So, Conservatives, do we invade Pakistan now?

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Interesting dilemma we may soon face, considering the rhetoric used by the administration. Clearly, if Kahn provided Libya, Iraq/Saddam and North Korea (remember the axis of evil focus?) with nuclear materials and know-how, we should take an aggressive stance, considering our recent alliance with India. All things considered, where does this all end? This is the slippery slope that needs to be faced by those that support, um blowing up all bad guys and their supporters, I guess.

Pakistan Expanding Nuclear Program

Plant Underway Could Generate Plutonium for 40 to 50 Bombs a Year, Analysts Say

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 24, 2006; A01

Pakistan has begun building what independent analysts say is a powerful new reactor for producing plutonium, a move that, if verified, would signal a major expansion of the country's nuclear weapons capabilities and a potential new escalation in the region's arms race.

Satellite photos of Pakistan's Khushab nuclear site show what appears to be a partially completed heavy-water reactor capable of producing enough plutonium for 40 to 50 nuclear weapons a year, a 20-fold increase from Pakistan's current capabilities, according to a technical assessment by Washington-based nuclear experts.

The construction site is adjacent to Pakistan's only plutonium production reactor, a modest, 50-megawatt unit that began operating in 1998. By contrast, the dimensions of the new reactor suggest a capacity of 1,000 megawatts or more, according to the analysis by the Institute for Science and International Security. Pakistan is believed to have 30 to 50 uranium warheads, which tend to be heavier and more difficult than plutonium warheads to mount on missiles.

"South Asia may be heading for a nuclear arms race that could lead to arsenals growing into the hundreds of nuclear weapons, or at minimum, vastly expanded stockpiles of military fissile material," the institute's David Albright and Paul Brannan concluded in the technical assessment, a copy of which was provided to The Washington Post.

The assessment's key judgments were endorsed by two other independent nuclear experts who reviewed the commercially available satellite images, provided by Digital Globe, and supporting data. In Pakistan, officials would not confirm or deny the report, but a senior Pakistani official, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged that a nuclear expansion was underway.

"Pakistan's nuclear program has matured. We're now consolidating the program with further expansions," the official said. The expanded program includes "some civilian nuclear power and some military components," he said.

The development raises fresh concerns about a decades-old rivalry between Pakistan and India. Both countries already possess dozens of nuclear warheads and a variety of missiles and other means for delivering them.

Pakistan, like India, has never signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. One of its pioneering nuclear scientists, Abdul Qadeer Khan, who confessed two years ago to operating a network that supplied nuclear materials and know-how to Libya, Iran and North Korea.

The evidence of a possible escalation also comes as Congress prepares to debate a controversial nuclear cooperation agreement between the Bush administration and India. The agreement would grant India access to sensitive U.S. nuclear technology in return for placing its civilian nuclear reactors under tighter safeguards.

No such restrictions were placed on India's military nuclear facilities. India currently has an estimated 30 to 35 nuclear warheads based on a sophisticated plutonium design. Pakistan, which uses a simpler, uranium-based warhead design, has sought for years to modernize its arsenal, and a new heavy-water reactor could allow it to do so, weapons experts say.

"With plutonium bombs, Pakistan can fully join the nuclear club," said a Europe-based diplomat and nuclear expert, speaking on condition that he not be identified by name, after reviewing the satellite evidence. He concurred with the Institute for Science and International Security assessment but offered a somewhat lower estimate -- "up to tenfold" -- for the increase in Pakistan's plutonium production. A third, U.S.-based expert concurred fully with the institute's estimates.

Pakistan launched its nuclear program in the early 1970s and conducted its first successful nuclear test in 1998.

The completion of the first, 50-megawatt plutonium production reactor in Pakistan's central Khushab district was seen as a step toward modernizing the country's arsenal. The reactor is capable of producing about 10 kilograms of plutonium a year, enough for about two warheads.

