong.' He said Russia needed to be strong and avoid experiments with 'unjustified liberalism' to safeguard its sovereignty and prevent outsiders from dictating the country's development. Putin, who, some analysts believe, will bid to return to the Kremlin in 2012 and succeed his successor President Dmitry Medvedev, made it clear that he had a clear vision about Russia's future. Presenting a glowing picture of his government's performance in 2010, he said: 'The country needs a decade of stable, calm development, without going to extremes one way or the other, without ill-conceived experiments, confusion over sometimes unjustified liberalism or social demagogy.' Referring to a policy centerpiece of President Medvedev's administration - innovation - Putin said that acquisition of modern technology and know-how from abroad was useful up to a point. Stressing investment at home would be decisive for Russia's development goals, Putin said the level of foreign direct investment in Russia should increase to $60-70 billion 'in the foreseeable future'. Russia has emerged from the global financial crisis in far better shape than most countries and will completely offset economic crisis-related losses by the start of 2012, before moving on to new achievements, Putin said. 'In 2010, Russia's GDP grew four percent - the highest rate in the G8. This year's forecast is around 4.2 percent,' he said. On social peace, Putin, said it was essential to secure peace inside the country and prevent any attempts to split Russian society. On defence, Putin also said upgrading the air force and air defence systems would be a priority in the development of the Russian armed forces in near future. http://www.sify.com/news/russia-to-double-its-ballistic-missiles-production-from-2013-news-international- leuwundjfci.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

RIA Novosti – Russian Information Agency U.S. to Seek Agreement with Russia on Tactical Nuclear Weapons Reduction 22 April 2011 The U.S. cabinet is working intensively to increase transparency on tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) in Europe and secure an agreement with Russia on the reduction of such weapons, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller has said. "Consistent with the President's agenda to reduce the role and number of nuclear weapons, and the Senate's call for pursuing negotiations with Russia on tactical nuclear weapons, we are working intensively throughout our government on these issues while also consulting with our NATO allies," Gottemoeller was quoted as saying during her speech at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, as quoted in a statement issued on Thursday by the U.S. Department of State's press service. "We will be working with NATO to shape an approach to reduce the role and number of forward-based U.S. non- strategic nuclear weapons in Europe, as Russia takes reciprocal steps to reduce its non-strategic nuclear weapons and relocate them away from NATO's borders," Gottemoeller said. When ratifying the new strategic arms reduction treaty with Moscow in December 2010, the U.S. Senate adopted a resolution obligating the government to start bilateral talks on cutting the TNW stockpiles - landmines, artillery shells and short-range missiles. Washington says Moscow has a larger number of these systems. The United States will seek to "include non-strategic nuclear weapons in the next round of U.S.-Russian arms control discussions alongside strategic and non-deployed nuclear weapons," Gottemoeller said. President Barack Obama said in a message to the Senate in February his country expects to hold talks with Russia on TNW within a year after the New START arms reduction deal came into force on February 5. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said in January that it is too early to discuss limiting TNW with the United States because Russia needs to see the way the U.S. fulfills its commitments under the New START. WASHINGTON, April 22 (RIA Novosti) http://en.rian.ru/world/20110422/163641019.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Brandon Sun – Manitoba, Canada UN Calls on Countries to Implement Resolution Aimed at Nuclear, Chemical, Biological Terrorism By Edith M. Lederer, Associated Press 20 April 2011 The U.N. Security Council on Wednesday urged countries around the world to implement a U.N. resolution aimed at keeping nuclear, chemical and biological weapons out of the hands of terrorists. The council unanimously called for full implementation of an April 2004 resolution requiring all 192 U.N. member states to adopt laws to prevent "non-state actors" from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. The council urged countries that haven't filed a first report on their implementation efforts to do so "without delay." It didn't say how many countries have filed such reports or identify countries that have not done so. The 2004 resolution, pushed by the United States, requires all countries to adopt laws to prevent non-state actors from manufacturing, acquiring or trafficking in nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, the materials to make them, and the missiles and other systems to deliver them. It was introduced as the International Atomic Energy Agency was investigating a vast underworld market in nuclear equipment and know-how, spurred by Pakistan's admission in 2004 that its leading nuclear scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, passed technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said the new resolution "sharpens the tools" of the Security Council committee that has been monitoring implementation of the 2004 resolution. The White House said in a statement late Wednesday it applauded the committee's new 10-year mandate and said it would contribute $3 million to help it achieve its goals. "The continuation and enhancement of the (committee's) work is an important element of the United States' nonproliferation objectives," the statement said. The committee has been helping countries to draft laws, ensure protection of material that could be used for weapons of mass destruction and prevent the export of any such material, and improve border security and law enforcement efforts. The new resolution provides the committee with a group of eight experts, to be appointed by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, and additional technical assistance. It also extends the committee's three-year mandate, which expires on April 25, for an additional 10 years until April 25, 2021. http://www.brandonsun.com/world/breaking-news/un-calls-for-urgent-action-to-prevent-and-suppress-nuclear- chemical-and-biological-terrorism-120317614.html?thx=y (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Huffington Post OPINION A Career U.S. Intelligence Officer on Al Qaeda, Nuclear Terrorism and the Nuclear Threat April 19, 2011 By Rahim Kanani, Editor-in-chief, World Affairs Commentary In a recent discussion with Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, Senior Fellow at Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and former Director of Intelligence and Counterintelligence at the U.S. Department of Energy, we discussed al Qaeda's quest for nuclear weapons, the scale and scope of the nuclear terrorism threat, and ways in which we can avert a nuclear terrorist attack. Prior to his appointment as a senior fellow at the Belfer Center, Mr. Rolf Mowatt-Larssen served over three years as the Director of Intelligence and Counterintelligence at the U.S. Department of Energy. Prior to this, he served for 23 years as a CIA intelligence officer in various domestic and international posts, to include Chief of the Europe Division in the Directorate of Operations, Chief of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Department, Counterterrorist Center, and Deputy Associate Director of Central Intelligence for Military Support. In his most recent report titled "Islam and the Bomb," Mowatt-Larssen explores the Islamic justification for and against