EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Admiral Mullen: Pakistan Nukes Are Secure, I'm 'Gravely Concerned' About Taliban

MATTHEW LEE and LOLITA C. BALDOR   05/ 4/09 08:28 PM ET   AP

Pakistan Us

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama will seek assurances this week from Pakistani President Asif Ali Zadari that his country's nuclear arsenal is safe and that Pakistan's military intends to face down Taliban extremists in coordination with Afghanistan and the United States, U.S. officials said Monday.

Although the administration thinks Pakistan's nuclear weapons are secure for the moment, concern that militants might try to seize one or several of them is acute. Those anxieties heightened amid the Taliban's recent advances and American worry about the commitment from Pakistan's government and military in battling the extremists, the officials said.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Monday that questions about the safety of Pakistan's nuclear weapons will likely come up at the talks with the south Asian nation's leaders. Other U.S. officials said the matter would definitely be on the table.

"I don't doubt that that will be mentioned," Gibbs said.

Gibbs said that "the security of nuclear weapons in Pakistan and the security of nuclear material throughout the world is something that the president thinks is of the highest priority."

Officials said the situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan will be discussed Tuesday at a National Security Council meeting at the White House. Senior officials involved in intelligence, foreign policy and defense will be in attendance, officials said.

Prominent among U.S. worries is the possibility that extremist sympathizers in Pakistan's military or intelligence services could tip off militants to the movement of nuclear weapons from their current guarded locations.

The administration feels that if the weapons are moved, it could be a real problem, said a senior official familiar with U.S. policy in South Asia. The official and other unnamed U.S. officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the upcoming talks.

The Pentagon's top military officer, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, told reporters Monday that he was comfortable about the current security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. But he demurred when asked if he was confident in their continuing safety.

He noted that the U.S. has worked with the Pakistanis to improve the security of their nuclear arsenal and he believes that country's military is focused on keeping them secure.

"I know what we've done over the last three years, specifically, to both invest, assist (Pakistan), and I've watched them improve their security fairly dramatically over the last three years," Mullen said.

Fears that Zardari's government could crumble have tempered but officials said extremist infiltration of the military and intelligence services could compromise the safety of nuclear weapons.

A U.S. counterproliferation official said there was no sign that Pakistan's nuclear weapons have been compromised, "it makes sense to send a strong message to the Pakistanis that they need to take a close look at even the most minor of potential vulnerabilities."

Pakistan's ambassador to the United States Husain Haqqani said the administration should have no fears.

"They know we have an effective command and control system in place and that our safety standards are the same as other nuclear capable countries," he told The Associated Press, adding that: "at no stage have Pakistan's nuclear weapons been unsafe."

Mullen, meanwhile, cautioned that he remained "gravely concerned" about the Pakistan military's ability to sustain operations inside Pakistan and in the border areas.

"The consequences of their success directly threaten our national interests in the region and our safety here at home," Mullen said.

Obama and Zardari will meet, along with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, at the White House on Wednesday as U.S. officials host the leaders and their top security and diplomatic aides for two days of talks in an effort to beat back what has become one of the administration's most troubling foreign policy challenges.

In those sessions, U.S. officials said they will make clear that they want to see sustained and concerted action against extremists in the vein that the Pakistani military took last week after the Taliban moved to within 60 miles of the capital.

"I think the Pakistan government and military have received the message," State Department spokesman Robert Wood told reporters. "However, that message continues to need to be reinforced."

Complicating attempts to better coordination between the three countries are Zardari's own internal weaknesses _ that have led U.S. officials to consider trying to broker a power-sharing deal between him and opposition leader Nawaz Sharif _ as well as Karzai's uncertain status and choice of a vice presidential running mate in elections set for August.

Karzai on Monday selected Mohammad Qasim Fahim _ a powerful warlord accused of numerous human rights violations and corruption _ as his running mate, in a move the U.S. administration feels is problematic, the senior official said.

U.S. officials say success in the Afghanistan war is linked to security in Pakistan and stability and development in both nations.

Part of this week's meetings will focus on setting benchmarks for economic, political and military progress in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Such progress will be threatened if either government loses credibility with their people.

