A Nuclear-Armed Pakistan Teeters on the Edge

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto and the intensification of the political crisis in Pakistan at the end of the year brings into sharp relief our most immediate nuclear threat. It comes not from Iraq or Iran, but Pakistan. With an unstable military ruler, enough material for 50 to 100 nuclear bombs, strong Islamic fundamentalist influences in the country and armed, Islamic fundamentalist groups--including Al Qaeda--operating with its territory, Pakistan is the most dangerous country on earth. The nuclear weapons and material are believed secure for now, but increased instability could split the military or distract the units guarding the weapon materials, providing an opening for a raid by an organized radical group.

For all the focus on Iraq and Iran over the past six years, it is in Pakistan that Osama bin Ladin may have his best chance of getting the nuclear weapon we know he wants.

Read more reactions from HuffPost bloggers on Benazir Bhutto's assassination

Follow Joe Cirincione on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Cirincione

Comments

[comments]

01:18 PM on 12/28/2007

Mushraff is the CEO of Terrorist Inc. in an Armani Suite. He pretends to have switched sides, for what 12 billion $ of aid over 5 years . He and his ISI were caught red handed after 911, with no other choice he signed on to play pretend game for a pay than get bombed. All the weapons he bought with this aid are all to fight India not terrorism. After all he and ISI are the Terrorism inc. ISI is comprised of Pakistan military officers moon lighting through. Point being Pak military and ISI are also connected. What he really wants? To Islamize south Asia in the long run, a reason why pakistan itself was created ,and in short run control of Afghanistan directly or via its proxy Taliban.
The only confusing part is how supporting this enterprise in US interests.

[fourex]

11:38 AM on 12/28/2007

So attack Iran.

[wmike100]

08:14 AM on 12/28/2007

Hey, Joe. Maybe someone should have thought about all that when the CIA was busy creating Al Queda back in the 1980's... ya think?

[bobh]

07:26 AM on 12/28/2007

One wonders whether there are any contingency plans to secure the weapons if all falls apart, but knowing that the administration's general philosophy is "que sera, sera", probably there are not.

Given all that we had invested in Bhutto, and her complaints about security, why were we not more proactive about this? Bush and Rice dropped the ball, and Bhutto is dead.

[beaubourg]

06:15 AM on 12/28/2007

Benazir Bhutto may not have contested the Pakistani elections in January 2008, but sure has hell she will dominate Iowa.

This little Shiite-Sunni from Karachi, nicknamed Pinkie, might well be mentioned these days in Des Moines along with their Parking problems, and Health care issues. Caucus talk might now include "which candidate can offer sound judgment on Pakistan...and mend the Middle East"?

Would Hillary be thir first bet?

[Rocku]

05:12 AM on 12/28/2007

Regardless of your politcal persuasion, or even what "dog you have in this fight" as far as candidates go, let's not lose sight of the fact that Pakistan has a brief but violent history with questionable leadership from the very first, and a good supply of nuclear materials as well as a few bombs. The type they have are not very portable, but are launchable against nearby countries. However, should they fall into the wrong hands, that is extremist hands, given time and some effort they could wind up on not only OUR shores, but that of some of our allies anywhere in the world. The question is what should our response be to not only the current situation, but projected events should such a thing occur? Do we invade to prevent those nukes from falling into the wrong hands? Should that fail, as given the current condition of our own military to carry out yet another occupation, what do we do then? You cannot threaten a country with suicidal leadership with certain retaliation... what difference would it make to them? What really ARE our options?

