Why Terrorists Never Have Gotten Hold of a Nuke and Why the Taliban Won't Be First
Say things had gone a bit differently during the Taliban's attack on Pakistan's Army General Headquarters in Rawalpindi on Sunday. Say the Taliban had prevailed, then entered to find a nuclear weapon--far from implausible since Pakistan is believed to have 70 to 90 nuclear missiles secreted within its borders.
Taliban operatives probably would have wasted no time attempting to launch their new missile, as opposed to absconding with it, for several reasons, not least of which is that the weapon's radiation signature would be tantamount to leaving a note saying where they'd gone.
A potential launching hitch: For security purposes, Pakistan keeps warheads, other bomb components and delivery devices (rocket launchers, planes, etc.) in separate locations, guarded by 10,000 of the million-plus soldiers who in turn are part of the world's sixth-largest armed force.
It's not inconceivable, though, that Rawalpindi has what amounts to a plug-and-play nuke, perhaps an atomic demolition munition (ADM)--a sort of nuclear landmine. The Taliban could have had intel, possibly from a mole within the US-funded Strategic Plans Division that manages Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, that the ADM was on premises Sunday.
With the ADM in their power, Taliban operatives still have needed to navigate an elaborate command-and-control process. Among other safeguards, even the most rudimentary nuclear devices are equipped with Permissive Action Links (PALs), whereby three men are required to arm a bomb, each man privy to just one third of a complex numeric code.
So say, for argument's sake, that in Rawalpindi, the Taliban came into possession of exactly such an ADM, or about the simplest nuclear weapon to arm.
The three Pakistanis tasked to dial in its secret code would have been chosen after a lengthy check of their beliefs or other personal traits determined that they were the least likely to surrender the digits. But what if the Taliban had known the dialers' identities ahead of time? And what if they captured the dialers' loved ones and threatened to hack off heads until the PALs are dialed?
Thus, the Taliban could have the countdown clock ticking toward 0:00.
Of course that's assuming Pakistan's Strategic Plans Division officers neglected to have the PAL codes changed as soon as Rawalpindi came under attack. Probably they would done so the moment they learned the Taliban was even near Rawalpindi.
But say the Strategic Plans Division is compromised, or, for that matter, the whole of the Pakistani government somehow falls to the Taliban.
Taliban leadership may yet succumb to the Hirohito Effect: The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings brought Hirohito (or at least his decision makers) to the realization that Japan no longer faced mere brutal battles, but rather annihilation. And he laid down his cards.
Accordingly, the Taliban might think: Detonate the ADM, Pakistan gets turned into a lake.
If they think rationally.
The Hirohito Effect is mitigated by the Psycho-In-A-Bar-Fight Factor--perhaps our greatest fear. With a maniac at the button, cities in the Pakistani arsenal's 2,500-kilometer range could get turned into vacant lots.
Pakistan may think rationally in place of the Taliban, however. While dysfunctional as a nation-state, Pakistan isn't suicidal.
Zaffar Abbas, editor of Islamabad's daily Dawn, wrote that Sunday's attack:
[M]ay prove to be a watershed that compels the security and civilian establishment, as well as most of the opposition groups, to realise that the time to distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' religious militants or Taliban was over, and a consensus was needed to confront all such groups as enemies of the state.
Also the United States may intervene, securing Pakistan's nuclear facilities. If Pakistan's neighbors don't get there first.
The Research and Analysis Wing, India's external intelligence agency, regards Pakistani nuclear weapons as the threat to India. Several intelligence community members have told me that India's knowledge of the Pakistani arsenal makes ours seem like Cliffs Notes. Fortunately, the Research and Analysis Wing is sharing what it knows with the CIA, among other liaison counterparts. And American intelligence on Pakistan has been relatively strong to begin with, notably on the counterproliferation side.
In 2000, the CIA attempted and failed to provide the Iranians with deliberately-flawed nuclear warhead blueprints. As a result of such efforts, however, try and find an Iranian nuclear scientist who doesn't fear that sabotaged components compromise his best efforts.
In April of this year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed concern that Pakistan's safeguards were insufficient to deny terrorists "the keys to nuclear arsenal." Now, six months of scrutiny the wiser, she says, "We have confidence in the Pakistani government and military's control over nuclear weapons."
A Taliban strategist might counter: Who had more safeguards and government and military control than the Soviets? Look at what happened there.