Construction of the larger reactor at Khushab apparently began sometime in 2000. Satellite photos taken in the spring of 2005 showed the frame of a rectangular building enclosing what appeared to be the round metal shell of a large nuclear reactor. A year later, in April 2006, the roof of the structure was still incomplete, allowing an unobstructed view of the reactor's features.

"The fact that the roof is still off strikes me as a sign that Pakistan is neither rushing nor attempting to conceal," said Albright of the institute.

The slow pace of construction could suggest difficulties in obtaining parts, or simply that other key facilities for plutonium bomb-making are not yet in place, the institute report concludes. Pakistan would probably need to expand its capacity for producing heavy water for its new reactor, as well as its ability to reprocess spent nuclear fuel to extract the plutonium, the report says.

After comparing a sequence of satellite photos, the institute analysts estimated that the new reactor was still "a few years" from completion. The diameter of the structure's metal shell suggests a very large reactor "operating in excess of 1,000 megawatts thermal," the report says.

"Such a reactor could produce over 200 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium per year, assuming it operates at full power a modest 220 days per year," it says. "At 4 to 5 kilograms of plutonium per weapon, this stock would allow the production of over 40 to 50 nuclear weapons a year."

There was no immediate reaction to the report from the Bush administration. Albright said he shared his data with government nuclear analysts, who did not dispute his conclusions and appeared to already know about the new reactor.

"If there's an increasing risk of an arms race in South Asia, why hasn't this already been introduced into the debate?" Albright asked. He said the Pakistani development adds urgency to calls for a treaty halting the production of fissile material used in nuclear weapons.

"The United States needs to push more aggressively for a fissile material cut-off treaty, and so far it has not," he said.

Special correspondent Kamran Khan in Karachi, Pakistan, and researcher Alice Crites in Washington contributed to this report.

?*2006*The Washington Post Company
 

SixFive

bonswa
Forum Member
Mar 12, 2001
18,739
245
63
54
BG, KY, USA
I wouldn't be for that. I think the Pakistanis and Indians have been fighting since the dawn of man, and they always will. Isn't there still some big territory in dispute; I think it's called Kashmir?? Hopefully, the Indians can keep them in check.
 

Terryray

Say Parlay
Forum Member
Dec 6, 2001
9,601
1,570
113
Kansas City area for who knows how long....
Nuclear proliferation experts say that Pakistan is the one they worry about most.

The present goverment there is ok, works with us and fairly rational. But could change in blink to something far worse.

Nutcases could easlily come to power there, with a store of nuclear weapons already and better ones in pipeline----all the while screaming suicide and death to infidels.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
c`mon chad....we`re trying...almost singlehandedly...to try and keep nukes out of the hands of the despots and islamofascists.....

we`re getting absolutely no help from the france`s,russia`s,chinese et al.....europe,with the exception of britain,couldn`t be bothered....

the u.n. runs interference.....

shouldn`t the question be,"why the hell is the rest of the world asleep on the job?"...

and in cases like france,russia and pre-merkel germany,literally helping monsters like saddam acquire nuclear weapons?....

that`s precisely the kind of shortsightedness that led to ww2.....

i`ll bet the french,in their infinite wisdom,never figured that radical islamist youth would be burning their own french cities.....

the difference between iraq/iran.n.korea and pakistan?.....

under musharaf,pakistan isn`t threatening us..or our democratic allies japan or israel....and it isn`t trying to control the oil rich middle east....or the straits of hormuz.....

i agree,they can...and apparently have(at least khan has),passed some technology along.....

but,we have to tread lightly,as to not undermine our ally musharaf.....

as was said in another panel,he goes,things could get dicey....

i say again...where is the rest of the world?
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Bush visited with there president said all was a OK don't worry.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
gardenweasel said:
the difference between iraq/iran.n.korea and pakistan?.....


lol- <sigh>..... Iraq had no active nuclear program whatsoever. Nothing. No nuke program at all. Throw them in there though with the others.