the acquisition, possession and use of nuclear weapons. Rahim Kanani: In assessing and analyzing the nuclear terrorist threat, whether against the United States or another part of the world, how should the public understand the situation in the context of other current and potential international crises? Rolf Mowatt-Larssen: Nuclear terrorism is inextricably linked to the broader phenomenon of terrorism. As the cycle of violence escalates, the use of weapons of mass destruction has become more attractive to terrorist groups like al Qaeda. There are chilling similarities between the cycle of al Qaeda warnings in the run-up to the 9/11 attack, and a new cycle of warnings associated with an attack on a much larger scale than 9/11. In 1998, issued a religious ruling (fatwa) that declared war on America; the 9/11 attack followed three years later. In 2008. Al Qaeda deputy chief Ayman Zawahiri published an exhaustive religious justification for using weapons of mass destruction that could kill ten million Americans. This treatise ("Exoneration") built on the first-ever WMD fatwa issued by Saudi cleric Nasir al-Fahd in 2003. Al Qaeda's WMD warnings are not part of some theological exercise, of that we can be certain; they are laying the groundwork in providing the required justification and serial warnings in advance of a future attack. If the 9/11 cycle holds true, al Qaeda is in the middle of planning another major attack against the US in the near future. Rahim Kanani: And in the same vein, how should policymakers contextualize this threat as it competes against a range of domestic and international concerns? Rolf Mowatt-Larssen: Policymakers are swamped with a daunting array of "number one priorities," it is true. However, some threats deserve more attention than others. Given the potentially catastrophic consequences, even a small probability of terrorists getting and detonating a nuclear or "big bio" bomb is enough to justify urgent action to reduce the risks. It is plausible that a technically sophisticated group could make, deliver, and detonate a crude nuclear bomb if they could get their hands on sufficient fissile material. Rahim Kanani: In the immediate term, or over the next 2 to 4 years, what are some concrete steps we can take, both from the perspective of an engaged citizen, and also from the perspective of the international community as a whole, to prevent, in the words of Harvard's Belfer Center Director Graham Allison, the ultimate preventable catastrophe? Rolf Mowatt-Larssen: Nuclear terrorism is a preventable catastrophe. It is very difficult for terrorists to buy, steal or build a bomb. Although we are unlikely to convince terrorists that it would be a disaster if they use WMD, I cannot fathom how they can hope to advance their cause by using weapons that indiscriminately kill millions of men, women and children of all faiths. But our destiny lies in our own hands. The first order of business is to deny terrorists the capability they seek. The most critical task is to fulfill the historic nuclear security summit's goal of locking up all weapons-usable nuclear materials as soon as possible, preferably in the next four years. In addition, governments must strengthen international intelligence and law enforcement cooperation to find and eliminate terrorist nuclear plots before they reach fruition. The nuclear black market in trafficking of nuclear materials needs to be shut down. Severe punishment must be meted out for anyone dealing with the stuff of mass destruction. Rahim Kanani: Similarly, if we broadened the timeline of this discussion to long-term action, or over the next 15 to 20 years, what does the United States and the international community need to either decide, understand, or act upon, to ensure nuclear terrorism and the threat of nuclear terrorism ultimately decreases to an almost-zero percent chance of being realized? Rolf Mowatt-Larssen: Down the road, we must ensure that the global expansion of technologies and materials connected with nuclear energy does not raise the proliferation risks, especially concerning the fuel cycle, transportation, waste and storage. As global citizens, we must press our leaders to take courageous measures to reduce nuclear arsenals, and ultimately lock the nuclear genie back in his bottle by eliminating all nuclear weapons worldwide. This is not a utopian ideal for dreamers; the concept of global zero has won the brave support of many of the world's most visionary leaders and practitioners, such as Presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, Sam Nunn and William Perry, to name a few. One thing is clear: If the world does not act in concert to rid us of this menace, we are more likely to experience the catastrophe of a mushroom cloud in this century, than in the last century. Rahim Kanani: What are the biggest impediments to implementing the range of short-term and long-term solutions you propose? Rolf Mowatt-Larssen: In order to be successful, we must insist on uncommon leadership; vision; moral courage. Given the right mindset, there are no practical impediments to ridding ourselves of nuclear weapons. But if we stand still and accept the status quo, we will fail, because today, we are not doing enough to eliminate the threat. Only strong leadership can overcome the widespread tendency to dismiss events that have never happened. It is easier for bureaucracies, absent forceful direction from the top, to deal with their overflowing in-boxes, than to sit back and proactively head off the bigger threats of tomorrow. Rahim Kanani: At a recent Harvard Kennedy School forum on the future of nuclear weapons, you asserted that we have to live with the prospect of this kind of attack, in order for us to survive it maturely. Is such an attack inevitable? And how would you characterize a surviving civilization as one that survives maturely? Rolf Mowatt-Larssen: As someone who has been working on WMD terrorism for a decade, I still struggle to get the balance right: on the one hand, nuclear and bio terrorism are real and urgent threats that must be taken seriously. On the other hand, I try to not hype the threat to make my point. I would never try to sell the threat for political reasons, because it is too important to play games. As serious as I think the threat is, we must never submit to fear in our efforts to deal with it, no matter how tempting that may be. If we allow ourselves to live in fear, the terrorists win. If we sacrifice our values that we are fighting for in our desire to feel safe, the terrorists win. I agree with terrorists on one crucial point: this is a moral conflict. It is about our values versus theirs. And I am secure in my own belief that our cause is just, and that no good can ever be justified through terrorist violence. The mere fact that the al Qaeda leaders are so hateful that they would unleash the scourge of WMD on humanity ultimately discredits them. Rahim Kanani: And lastly, with such an intensely complicated and world-changing potentiality at stake, of which you were tasked for several years to lead the U.S. government's efforts in preventing exactly this realization, is there light at the end of the tunnel? And how do you balance pragmatism with optimism, as you continue your efforts in this regard? Rolf Mowatt-Larssen: The world has a tricky way of confronting mankind with challenges that reveal who we really are. I will always be an idealist, because cynicism is all-consuming, if one allows oneself to succumb to it. Striving to do the right thing has its own rewards. I worry about the argument that it is fine to torture people if it works; it is never right, even when it works. I worry about the impact of inaction for the future of our children. So, let us act! I'll never concede that our problems are too big and that we cannot solve them. I'm excited over the prospects of living in a world where a growing number of people are forcing change, even if it creates great uncertainties and carries new risks. We need to seize this historical opportunity to address problems that have been festering for decades, for the sake of all mankind, and not for the narrower definitions of "self-interest." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rahim-kanani/a-career-us-intelligence-_b_850627.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