Yes, he'll find 87,000 websites with "evidence" of lost "suitcases" and other loose Russian nukes. Yet all of the intelligence analysts and nuclear proliferation experts I've interviewed in research for my books give the notion of missing Russian nuclear weapons no more credibility than the details of Barack Obama's birth in Kenya.
True, after the Iron Curtain fell, hundreds upon hundreds of nuclear weapons were transported from the outlying republics on ancient coal-powered trains and Russian trucks that stall every other kilometer. For all the nukes to have made it home safe and sound seems an unprecedented logistical feat. On top of that, the Russians are famous for tripping over their own red tape.
Except when it comes to a nuclear warhead.
Losing one would be tantamount to NASA forgetting where they parked one of the Space Shuttles. The same holds true in all nations with nuclear weapons.
So here's a more realistic Pakistan bad-case scenario: The Taliban defies tremendous odds and breaches a Pakistani nuclear facility replete with a warhead. Without its short-range ballistic missile, launcher and codes, the warhead is of as much use to them as a car engine without a chassis, wheels and gas. And these items aren't readily available, especially with the Taliban suddenly surrounded by heavily-armored weapons and tactical specialists, far as the eye can see, locked and loaded, and champing at the bit.
Follow Keith Thomson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kqthomson
Pakistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pakistan News - Breaking World Pakistan News - The New York Times
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Why would nuclear weapons under the control of the Taliban be any more dangerous than nuclear weapons under the control of the Pakistani Army? The Pakistani Army (specifically the ISI) created the Taliban, controlled them for several years and engineered the takeover of Afghanistan. There are still elements within the Pakistani Army that share the same ideology as the Taliban. Who is actually in charge of the codes - and what their sympathies are - is anyone's guess.
"weapon's radiation signature would be tantamount to leaving a note saying where they'd gone." I hope the rest of the article is a little more acurate. The weapon would not leave a trail that could be followed. It would be possible to detect the weapon if you had the right detectors and were fairly close by, but after a few hundred yards and with some shielding, not a chance. What are the chances Pakistan would be able to scramble a helicopter or airplane with the right detectors quickly enough? Think about it. These people live in caves. If it was possible to easily detect a nuclear weapon with a satelite or high flying plane, why would we be worring about Iran building a bomb. We could easily detect the bomb as it is being assembled and would know exactly where the bomb is at all times.
Mr. Thomson - I'll ask you the question that simply begs asking. What if you're wrong? What happens if terrorists DO get their hands on - or build - a nuclear weapon? Will you publish an article apologizing to the people who are killed when they use it? Will you spend every dime you own to help the survivors? You remind me of the naive German Jews in the 1930s who would not believe that Hitler was dead serious when he spewed his anti-Semitism. Will you feel even the slightest amount of shame? If not, then go back to playing in your sandbox and let the adults do the thinking.
"what if you're wrong" isn't logically defensible because he already laid out the facts. What do you mean, exactly?
Here's some examples:
What if you wrong and the taliban magically know the launch codes? What if you're wrong and nuclear bombs don't leave a radioactive trail to follow? What if you're wrong and there's a nuke sitting in a hanger ready to be launched at the push of a button and the taliban mearly have to aim and shoot - like clicking a mouse? What if you're wrong and a bunch of people in a cave are able to accomplish nuclear fusion?
See how ridiculous this game is?
How about this:
what if you're wrong and we start multiple wars with countries that never attacked us simply on the axiom that they may, someday by some means, hurt us?
Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Where in this article does it say terrorists WON'T get their hands on - or build - a nuclear weapon? All I see is an analysis of the Taliban's prospects of getting their hands on a nuclear weapon in the Pakistani arsenal. The headline says they won't be first. I infer the possibility that another group might be first. Is that just me?
Either way, this raises an interesting question: Is there anyone other than A6intruder who thinks journalists should be financially responsible for analysis that's proven wrong? In this case, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have reached the same conclusion re: the Taliban. Probably the Indian intelligence agency, the CIA and the Joint Chiefs too. Would you have them chip in, or is the restitution all on the journalist? And if not, who then are the grown-ups supposed to do the thinking?
-2 point for logical fallacy: red hering, begging the question.
gtfo
Pakistan is corrupt and weak. They may have safeguards in place such as scattering their missiles and warheads and having the code split up. In the end, however, the Taliban and militants have to understand the the WORLD and not just the United States or India would never permit Al Qaeda or the Taliban to come within what is considered to be any chance of gaining control over them.