___

Associated Press writers Pamela Hess and Pauline Jelinek contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama will seek assurances this week from Pakistani President Asif Ali Zadari that his country's nuclear arsenal is safe and that Pakistan's military intends to fac...
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama will seek assurances this week from Pakistani President Asif Ali Zadari that his country's nuclear arsenal is safe and that Pakistan's military intends to fac...
Filed by Katharine Zaleski  | 
 
  • Comments
  • 77
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
09:35 PM on 05/04/2009
This is what happens when you make a defeatist and appeaser President of the United States. Obama's done nothing but apologize and try to personally woo people and he is in turn, the privagte laughing stock of the world. Now we're stuck with a man who's got 100 days of experience leading anything, and a whole team of burned out hippies as his staff. Even Bob Gates can't fix this one.
07:12 PM on 05/04/2009
Obama: hey Zadari, got those nukes taken care of?

Zadari: Yep, no problem buddy, you got nothing to worry about.

Obama: Ok, great

BOOM
06:53 PM on 05/04/2009
He might have said, "if I knew where the nukes were and could inspect the security procedures around them, I would be able to assess the efficacy of their security." But, what the heck, don't want to make the public nervous so just say, "I'm comfortabl­e about their current security." Afterall, if anything happens, it will be later and he was speaking about "current." Buck up Admiral and call it straight!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
punk
There is no 'beyond left & right'
06:36 PM on 05/04/2009
The Taliban is not a threat to the USA. They are merely the latest "weapons of mass destructio­n" that everybody'­s supposed to be afraid of...

http://www­.foreignaf­fairs.com/­articles/6­4932/john-­mueller/ho­w-dangerou­s-are-the-­taliban
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
diak0n0s
" . . but the wise shall understand" Daniel 12:10
08:51 PM on 05/04/2009
Why then, has the President escalated our military action, rather than bringing home our troops?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
diak0n0s
" . . but the wise shall understand" Daniel 12:10
06:12 PM on 05/04/2009
Strangly, we aren't seeing President Obama's name being mentioned in any of this??

He IS Commander in Chief after all.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RealPlumber
06:20 PM on 05/04/2009
Not to be a smarta$$ but the first three words "President Barack Obama", am I missing something here?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RealPlumber
06:39 PM on 05/04/2009
"President Barack Obama" words 1, 2 &3.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
diak0n0s
" . . but the wise shall understand" Daniel 12:10
08:49 PM on 05/04/2009
Actually, I was referring to the comment section.
03:00 AM on 05/05/2009
Ohhh.....l­ook at these guys being all respectful of the old guy.There'­s hope for this world after all
photo
Amunaka
It's a long long road to....
05:51 PM on 05/04/2009
Right....P­akistan nukes secure ....

Never did trust Pakistan..­.



Pakistan Frees Nuclear Dealer in Snub to U.S.

February 6, 2009

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A Pakistani court freed one of the most successful nuclear proliferat­ors in history, Abdul Qadeer Khan, from house arrest on Friday, lifting the restrictio­ns imposed on him since 2004 when he publicly confessed to running an illicit nuclear network.

Mr. Khan, 73, considered in the West as a rogue scientist and a pariah who sold technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran, is revered as a national hero in Pakistan for his role in transformi­ng the country into a nuclear power.

http://www­.nytimes.c­om/2009/02­/07/world/­asia/07kha­n.html?_r=­1
05:17 PM on 05/04/2009
Just wondering if a couple warheads were stolen by some extremist members of the religion of peace, would it be okay to torture them for intel before the bombs arrived in London or New York and went boom?

I know, these 24 type scenarios never happen in real life. I feel safe knowing that the corrupt Pakistani government and the (enemy infiltrate­d) military are looking after the situation.
05:23 PM on 05/04/2009
No, because terrorists have rights. The rest of us don't, since the terrorists never signed any Bill of Rights for us.

Therefore, when a civilized country fights an uncivilize­d enemy, we have to fight by Marquis-of­-Queensbur­y rules, and they can fight as dirty as they want.

Why? Because Liberals tell us so.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:26 PM on 05/04/2009
Well Admiral, perhaps you will revisit the idea of flying unmanned drones into Pakistani territory and blowing up civilian houses with them.

At some point even the military must realize that it is pointless to try and kill militants one-by-one when these missle attacks simply enable them to recruit better.