China Daily – OPINION/Analysis News Analysis: One Year On, Headway and Hurdles for Global Nuclear Security Xinhua April 20, 2011 WASHINGTON, April 19 (Xinhua) -- One year after the first nuclear security summit hosted by President Barack Obama was held in Washington, complex progress has been made worldwide. Yet the threat of nuclear catastrophes remains far from being eliminated. "Having such a high level of attention to the issue has really helped us to move these things forward," Bonnie D. Jenkins, coordinator for threat reduction programs at the U.S. State Department, said in an interview with Xinhua. Since Obama took office, Jenkins said, the highly enriched uranium from more than 30 nuclear bombs has been repatriated to Russia, with roughly a quarter of that material being sent back since last year's summit. About 20 countries are also considered free of highly enriched uranium because of the U.S. Energy Department's threat reduction program. The project was launched in 2004 during the Bush administration but Obama has accelerated it, Jenkins said. Prior to the summit, the United States was in the process of working with a number of countries -- such as Romania, Kazakhstan, Libya, Chile, Turkey, Serbia -- and trying to move the ball forward. "The summit was like a huge catalyst. It kind of shocked things and things started moving faster," Jenkins said. Still, hurdles lie ahead, and even if all commitments made at last year's summit are implemented, that may not be enough to prevent the threat of nuclear terrorism, some experts say. At present, the planet holds enough highly enriched uranium to make more than 60,000 nuclear weapons, and the level of security over the material varies widely from country to country, according to a report published by the Arms Control Association and the Partnership for Global Security. Around 60 percent of the national commitments made last year have been completed, and notable progress has been achieved on another 30 percent, the report concluded. Kenneth Luongo, president of the Partnership for Global Security, said that while the nuclear summit was an overall success, the nuclear material security regime needs to move beyond its current limits. "Even if all those commitments were implemented, they are not sufficient to prevent the nuclear terrorist danger," Luongo said. That is because virtually the entire existing regime is voluntary and lacks cross border standards. Transparency is also lacking, and no mechanism exists to force nations to improve up to a specific level, he told Xinhua in an email. While the next nuclear summit, to be held in Seoul, is still a year away, one question participants are considering is whether to extend the summit's focus to include securing radiological sources. Those materials can be used for a "dirty bomb" -- an explosive device that spreads radioactive material -- the ingredients for which can be found in almost every country and are used in hospitals and X-ray machines. While such a device might not cause the same scale of destruction as one containing highly enriched uranium, it would instill panic among populations, which is one of the terrorists' goals. For now, it is unclear whether the issue will be a part of next year's discussions, although many countries are pushing for it. "We are open to hearing about that, but whether it will be a part of the summit is hard to say," Jenkins said, "We'll have to see how much time and energy all the countries want to dedicate to that." http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/xinhua/2011-04-20/content_2367773.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Boston Globe OPINION/Op-Ed Arab Revolutions Don’t Mean End for Al Qaeda April 20, 2011 By Jessica Stern FOR TERRORISM experts in the West, it‘s tempting to think the so-called Arab spring will destroy the Al Qaeda movement. But it probably won‘t happen in the short run — especially if you believe Anwar-al Awlaki, a leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the most dangerous affiliate organization of Al Qaeda. In theory, the ability of young people to protest peacefully against unresponsive Arab leaders and work for change through more democratic institutions might help redirect some of the public frustration that Al Qaeda has long tried to harness. But in a four-page essay in the most recent issue of Inspire, the magazine of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Awlaki taunts Western governments with the claim that the mujahidin — the term he uses for jihadist fighters — are elated about the revolutionary fervor now spreading in the Middle East. The ―fruits of Egypt‖ will spread far beyond its borders, Awlaki gloats, presenting many opportunities for the mujahidin. Yemen, where Awlaki‘s group is based, is particularly vulnerable. The group claimed credit for two recent plots against the United States, the ―underwear plot‖ — Umar Abdulmatallab‘s attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound plane on Christmas 2009 — and an October 2010 plot involving two explosive devices discovered on a cargo plane headed to the United States. In November, the group announced a new strategy: carrying out large numbers of small-scale and inexpensive attacks, with the explicit goal of harming the US economy. The group has been seeking to recruit US citizens for lone-wolf operations against US targets. Also vulnerable is Libya, where a humanitarian crisis led the United States and NATO to impose a no-fly zone. The limited utility of that no-fly zone is now becoming obvious, and NATO faces a harrowing choice: looking away while Khadafy‘s forces kill civilians as well as rebels, or getting even more involved in what may well become all- out civil war. Supporting the rebels militarily is particularly worrisome: It is not clear what role Al Qaeda or its affiliate, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is playing in the rebellion. Libya has produced jihadists against the West, not just against Khadafy; documents seized in suggest Libya was the second-greatest source, after Saudi Arabia, of foreign fighters in Iraq in 2006 and 2007. But the Libyan regime seems to downplay the problem. A year ago, Seif Khadafy, the ruler‘s ostensibly reform-minded son, invited a group of terrorism scholars to witness the release from prison of some 214 Islamist terrorists, whom he claimed had been ―rehabilitated.‖ I was among the experts. We were not persuaded that the terrorists had actually been rehabilitated, in the sense of renouncing violence against innocent civilians. It was striking how our Libyan hosts seemed to imagine that we would accept whatever they told us at face value, even though they gave us access to the newly released prisoners, whose continued interest in jihad rapidly became clear. If Khadafy falls, these jihadists may become more active, not less. Autocratic rulers are relatively good at stopping terrorism within their borders. There are many more terrorist incidents in democratic India, for example, than in non-democratic China or Saudi Arabia. The most dangerous period, according to economist Alberto Abadie, is the transition from authoritarian rule. Consider Spain in the late 1970s, Russia after the fall of communism, and Iraq today. One thing is crystal clear: Chaos is candy for jihadists. Awlaki predicts that the chaos now spreading in Libya will enable ―thousands‘‘ of now-imprisoned Libyan jihadists to regroup. No doubt this is bravado on Awlaki‘s part. But Al Qaeda has repeatedly altered its mission — from fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan, to forcing US troops to leave Saudi Arabia, to fighting allied forces in Iraq. It has not allowed the achievement of its stated goals to slow its momentum; it finds new reasons for waging jihad. One of its ostensible goals was to remove autocratic Middle Eastern rulers, whom Al Qaeda considers ―un-Islamic‖ and corrupt. While this goal may be partly achieved by the Arab spring, the jihadist movement is unlikely to close up shop. Eventually, Al Qaeda will fade, as all terrorist movements do. But the Arab spring is unlikely to deal the death blow we might wish for. On the contrary, the terrorism threat to the Middle East as well as the West is likely to get worse before it gets better. Jessica Stern is a member of the Hoover Institution Task Force on National Security and Law and the author of “Denial: A Memoir of Terror.’’ http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-20/bostonglobe/29452028_1_libyan-islamic-fighting-group-awlaki-al-qaeda (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Deccan Chronicle – India OPINION A Race to Oblivion? April 20, 2011 By Sumit Ganguly Last week India successfully tested an interceptor missile capable of destroying an incoming ballistic missile off Wheeler Island near the Orissa coast. This latest test, if the technical data that has been released in the public domain is correct, would mark a milestone in India‘s quest for ballistic missile defence (BMD). The effort to develop BMD capabilities is wholly understandable. Thanks to Pakistan‘s overt acquisition of nuclear weapons, its security community has come to believe that it can attack India using terrorist proxies with impunity as any Indian conventional response could result in a Pakistani threat to use nuclear weapons. Consequently, its military establishment could again seek to pull off a Mumbai-style attack hoping that India would again hesitate to use its conventional forces against Pakistan. To address this strategic dilemma, Indian decision-makers have decided that they need to develop the requisite capabilities to significantly degrade the prospects of a Pakistani nuclear attack through the use of BMD. A robust BMD capability would put feckless Pakistani military commanders on notice that they could not indefinitely continue to pursue their asymmetric war strategy against India without the fear of a conventional response. It is, of course, an open question if India can actually field such a significant BMD capability in the first place. Field tests of BMD under particular conditions, however successful, are nevertheless a very long distance to a working missile shield. That said, there are other compelling strategic reasons why India‘s policymakers may wish to re- consider their pursuit of BMD. Pakistan has long been a revisionist state in that it remains unreconciled to the territorial status quo in South Asia. Until it abandons this commitment to address what its policymakers, most notably its military apparatus, believe to be the fundamental iniquities of Partition, particularly the putative loss of , it will remain at odds with India. Since it cannot take on an increasingly powerful conventional Indian force it will rely both on its nuclear forces and its asymmetric war strategy to pique India. Despite their own provocative behaviour, India‘s military and strategic choices can have a significant bearing on Pakistan‘s decisions. For example, it is clear that India‘s policymakers have chosen to invest much treasure in the pursuit of BMD primarily for the purpose of undermining Pakistan‘s asymmetric war strategy. However, given the Pakistani military establishment‘s preoccupation with India, their propensity to believe in any number of conspiracy theories involving India and their fears of a second vivisection of their country, the Indian search for BMD may well have the effect of provoking their worst fears. For their standpoint, India‘s attempt to acquire BMD would not be seen as a mere defensive coping mechanism against their asymmetric warfare. Instead, it would, almost for a certainty, be seen as an Indian quest for what is referred to in the strategic studies literature as ―escalation dominance‖. Simply put, with a layered BMD structure in place India could cope with an initial Pakistani nuclear response and then strike Pakistan‘s nuclear and conventional forces with its own nuclear weapons. Such a scenario comes close to that of a nuclear Armageddon in South Asia. However, from the standpoint of Pakistani security managers it is far from chimerical. To ensure that India could not become overly confident in the efficacy of its ballistic missile capabilities, the Pakistani military establishment would undertake a series of counter-measures, some cheap others expensive. At a bare minimum they would invest in a range of dummy warheads and place them on an increased array of ballistic missiles. Since Indian decision-makers would have no way of discriminating between dummy and actual warheads they would be forced to target every one of them, thereby dramatically expanding the scope of BMD coverage. Furthermore, the Pakistani military would also make minor technical modifications to their missiles, thereby making them more difficult to target. Additionally, as is already evident from recent press reports, they would swiftly ratchet up their production of fissile material to develop a larger nuclear arsenal. Finally, to further complicate matters for Indian security planners, they would place their nuclear weapons on mobile launchers, would create false sites and would resort to camouflage and deception. Sadly for India‘s policymakers, the vast majority of these strategies are cheaper and potentially more effective than India‘s steps towards the acquisition and deployment of an effective ballistic missile force. India‘s strategic dilemma is all too real. It is also quite understandable that its policymakers and defence scientists, in their growing frustration with the behaviour of a recalcitrant and intransigent neighbour, are seeking a technological solution to a vexing strategic and political problem. Though a seemingly reasonable response to the conundrum that they confront, its possible success may, in the end, contribute to a more unstable region than at present. Sumit Ganguly is the director of research at the Centre on American and Global Security at Indiana University, Bloomington, US. http://www.deccanchronicle.com/editorial/dc-comment/race-oblivion-617 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

New York Times OPINION/Editorial April 20, 2011 Time for Plan B A 14-year effort to negotiate an international treaty banning the production of nuclear weapons fuel is getting nowhere. Under the terms of the United Nations‘ Conference on Disarmament, all 65 participants must agree. Pakistan, which is racing to develop the world‘s fifth largest arsenal, is refusing to let the talks move forward. It is clearly time for a new approach. So we are encouraged that the Obama administration has begun discussing with Britain and France and others the possibility of negotiating a ban outside the conference, much like the 2008 convention on cluster munitions and the 1997 land-mine treaty. While the United States, Russia and China still are not signatories — they should be — many others are, and the two agreements are credited with greatly diminishing, although not eliminating, the use of both weapons. Russia and China, which must be part of any fissile material ban, are resisting the idea of ad hoc negotiations. They should tell Pakistan to let the conference do its job, or they should accept the alternative. China has particular influence as Pakistan‘s longtime supplier of nuclear technology, including a fourth reactor for producing even more nuclear fuel. Islamabad dug in its heels after the George W. Bush administration persuaded the international community to lift a ban on civilian nuclear trade with India. The ban remains in place for Pakistan. India, unlike Pakistan, isn‘t a serious proliferation risk. Still, the deal was deeply flawed. It did not require India — estimated to have at least 100 nuclear warheads — to halt fissile material production. And now that New Delhi can buy foreign uranium for its power reactors it can husband its domestic uranium for weapons. Islamabad argues that the fissile material ban would further lock in a military advantage for India. Pakistan already has 95 or more deployed nuclear weapons, up from the mid- to high-70s two years ago. It should be less fixated on India and more focused on using scarce resources to educate its children and battle home-grown extremists. Along with the test ban treaty (which the Senate still must ratify), getting countries to stop producing fissile material is essential for curbing the world‘s most lethal weapons. A ban would give the United States and others more leverage to pressure North Korea and Iran to abandon their nuclear efforts. Serious negotiations need to start now. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/opinion/21thu2.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Eurasia Review – Spain OPINION/Analysis FMCT and Indo-Pak Deterrence Stability – Analysis By M. Suleman Shahid April 21, 2011 The majority of countries are currently putting pressure on Pakistan that it should not block negotiations on the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) at the special Ad Hoc Committee – ‗Conference on Disarmament (CD)‘ of the United Nations. The Fissile Material Cut-Off – which if negotiated – would ban the future production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons purposes. The CD is a particular platform of the UN that deals with arms control and disarmament affairs of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). CD has ten important issues related to WMD‘s that it wants to resolve with the consent of all its members. Of the ten issues, CD has been successful in resolving two issues with mutual consensus of all its members. Firstly it banned the use of biological weapons in 1975 which was later termed as ―Biological Weapons Conventions‖. And secondly it banned the use of chemical weapons in 1997 referred to as ‗Chemical Weapons Convention‖. There are 65 members of CD including Pakistan and every member has a right to veto power. All countries have the right to halt the negotiations if the national interests of any member country is targeted. Without consent of any country the negotiation cannot move to the next stage. Presently, the negotiation of a ban on fissile material is continuing on the CD forum. Fissile material can be defined with respect two types of school of thoughts regarding banning on fissile material. The first one gives the idea of FMCT which means the ban on further and future production of nuclear material but does not talk about existing stockpile. All P-5 and other major countries including India are supporters of this thought. The second school of thought, led by Pakistan and also silence support from G- 21 countries talks about Fissile Material Treaty (FMT), which means ban on further and future production as well as to dismantle the existing stockpiles. Pakistan‘s concept of FMT is more relevant to American President Obama‗s mission ―Nuclear Zero‖. But there is no supporter of FMT except from G-21; all major countries have adopted dual and duplicitous policies. The actual purpose of FMCT is to target Pakistan. Presently there are nine nuclear weapons states (NWS) in the world. Among these nine NWS the P-5 namely USA, Russia, UK, France and China have significant and sufficient quantity of nuclear material, and for this reason these countries have almost halted their further production of fissile materials. However, on the other side the remaining four countries are producing fissile material continuously. At present India has twenty nuclear power plants and it is expanding its program after Agreement-123 with USA which it signed in 2005. According to Agreement-123 USA is obliged to provide nuclear technology and its fuel to India. India is portraying to world that it will use imported nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes, but it is also a fact that India can use its indigenous uranium resource for military purposes. Upon this backdrop, India has no objection with FMCT and indeed has expressed it support. Israel also continues producing fissile material production, but it has no concerns with FMCT. This is because firstly Israel has no nuclear rival in Middle East and secondly Israel is American‘s baby. If at any time Israel is in need the USA will provide them all modern warfare technology. To make USA happy Israel is also in favor of FMCT. At present Pakistan has roughly 70 to 80 nuclear weapons as well as sophisticated delivery system i.e. missiles and aircrafts. These nuclear weapons could be enough for nuclear deterrence stability between Indo-Pak contexts, thus if both rivals have same quality and quantity of nuclear weapons and other warfare technology. Stable nuclear deterrence occurs as both sides believe that if anyone initiates war its enemy could inflict the unacceptable damage. But if one rival achieves some advancement in its weapons quality, quantity and modern warfare technology and the other not, then this superiority can enhance the courage of superior rival and the threat of war would be accelerated. In order to keep a stable nuclear deterrence, the quantity of nuclear weapons must be sufficient that can guarantee to inflict desirable damage to enemy by hitting almost all targets in its list. For this purpose, the quantity of nuclear weapons must fulfill following requirements (a) it should be protected from enemy‘s first strike (b) Enemy could not destroy all nuclear missiles in the air through its Anti Ballistic Missiles (ABM) system, some nuclear missiles must be save from ABM system and inflict the unacceptable damage to enemy. (c) In the event of nuclear war, if some nuclear weapons are destroyed in enemy‘s first strike and some are destroyed through ABM; the remaining numbers of nuclear weapons must be sufficient to hit all listed targets on enemy‘s soil. In this regards, if Pakistan is bounded by FMCT then its 70 to 80 nuclear weapons could be less for stable nuclear deterrence, because the major Indian warfare advancements are disturbing the stable nuclear deterrence in the region. Such as, (a) India has developed its ABM system and successfully tested it, which is main factor which has disturbed the deterrence stability in the region. (b) India is working on its nuclear submarine program in order to ensure its nuclear second strike capability and credibility. (c) In 2005, India did agreement-123 with USA for civil nuclear energy, which is also known as Indo-US nuclear deal. Through this deal India can enhance the quantity and quality of nuclear weapons. Recently US President Obama visited to India and gave his consent of inclusion to India in Export Control Regimes i.e. Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG), Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), Australia Group (AU) and Wassenaar Arrangement (WA). The inclusion of India in these four regimes would enable India to enhance its nuclear technology and nuclear weapons quantity and quality, missile technology, chemical and biological weapons and dual use items capabilities respectively. (d) India is working on deployment of its satellite system in space with the assistance of USA and Israel. Through this satellite system India will be enabled to get the capabilities of precise and accurate early warning system such as reconnaissance and surveillance of Pakistan‘s forces maneuvers. (e) India has adopted precarious doctrine ―Cold Start Doctrine‖ according to this doctrine India will attack on Pakistan in 72 to 96 hours and achieve its war objectives without crossing nuclear thresholds. (f) At his time India has twenty nuclear power plants, from which eight are not under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. These eight nuclear power plants are being totally used for military purposes, beside this, according to International Panel for Fissile Material (IPFM) 2010 report currently India has