[petegrif]

04:38 AM on 12/28/2007

when Bush publically put Pakistan on the spot after 9/11 and declared that they were either for us or against us this cowboy diplomacy became a significant fact in the strengthening of the islamist hand in Pakistan.

now we get the blowback

[wayoutleft]

03:25 AM on 12/28/2007

everybody in the world, i.e., everyone not in the united states, knows with grim certainty that the united states is the most dangerous country in the world. pakistan got cured fast of the idea of attacking india (in kashmir) and has no other evident territorial ambition. on the other hand, the united states has been caught out in it's second series of war-monger lies preparatory to attacking iran. it is conducting military operations throughout africa and south america. the united states is a long term threat to human existence on the planet. tens of thousands are dead in iraq- thousands dead in afghanistan. sir, you are caught up in a propagandistic lie in falsely inflating the threat to world stability from ... pakistan (it's tough to even write the sentence. ) please reconsider the enormity of paranoid hoax that pakistan is some kind of threat to somebody.

[arbroath]

02:42 AM on 12/28/2007

All US espionage efforts have been focused on the state of Pakistan's nuclear assets since the day several years ago that Pakistan had detonated its first nuclear device. Our government knows exactly how weak the Pakistan's nuclear program is. And it is terribly weak. They've got a few bombs, we know exactly where they are and what they can do, and they have no deliverability capaciy. But the US government will, in tacit diplomacy, use every propoganda tool at its disposal to increase fear here in America--in a bankshot mentality--to convince our citizenry that we are in immediate peril. By any means necessary. To make us all follow the party line, and shut the fuck up.
We Are All Screwed. Slaves to the new emerging totalitarian state. This is what the new Naziasam looks like.

[ljsfolly]

12:34 AM on 12/28/2007

And the agreed upon sale of missles from Putin now adds to the degree of insanity that this country represents. I look at the waste of or military on the phoney war drug out by bush and friends in Iraq for oil control and see the red blood flowing for what? Now when we are looking at the lack of stability in the countries that surround Iraq how much can be said about what bush has done with our military stretched so very far what can we do? Bin Laden has not attacked us because bush has been supplying him with new fighters and the money from us to build up whatever he has planned next for us. All together whoever is the next president will have far worse to deal with due to the cluster--- bush has done. Maybe he can send blackwater into iran to be peace keepers Ha!

[watchingthings]

12:07 AM on 12/28/2007

What nooklar wepons...says george bush...my friend Pervez is a very nice guy...i look him in the eye. We both force our way into power and the peeples like us.

[foreffectivegovernment]

11:53 PM on 12/27/2007

Where were you people, President Bush included, when Joe biden told you this in one of the so called debates? Why didn't you write articles like this before the current tragedy? Why were you all talking about who had the most experience among the leading candidates when Joe was right there warning everyone where the real threat was. Why are the people worried about Iran getting a nuclear bomb when Pakistan already has them along with the means to launch them against our allies. Just because you bought the George Bush/Dick Cheney story about Iraq doesn't mean you have to swallow everything they say.

Afghanistan is where Al-Queida was and is, only more powerful that before 9/11.

Support the impeachment of Dick Cheney that is now in the Judiciary Committee, insist that George Bush resign, and protect our Country from real threats.

[LizM]

11:52 PM on 12/27/2007

I am still recovering from your departure from the CEIP and the non-proliferation project but I do understand why you want to be a more political voice during these very dangerous times.

Speaking of which, I am not aware that you have endorsed any of the Democratic candidates or that you are even in a position at CAP to do so. If you are, and if you haven't yet, then I am going to go ahead and assume that you will be supporting Joe Biden, the only logical choice for the next POTUS.

[Spookcatcher]

11:40 PM on 12/27/2007

Obama was the first and only candidate to come out saying we need to address the problem of Pakistan and the fact that they Have Nuclear Weapons! That earned him both the Bush Fascists and the MSM bashing him and little miss pretender to know it all calling him naieve. Only after Biden saw the tilt in Afghanistan going badly for us did he start to voice concerns about Pakistan and Musharaff. Biden is a Central Banker and MIC asset.

[Rule Of Law]

10:09 PM on 12/27/2007

Ah yes, the CIA had absolutely no interest in securing Mr. Musharraf's "Presidency."