They had a reactor taken out by Israel 25 years ago in Osirak. Let it go, my man, for the love of God.

They had NOTHING!
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
GW, maybe the rest of the world is doing nothing because they don't feel they have to as long as Bush is at the helm. We are chasing our arses all over this globe, throwing threats, money, soldiers and firepower at anything that looks like a terra-rist or a fash-ist. And many people that don't, sadly. And how do we fund our global police force? By borrowing from exactly the people that pose real threats to us in the future. Why would China do anything to stop things the way they are right now? They have us right where they want us...spread thin militarily and financially, mortgaged to the gills, and they hold the mortgage. The Bush administration mouths off about their government before he shows up there for meetings, and every other government that doesn't fall in line with our agenda. You can't trash the entire world verbally, and expect them to want to help you out now or later.

You talk about undermining our "ally" Mushariff. What kind of message did it send to him when we partnered up with India in working with them to escalate and improve their nuclear capabilities? What happens if those two countries blow up into a conflict, which is entirely possible? Is he still gonna be our ally?

Trust me, I am not advocating anything strongly towards Pakistan. I am merely pointing out the folley of the Bush administration and his foreign "policy." He says we have to fight terrorism and stop the spread of nuclear proliferation worldwide. And then he picks and chooses when to act - which in the case of many presidents has been done in a prudent manner. Bush has us so strewn out now that nothing makes much sense any more. Thus, my slippery slope comment he is so fond of.
 

Dead Money

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 15, 2005
4,350
64
0
Upstairs watching sports on the big TV.
The parallels to the fall of Rome

The parallels to the fall of Rome

are firmly in place.

We have not quite yet seen the epoch of U.S. influence in the world, but it is close at hand.

We are militarily spread so thin, produce nothing but attorneys, and we are being assimilated by minorities....there is only one direction left...DOWN


and next in line to further our demise.....Hillary


WE BE FUC*ED
 

ctownguy

Life is Good
Forum Member
Jul 27, 2000
3,065
16
0
SoCal
Dead Money said:
are firmly in place.

We have not quite yet seen the epoch of U.S. influence in the world, but it is close at hand.

We are militarily spread so thin, produce nothing but attorneys, and we are being assimilated by minorities....there is only one direction left...DOWN


and next in line to further our demise.....Hillary


WE BE FUC*ED
:142smilie :mj07:
 

SixFive

bonswa
Forum Member
Mar 12, 2001
18,739
245
63
54
BG, KY, USA
Dead Money said:
and we are being assimilated by minorities....there is only one direction left...DOWN


assimilated?? what do you think minorities are like, the Borg or something. What will your minority name be? Jean Luc's name was Locutus. They could change yours to Assberg, and you could live in a Jewish neighborhood after the change??
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
SixFive said:
assimilated?? what do you think minorities are like, the Borg or something. What will your minority name be? Jean Luc's name was Locutus. They could change yours to Assberg, and you could live in a Jewish neighborhood after the change??
Actually, Dead Money is right. I got assimilated by a damn lawyer my first week on the forum, new name being Saul. He might be onto something. I thought it was harmless at the time, but it well could be part of a large Jew-minority conspiracy. .....If one of the other 'darker' minorities gives me a name, then the hybrid conversion would be complete. All signs of my Northwestern European heritage will be gone.

Sincerely,
Flosaul Ayanbadejo :sadwave:
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
kosar said:
lol- <sigh>..... Iraq had no active nuclear program whatsoever. Nothing. No nuke program at all. Throw them in there though with the others.

They had a reactor taken out by Israel 25 years ago in Osirak. Let it go, my man, for the love of God.