approximately 500 kilogram of plutonium for weapon purposes, enough for 100 nuclear weapons. India is also producing highly enrichment uranium (HEU) for nuclear submarine purpose. (g) Indian presence in Afghanistan and its anti-Pakistan activities are not a hidden story. Prior to this, Pakistan was facing threat from its eastern boarder, now facing from both boarders i.e. western and eastern boarder. Indian consulates are in Afghanistan creating anarchy in Pakistan on one side, meanwhile on the other side these consulates are trying to make Afghanistan powerful against Pakistan. (h) India has intention to work on ‗Blue Water Navy‘. In future, during any crises or war India can do naval blocked of Pakistan through its blue water navy. and Gawadar ports are economic hubs of Pakistan. If India do naval blocked of economic hub of Pakistan, then it would be great loss for Pakistan. (i) According to 2010 report of Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), India is number one arms importer of the world. It is a strange phenomena that the world specifically the major powers are exporting their modern warfare technology and weapons to India and all these factors are disturbing nuclear deterrence stability in the South Asian region. On one side the major powers are playing the orchestra of nuclear disarmament and arms control, however on the other side these powers have adopted a dual and hypocratic policy regarding arms race and proliferation. If one were to do comparative analysis of warfare technology and weapons of Indo-Pak, then one thing is clear that India is far superior in terms of technology. This is because India has ABM system, nuclear submarine program and permission of entry into export control regime. Meanwhile on the other side Pakistan has no ABM system, nor nuclear submarine program. These two factors are deemed very important for nuclear deterrence stability. At this time if the world pressurizes Pakistan in signing FMCT then it will be a big challenge for Pakistan‘s security. Pakistan has given excellent proposal namely Fissile Material Treaty (FMT) alternative of FMCT. This means ‗all existing stockpile of fissile material should be disposed off as well as ban on future production of fissile material‘. This proposal strongly reflects the Obama‘s mission of ‗Nuclear Zero‘. Due to insincere policies of big powers, the plan of disarmament has become only an idealistic theory. The orchestra playing by big powers that first they would take arms control measures (FMCT) and then take measures for disarmament is a thoughtful hypocratic policy and its only purpose is to target Pakistan. Until the world does not treat Pakistan and gives it its due rights, Pakistan must block FMCT, because it is need of time to oppose the FMCT. M. Suleman Shahid is a Research scholar at the Strategic & Nuclear Studies Department, National Defence University Islamabad. http://www.eurasiareview.com/fmct-and-indo-pak-deterrence-stability-analysis-21042011/ (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) – Washington, D.C. OPINION/Special Dispatch No.3778 Pakistani Security Experts Respond to U.S. State Department's Concern over the Security of Pakistani Nuclear Weapons April 21, 2011 Recently, military and international affairs experts in Pakistan criticized Mark C. Toner, the acting spokesman of the U.S. State Department, for his statement expressing concern over likely threats to Pakistani nuclear assets from militant groups. Toner's statement was seen in Pakistan as part of a sustained U.S. campaign to mount pressure on Pakistan. Religious and political leaders in Pakistan have argued recently that the March 17, 2011 U.S. drone attack in the Datta Khel area of North Waziristan, a Taliban and Al-Qaeda sanctuary, was also part of a U.S. campaign to keep up pressure on Pakistan because the drone attack was carried out just a day after Pakistan made a concession to the U.S. by allowing the release of CIA contractor Raymond Davis. The -language Pakistani daily Roznama Ummat interviewed several Pakistani military and foreign affairs commentators to reflect on Mark Toner's statement and the likelihood that the Pakistani nuclear weapons could be targeted by militant groups or India, Israel, and the United States. Among the experts who were interviewed by Roznama Ummat are Hamid Gul, the former chief of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI); Air Chief Marshal (retired) Kaleem Saadat; former Foreign Office Secretary Dr. Tanvir A. Khan; and Shireen Mazari, a strategic affairs commentator, editor, and political leader. In report titled "America May Take the Issue of Pakistani Nuclear Assets to the UN," the Urdu daily noted: "Commentators are of the opinion that Pakistan has improved the technique of safeguarding its nuclear installations in the past five years so much so that Pakistan's command and control system [of its nuclear weapons] is now better than that of the U.S.. According to these experts, if there has been any lapse in the security arrangements of its nuclear assets, those who wish to take action against it would have done their work. But to do so is not possible for anyone." An issue related with Pakistani nuclear program is Pakistan's refusal to allow the UN talks to proceed on a treaty to stop production of plutonium and uranium for nuclear bombs. In recent years, Pakistan has consistently blocked the talks on the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT). Pakistan's Permanent Representative to the UN Disarmament Conference in Geneva, , defended Pakistan's refusal to allow the talks to go ahead, saying that the world powers are engaging in double standards by allowing a nuclear waiver for the India-U.S. nuclear deal. According to a Pakistani media report, Haroon slammed the "duplicitous current focus" on the FMCT issue, stating: "The present focus on FMCT follows a regular pattern of negotiating only those agreements that do not undermine or compromise the security interests of certain states, especially the major powers. We observe this pattern in the Biological Weapons Convention, Chemical Weapons Convention, and even in the CTBT [Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty]."[1] Following are excerpts from the Roznama Ummat report:[2] Hamid Gul: "The U.S.'s Ambitions are Very Clear Regarding Pakistan and Its Nuclear Assets; It Got [General] Ziaul Haq's Aircraft Crashed…; When It Feared that Benazir [Bhutto] Might Rebel, It Got Her Killed as Well" Question: "What is the reason that the Americans have once again launched a campaign of creating doubts and apprehensions against the Pakistani nuclear assets?" Hamid Gul: "The U.S.'s ambitions are very clear regarding Pakistan and its nuclear assets. It got [former military ruler General] Ziaul Haq's aircraft crashed; and when it feared that Benazir [Bhutto] might rebel, it got her killed as well. Their aim behind spreading terrorism across the length and breadth of the country is to weaken Pakistan. The U.S. can take this issue in the UN Security Council to fulfill its nefarious designs." "China is a 'Trump Card' for Us" Question: "What would be the role of China if any such situation comes?" Hamid Gul: "China is a 'trump card' for us in this regard. That is why the U.S. would never achieve success even if it takes the issue of Pakistan's nuclear assets to the UN. But it would not be good if the U.S. is successful in procuring or accessing the nuclear assets by its fake agents." Question: "What could be the reason behind such statements from the U.S. after the release of [CIA contractor] Raymond Davis?" Hamid Gul: "The U.S. expressed its anger by carrying out the drone attack the next day [in Datta Khel area of North Waziristan on March 17] after the release of Raymond Davis; and now it has come up with this statement [of concern over Pakistani nuclear weapons]." Question: "What should be the remedy to these moves in your opinion?" Hamid Gul: "It is imperative that the leadership takes the nation into confidence in this regard. There won't