Why are we playing right into the polital goals of the Taliban?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:13 PM on 05/04/2009
They have the nukes but I doubt they are functional without US input/code­s/whatever­, if they are then we are n uts for letting them have them
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mdlawyer2
04:53 PM on 05/04/2009
We didn't let them have them. They are a sovereign nation and developed them on their own (probably with the assistance of China).
11:25 PM on 05/04/2009
Please explain your comments concerning the US "letting them have them". A little unbiased research will demonstrat­e that China & North Korea provided everything Pakistan needed to develop their nuclear program, everything from weapons design, centrifuge design, and even missiles and missile technology­.
03:35 PM on 05/04/2009
Pakistan having nukes is like a chimp with a loaded gun... you don't know what's gonna happen and it's scary as hell.
04:13 PM on 05/06/2009
The chimp got the gun to keep the snake(indi­a) out of his yard.
03:09 PM on 05/04/2009
Grave concern? SOLUTION:

WEAPONS OF MASS CONSTRUCTI­ON: Hand held, high speed, internet device such as the I-phone

Problem solved, sleep well admiral.
03:07 PM on 05/04/2009
When Admiral Mullen says the nukes are secure, that's when you want to run in the other direction. Who are they trying to fool? He has no clue to what is happening in Pakistan. And Obama doesn't even know where Pakistan is located on the map. A kid in 5th grade has a better solution to Pakistan, then these two bozos!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:06 PM on 05/04/2009
Ok, do they have the keys to the nukes? I mean the front door key.
04:08 PM on 05/04/2009
lol
11:29 PM on 05/04/2009
If you mean the Taliban having the "keys" to the nuclear weapons storage facilities­, the answer is no or probably not. The Taliban and others are however and have been reportedly targeting the known storage facilities with suicide bombings and attempted entry onto the sites.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:06 PM on 05/04/2009
There's one name that seems to be missing from any discussion about extremists and Pakistan's nukes....I­ndia

It seems to me that India would be the easiest target should they fall into extremist hands.
03:26 PM on 05/04/2009
Also Pakistani citizens, themselves­, would be in danger too. The Pak Army will not hesitate to use it in its own soil - with the help of their friends The Taliban.
04:12 PM on 05/04/2009
Oh really? How do you know that? The only nation to use nukes is the USA....are you saying our GOP whackos would nuke California or the rest of the Liberal West? Pakistan respects human life just as much as the wing nuts....ma­ybe more....
07:18 PM on 05/04/2009
GlenRast -

And we cut a deal (Bush) to supply India with nuclear fuel for power so they can use their reprocessi­ng for weapons.

And we wonder why Pakistan is paranoid about India.
11:42 PM on 05/04/2009
In 1998, Pakistan & India tested nuclear weapons and since then, deployed ballistic missiles, enunciated nuclear doctrine, and made organizati­onal changes to their nuclear establishm­ents. India began its nuclear program shortly after independen­ce in 1947. After a humiliatin­g defeat in a border war with China in 1962, followed by China’s first nuclear test in 1964, the drive for nuclear weapons intensifie­d. The 1974 test of a “peaceful nuclear device” was an important milestone, but it took several more years to develop a nuclear weapons capability­. Simultaneo­usly, India developed a nuclear infrastruc­ture that supported both civilian and military purposes.
Pakistan’s nuclear program dates back to the 1950s, but it was the humiliatin­g loss
of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh­) that reportedly triggered a political decision in January 1972 (just one month later) to begin a crash nuclear weapons program.

Both countries have had a nuclear program for many years and weapons in inventory long before the Bush / India nuclear fuel agreement. I will be happy to provide links on demand.
02:48 PM on 05/04/2009
The name of the game for bin Laden is less about random battlefiel­ds, and more to do with finding a country with a nuclear arsenal and then taking it over (if such a country appears on the horizon) - as opposed to focusing on efforts to come directly at the U.S. And having the Taliban as their wolf in non-al Queda clothing (aka "sheep's clothing") going after control of Pakistan would fit in perfectly with such a scenario. I don't see this all as just another one of the countless battlefiel­ds on which the U.S. faces terrorists­. I think this is the MAIN EVENT. And I don't know that a wait-and-s­ee approach regarding whether Pakistan can defend itself is appropriat­e when so much is at stake, horrible as it would be to engage with the Taliban there with or without Pakistan's acquiesanc­e. I know we would alienate many neutral Arabic citizens, but look at the stakes, and look at Pakistan's recent history regarding an impotent response to spreading nuclear secrets and being neutral towards the Taliban.
03:32 PM on 05/04/2009
Our special forces and CIA are over there protecting the nukes. Obama knows this so not sure what this article is all about.