They had NOTHING!


hey,one note charlie......broaden your horizons a bit.......z`at possible?

you don`t know for a fact that saddam had nothing....you know that nothing was there after he was given years to hide and obfuscate by the u.n.....

we have iraqi generals saying that these weapons were sent to syria.....possibly even the becah valley...

it`s interesting to note that hizbollah leader nasrallah said that if israel moves near the beacah valley,they`ll have a few nasty surprises waiting for them....

maybe "just" chemical weapons?....

the point is,(why bother),that saddam was a big??....even moron`s realize that u.n. resolution after u.n. resolution...all the attempted inspections(at least the ones that saddam allowed)....20 years of obfuscation....and practically every major nation`s intelligence apparatus indicated that saddam was trying ti reconstitute his program....

who do you believe?...the kgb,the mossad,british intelligence...every weatern intel agency...and some non-western ones?....or just roll the dice....

if not,then why didn`t he come clean?...to save his own ass...and his regime?...

he had nothing to hide,but was willing to be deposed....for what?..to hide what?....

he had nothing to hide...yet,he gave up everything?....

can you answer that?.....please do...why didn`t saddam come clean if he had nothing to hide?...

""Let's look at the record. The single most important document that reflects the conclusion of all 15 intelligence agencies of our government was the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq of October 2002. This report stated that "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons, as well as missiles with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions, and, if left unchecked will probably have a nuclear weapon this decade." No equivocation there. The report justified this conclusion by observing that since the U.N. inspectors left in 1998, "Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons," and "under the cover of civil production, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons' program." The 15-agency conclusion was one of "high confidence." CIA Director George Tenet, according to the book by Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, dramatized this judgment by telling the president that the case on Iraq's possession and pursuit of banned weapons was a "slam dunk."

Unanimous. But this was not only the assessment of our intelligence agencies. Virtually every western intelligence service reached the very same conclusion. So did all the major media between 1998 and 2001--including the Washington Post , the New York Times, and U.S. News. So did the most senior officials of the Clinton administration. In a conversation I had with President Clinton, just before the Iraq invasion, his concern was not whether or not Saddam had WMD but that a war seeking regime change would provide the pretext for him to use them. Add to this the fact that Saddam had sacrificed over $120 billion in oil revenues to U.N. sanctions, presumably to protect his secret weapons programs.""


even clinton?......lol..check some of kerry`s comments....schumer`s....this was o.k....as long as a dem. was in the w.h.....

but,in your mind,it was a bush/rove plot...not an attempt to rid the middle east of it`s most disruptive regime for over 2 decades....

i get you,kosar...guys like you like to fantasize that you are brave rebels,living in an orwellian police state....

i`m sure that rove`s portly shadow glides across your bedroom walls at night.....
 
Last edited:

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
the difference between iraq/iran.n.korea and pakistan?.....

You are lumping Iraq in with other nuclear/possibly near nuclear powers.

Nobody contended that Saddam had nukes or was anywhere near aquiring nukes. Not Schumer, Clinton, Kerry, Bush, Pelosi, Wolfowitz or anybody else.

Everybody thought he had chemical and possibly bio weapons. Big difference there, my man.

Syria has been known(by their own admission) to have chemical weapons for about 2 decades, but I can see where this is going. If Hezbollah uses chems, then it will be 'obvious' that they were Saddams. Hey, that's where they went!

The CIA, the bi-partisan 9/11 commission and everybody else has concluded that Saddam had not had a nuke, chem or bio program since 1991, at the latest. Period.

Regarding whether he had aging, deteriorated crap that we gave him from the 1980's, I really don't give a shit either way.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
KOSAR......"Nobody contended that Saddam had nukes or was anywhere near aquiring nukes. Not Schumer, Clinton, Kerry, Bush, Pelosi, Wolfowitz or anybody else."


""." No equivocation there. The report justified this conclusion by observing that since the U.N. inspectors left in 1998, "Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons, energized its ""missile program"", and invested more heavily in biological weapons," and ""under the cover of civil production, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons' program."" The 15-agency conclusion was one of "high confidence."

""So did the most senior officials of the Clinton administration. In a conversation I had with President Clinton, just before the Iraq invasion, his concern was not whether or not Saddam had WMD but that a war seeking regime change would provide the pretext for him to use them.""

slight contradiction,there,boy-o....