be any dispute if the nation is taken into confidence." Question: "Terrorism is a problem in India too, but why is the U.S. only targeting Pakistan?" Hamid Gul: "In India, terrorism is such a big problem that 2,000 out of 14,000 police stations are in [Maoist] rebels' control. Rebels have control over 20% of Indian territories. In total, separatist revolts are continuing in 14 Indian states. "Similarly, if you look at India with its nuclear installations, you will find that there have been 153 incidents at Indian nuclear installations. But there has come up no such [American] statement regarding India. In fact, Pakistan is their most important target." Air Chief Marshal (retired) Kaleem Saadat: "Perhaps, It was in 1992 Or 1993 When Such Rumors [that India and Israel Attacked a Pakistani Nuclear Site] Surfaced" Question: "Why is the U.S. again making such statements regarding Pakistan's nuclear assets?" Kaleem Saadat: "In my view, it is not a matter to be worried about. In fact, such tactical things come up with the ups and downs in political, diplomatic, and ministerial circles. This is a kind of chess game. "Let's look at it in the context of the latest example of Lockerbie [bombing of 1988]. The U.S. has already received the compensation of the Lockerbie aircraft and the related people have already been released, but the U.S. is raising this issue again. The current U.S. stand regarding Pakistani nuclear assets is nothing new. It has come up several times earlier as well. But, there is no truth in it [concern about the security of Pakistani nuclear assets]." Question: "There has been an air strike attempt on the Pakistani nuclear plant at Kahuta by Israel and India?" Kaleem Saadat: "Perhaps, it was in 1992 or 1993 when such rumors surfaced. If any such thing were possible, then Iran must have come under attack by now because Iran is far behind Pakistan [in its nuclear weapons program]. If it could not be done against Iran, then how could it be possible against Pakistan? Pakistan is an established nuclear power." Question: "Can anyone dare to carry out an air strike [on a Pakistani nuclear site]? Kaleem Saadat: "Theoretically everything is possible, but not at the practical level. In order to do so, one has to look toward other issues and difficulties. If attacking a nuclear installation were so easy, then [North] Korea would have also been attacked." "Pakistani Nuclear Installations Should not Be Taken as… [Town Centers]; Our Security Standards are Extraordinary" Question: "Are Pakistani nuclear installations completely secure from such threats?" Kaleem Saadat: "Nothing could completely be secured. If someone gets mad, then anything could happen. But strategic military actions are taken with wisdom and not with madness. If any country tries to strike at any country or its nuclear weapons, then it should be ready for a retaliatory action in some form?" Question: "What would Pakistan's response be if a country strikes at Pakistani nuclear installations?" Kaleem Saadat: "It would depend on the equation regarding which country is helping whom. But it is difficult to answer this question, as the whole issue is strategic and one cannot divulge one's probable strategy before time. But I must say that Pakistan is not a soft target for anyone. Had it been so, there would have been many incidents [attacks on nuclear sites]." Question: "Would there be any threat to Pakistani nuclear installations with the presence of Americans like Raymond Davis at various places [in Pakistan]?" Kaleem Saadat: "A nuclear installation is not … [an open town center] where anyone can do whatever one wants. That is why I would like to say that Pakistani nuclear installations should not be taken as… [town centers]. Our security standards are extraordinary." Question: "Can Israel and India take any such idiotic action?" Kaleem Saadat: "No, even if anyone thinks in this direction, then it has to consider the risk involved in it. In my view, we will not have any external threat." Dr. Tanvir A. Khan: "The Obama Administration Declared that Pakistani Nuclear Assets are Completely Secure" Question: "What is the reason that the U.S. spokesperson has once again pointed a finger towards Pakistan's nuclear assets?" Tanvir A. Khan: "In fact, whenever they want to pressure Pakistan, they talk about such things. The U.S. has expressed similar concerns earlier as well, but later the Obama administration declared that Pakistani nuclear assets are completely secure." Question: "Why is this brouhaha being started, then?" Tanvir A. Khan: "All are noticing the altered scenario. That is why they have also pushed on that button. One thing is of more importance this time: they were making such revelations through 'leaks' in their media earlier, but this time the acting spokesperson of the U.S. State Department has given the statement. That is why it could be an important signal." Question: "Would there be any threat to the nuclear assets of Pakistan?" Tanvir A. Khan: "Our installations are completely safe and secure. But the U.S. would continue with its pressurizing recourses." Question: "What is the situation in Pakistan now in comparison to the previous security arrangements to the nuclear installations?" Tanvir A. Khan: "In my view, our assets have become more secure in comparison to those five years ago." Analyst Shireen Mazari: "At the Least, the [Nuclear] Command and Control System of Pakistan is Better Than That of the U.S." Question: "The U.S. has once again started its rhetoric about the insecurity of Pakistan's nuclear assets and its falling into the hands of terrorists. After all, what is the reason that the U.S. takes to such campaign from time to time?" Shireen Mazari: "This is an old propaganda [tactic] by the U.S. It brings Pakistan into its target whenever it wants. The fact is that Pakistan is not ready to compromise or accept the U.S. pressure on its nuclear assets. That is why when the U.S. finds its pressure completely ineffective it takes to such types of campaigns." Question: "What are those pressures that the U.S. is trying to exert on Pakistan in relation to the nuclear assets?" Shireen Mazari: "The U.S. is trying to bring Pakistan to agree to a 'cut-off date' as far as preparing its nuclear material is concerned [as part of the proposed FMCT]. The U.S. wants Pakistan to agree to its wishes not to prepare its nuclear program to enhance its nuclear assets after a certain date. But Pakistan is not ready to accept it despite all sorts of U.S. pressure. That is why the U.S. has started this propaganda to exert its pressure." Question: "What is Pakistan's stand in this regard which is not acceptable to the U.S.?" Shireen Mazari: "Pakistan's stand in this regard is that those countries should destroy their nuclear materials first, before making any agreement on the ban on the production of nuclear materials. If it is not done so, then this agreement will be biased in its nature and will not be acceptable to Pakistan. That is why the U.S. would continue to play such a type of political drama as long as Pakistan follows its principled stand of… [blocking the FMCT]." Question: "Pakistan's nuclear assets are completely safe?" Shireen Mazari: "Absolutely safe and they have no threat. If they have been not so safe, then the situation would have been different." Question: "How is the command and control system of Pakistan's nuclear assets compared to other countries?" Shireen Mazari: "At the least, the command and control system of Pakistan is better than that of the U.S. In 2009, an American aircraft B-52 took off with six nuclear bombs and was traceless. It had become a challenge for the concerned U.S/ security institutions and the U.S. Air Force to trace it." Question: "But it was found later?" Shireen Mazari: "Yes it was found, but after being traceless for 12 hours. You can guess about the command and control system of a country whose six nuclear bombs including the fighter aircraft remained traceless for 12 hours. In this way, we may say that any such incident never