WAS CLINTON BLOWING SMOKE?


he was ordered to dismantle ALL wmd weapons and programs...and account for everything to u.n. inspectors.....ALL wmd`s...ALL!!!

ask the kurds about chemical and biological weapons...you seem to pooh pooh them...like they don`t count...

the u.n. ordered SADDAM to disarm..not other nations with wmd`s.....

why?....maybe beacuse he was extremely dangerous to the stability of the region?...ya` think?

like the ukraine and south africa did.....without incident....


but,he didn`t...he was crazy...but not stupid...

WHY??.....WHY?????
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Back to Kurds from how many years ago. Was it what we gave him? Did it have anything to do with war with Iran. Now half of Iraq loves Iran thanks to us. I forget what our mission in Iraq was it changed so many times as false info kept coming out of there.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
Same broken record so many of these threads devolve into. Gardenweasel - Do you actualy read anything Kosar writes, or do you just see his name and then put down a formula respoonse that refuses to address his timeline of FACTS.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
i addressed his "point',saul.......there`s never more than"saddam had no wmd`s".......so,i automatically know what to respond to when i see the moniker"kosar".....

i`m just responding...for maybe the 25th time....to the complete issue.... that saddam ignored u.n. resolutions...that wmd`s aren`t just "nukes".....

that even though other nation`s have chemical weapons,saddam was mandated to disarm...by the world community.....openly...and publicly...and to account for all weapons programs and arms....

he didn`t....

if he were totally disarmed...why didn`t he just come clean...and save his regime?...it is beyond comprehension....

it`s like a cop asking you,"do you have any weapons in your car?"....you don`t....but you say,"maybe,maybe not".....and then you fight the cop as he tries to look in the vehicle....(that does sound like you,though, smurph..lol)

common sense...

btw...kosar....why have i been deleted from your signature line?....i`m highly offended... :shrug:
 
Last edited:

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
gardenweasel said:
i addressed his "point',saul.......there`s never more than"saddam had no wmd`s".......so,i automatically know what to respond to when i see the moniker"kosar".....


Bullshit. My point has always been that it didn't matter if he had WMD from the 80's. A lot of countries have them and the costs do not equal the non-threat that Saddam posed, WMD or not.

For you to say that all I post is 'Saddam had no WMD' is ignorant and clearly shows that you don't actually read the posts, as Saul mentions.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
gardenweasel said:
i addressed his "point',saul.......there`s never more than"saddam had no wmd`s".......so,i automatically know what to respond to when i see the moniker"kosar".....

i`m just responding...for maybe the 25th time....to the complete issue.... that saddam ignored u.n. resolutions...that wmd`s aren`t just "nukes".....

that even though other nation`s have chemical weapons,saddam was mandated to disarm...by the world community.....openly...and publicly...and to account for all weapons programs and arms....

he didn`t....

if he were totally disarmed...why didn`t he just come clean...and save his regime?...it is beyond comprehension....

it`s like a cop asking you,"do you have any weapons in your car?"....you don`t....but you say,"maybe,maybe not".....and then you fight the cop as he tries to look in the vehicle....(that does sound like you,though, smurph..lol)

common sense...

btw...kosar....why have i been deleted from your signature line?....i`m highly offended... :shrug:


I guess i'll pull a 'Bryanz' here and respond consecutively.

UN resolutions? People like yourself dismiss out of hand the UN and then out of the other side of your mouth point to UN 'resolutions' and say, HEY, THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW THE UN RESOLUTIONS! THAT'S A LEGITIMATE ORGANIZATION THAT EVERYBODY NEEDS TO ABIDE BY!!

Israel leads the league in ignored UN resolutions, BTW.

And this is worth a half trillion dollars and 2500 hundred troops lives? And 17,000 maimed. Just so far. Please.

On your other question, my signature changes often, depending on the situation on the ground.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top