took place in Pakistan at least and that our command and control System is fully active." Analyst Shireen Mazari: "It is Not Acceptable for… [the U.S.] that a Muslim Country should have Nuclear Capability" Question: "In your opinion, what could be the motive of the U.S. to raise this [nuclear] issue again, in such a situation?" Shireen Mazari: "America is doing this just for political game and creating pressure [on Pakistan]. It is not acceptable for them that a Muslim country should have nuclear capability." Question: "How should Pakistan's response be conveyed to the U.S. in this situation?" Shireen Mazari: "Our Foreign Office should take notice of it and it should ask the U.S. as to why it is talking about such things." Question: "Should the talks be done at the Foreign Office level or should they be done at the level of sensitive institutions [the powerful spy agencies like Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI], which hold talks on bilateral strategic affairs?" Shireen Mazari: "I don't understand as to why our ISI shares [strategic issues] with the CIA when it is the aim and target of the CIA to harm Pakistan." Question: "Do you think that the U.S. agents like Raymond [Davis] who might reach the nuclear installations are secretly present in Pakistan?" Shireen Mazari: "If they could reach [the Pakistani nuclear installations], then the U.S. would not talk like this. They are unsuccessful in their aims. That is why they have to take to such talks to increase pressure." Endnotes: [1] Associated Press of Pakistan (www.app.com.pk), April 5, 2011. [2] Roznama Ummat (Pakistan), March 25, 2011. http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5217.htm (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Pakistan Observer – Pakistan OPINION Friday, April 22, 2011 Rogue CIA Operatives at Large By Sultan M. Hall The saga of rogue CIA operative Raymond Davis is yet to fade from our memories, when another rogue CIA functionary Bruce Riedel is making waves. Raymond Davis had turned rogue and killed three innocent in broad daylight in , causing embarrassment to the CIA and US government. He tried to escape punishment after his arrest under the garb of seeking diplomatic immunity. When Pakistani courts did not buy the plea, President Obama was made to jump in the fray and forced to lie on the subject, to no avail. Ultimately Mr. Davis had to seek reprieve through an Islamic legal provision of paying $2.3 million in compensation (blood money) to the survivors of his victims. The infamous Bruce Riedel, who has been a major detractor of Pakistan‘s nuclear program, is busy weaving tales of allegations that Pakistan Army is playing a double game in the ongoing . Mr. Riedel, who has served donkey years in the CIA, has also assisted at least four US Presidents, advising them on South Asia. He is credited for President Obama‘s latest but failed ―Af-Pak‖ policy too. Mr. Riedel‘s pet story so far has been that Al-Qaeda or Taliban miscreants would steal Pakistan‘s nuclear weapons and use them against the US. Surprisingly, he had numerous takers for this preposterous spin, despite the fact that any literate person would know that nuclear weapons are not golf balls, which you can hide in your pockets, decamp with them and detonate them like hand grenades against a target of choice. Nuclear weapons are a sophisticated system, which necessitate a high caliber of training, education and guidance to be able to operate. Rag tag militia of the Al-Qaeda or Taliban would hardly be expected to assimilate the knowhow and wherewithal to put together such a weapon, let alone detonate it. Additionally, the highly operational Pakistan‘s Nuclear Command Authority, has put in checks and balances to secure the system, screen all personnel and take further precautions by dispersing the nuclear assets, storing the trigger mechanism separately. However these stringent measures are not enough for Bruce Riedel, who continues to chip away at Pakistan‘s defences. Another anomaly of Mr. Riedel‘s character is his obsession with India. He has been canvassing for India, indulging in the character assassination of Pakistan, its Army and its intelligence agency ISI for decades. Since the Mumbai attacks of November 2008, Mr. Riedel has taken up the cudgels on behalf of India and has tried to implicate Pakistan by hook or crook. Just after the Mumbai attacks, in an interview with German daily, ―Der Spiegel‖, Mr. Riedel commented: ―I have said on many occasions that Pakistan is the most dangerous country in the world: International terrorism, nuclear proliferation, the threat of nuclear war, drugs, democracy deficit and Islam all come together in an extraordinarily combustible way.‖. He tried his best to pass a value judgment on Pakistan‘s complicity without providing any supporting evidence: ―Back in the late 1980s, bin Laden and the Pakistani intelligence service ISI were actively involved in the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. They wanted to apply the lessons they learned in fighting the Soviets against the Indians. They created Lashkar-e-Taiba. Osama bin Laden was engaged in supporting them by helping to raise money and by training them.‖ Now suddenly, Mr. Bruce Riedel has had a ―visitation of angels‖, who have informed him that President Zardari has ―accused‖ the Pakistan Army, which according to him covertly supports the 2008 Mumbai attacks perpetrator Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), is playing a double game in the ongoing war on terror. Mr. Riedel goes to the extent of claiming that he has an ―abundance of evidence to back him up.‖ In an article, published in ―Newsweek‖, Bruce Riedel says that the Lashkar-e-Taiba, the terror group that attacked the Indian financial capital of Mumbai in 2008, killing 164 people, today, continues to enjoy Pakistan Army‘s patronage. To prove his point, he surmises that Director General of the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha has even been summoned by a New York City court to answer charges that the ISI oversaw the Mumbai attack. If only Mr. Riedel had stopped to ponder that CIA Director Leon Panetta and former CIA Head in Pakistan, Jonathan Banks, have also been summoned in Pakistani courts after a FATA journalist Karim Khan had named the duo in a law suit for targeting his brother and nephew in drone attacks. Jonathan Banks has since then beat a hasty retreat to USA to avoid facing the charges against him. If mere lawsuits were enough to be quoted as evidence, then the prisons of the world would be brimming with convicts. Thank God the judicial systems of most of the civilized world are not that unsighted. Bruce Riedel has tried to hatch a very macabre conspiracy in trying to drive a wedge between President Zardari and the Pakistan Army. Tensions between Islamabad and Washington have reached a feverish pitch but the line being towed by Bruce Riedel on behalf of his mentors and manipulators of his strings, sitting in Langley as well as Foggy Bottom is to create misunderstanding between Pakistan Army and the Presidency, which will have very explosive results for Capitol Hill. What his myopic stage-managers are unmindful of is that the people of Pakistan, the parliamentarians as well as those in the Opposition and the Armed Forces of Pakistan are on one page as far as the war against terror is concerned. It is the US State Department, Capitol Hill and Islamabad, who need to have unity of thought towards tackling the Al-Qaeda and Taliban. Heaping accusations and hurling expletives at the only country which holds the key to peace, Pakistan will only embolden and empower the terror groups and weaken the coalition to combat terror. In Bruce Riedel‘s own words: there will be only one real winner: al-Qaeda; Obama‘s goal to ―disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaeda‖ will become an ever-more-distant possibility. So who is Mr. Riedel really serving? http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=87907 (Return to Articles and Documents List)