Were they to come anywhere near it, there are any number of nations, including neighbors of Pakistan and the Western nations which would have to unite and do whatever it took to neutralize those weapons and the nuclear program tied to them. Irrespective of collateral damage and the numbers of losses would number into the many millions and the basis and land used by the Taliban in that area would be useless for human use for a long, long time.
I agree, except:
Anyone who holds a nuclear weapon holds a couple of pounds of plutonium. They don't need to trigger a nuclear explosion.
A dirty bomb will really mess up your day.
The Pakistani Officer Corps and military may e accused of many things.
But not stupidity.
The Nukes are a deterrent against India.
Any failure in the security of those weapons destroys the deterrent value. And leaves them open to India.
actually they have been accused of corruption and religious fanaticism. What percent sympathize the the Taliban?
It is yet another myth that the Taliban is going to get the nukes into their hands and threaten the Western world. The truth once again is, that Taliban did ruled Afghanistan and never threaten any country except they were not diplomatic or sophisticated politicians and when the Al Qaeda was blamed for the 9/11, and they wanted the proof form the US but the American never provided proof but all they wanted was to invade and dislodge Taliban, now the problem is 8 years on the war rages no end in sight, and claiming hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of Dollars which could be used to advance the lives of Americans or even the Afghan people that way America could have achieve much more things that Americans never even expected. This a Zionist war just keep Israel alive and to protect the oil and gas under American control.
"This a Zionist war just keep Israel alive and to protect the oil and gas under American control."
no , muslims kill other muslims all the time, they dont need help from the zionists.
Just today 20 muslims where killed in Iran by a suicde bomber.
no jews involved just another group of muslims killing muslims , no news there it happens everyday.
Huh?
Zionist war?
For oil?
Where is the oil? Certainly not in Pakistan or Afghanistan.
And the Taliban were hardly as uninvolved as you portray. They just might have gotten a hint of the consequences of harboring al Qaida and bin Ladin after see the fall of the Twin Towers on their satellite TV's.
That is after the attacks by Clinton of course.
But Clinton was just "Wagging the Dog."
You'd think that with all of that Iraqi oil we'd only be paying $1.50 at the pump - or less.
The real danger is corruption and religious fanaticism in the Pakistan army
"The Generals who ruled the country promoted religious fanaticism for their own benefit. Pervez Musharraf was more deceptive and destructive than the earlier Generals. He nurtured, financed and patronised terrorist organizations and allowed them to operate freely in the country"
http://www.hinduonnet.com/2009/03/06/stories/2009030656451200.htm
A group within the army could arrange to have it's operatives in charge of some nuke missiles, and sneak a warhead out, codes and all.
Please spread your conspiracies elsewhere. This is absolute garbage, if this was possible it would have happened years ago. Regardless of the attack on the headquarters, the army is Pakistan's best working establishment.
Prove it.
it's well known that the Pakistan army is corrupt and filled with fanatics.
60,000 articles about it:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=St0&ei=da3bSt2dLoXsswPxnPWxCQ&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAkQBSgA&q=fantacism+in+the+pakistani+military&spell=1
Perhaps you should read up.
Fancy electronics requiring security codes and such only keep honest technicians honest.
An electrical engineer and an ex-Army ordinance type could probably figure out how to hot-wire a nuke.
Perhaps NEST should give a few engineering types WITHOUT bomb design experience a chance (on a simulated Pakistani nuke) to see how actual nukes could be "hardened" against hotwiring. See what mistakes non-experts would frequently make.
The trick to making a nuke detonate is to get ALL the high explosives to go off simultaneously, and thereby achieve critical mass in the nuclear elements. Klystrons, etc.
If you booby-trapped the design so that removing the security keypads, control electronics etc. caused a single element of the HE to go off, you would in essence turn a nuclear bomb into a "dirty bomb" and kill the people trying to hotwire it. Forgive the analogy, but rather like Bond's "theft-proof" car.
A "dirty bomb" going off would be very bad, but not NEARLY as bad as a nuclear explosion.
And it would probably go off in some lab or building basement, containing most of the plutonium, since you probably wouldn't be working on it outside in broad daylight.
Hopefully the guys who design bombs are already waaay ahead of me on all this.
I always enjoy reading your post. Thanks.
This information is all swell and wonderful, but if the Iranians provide a bomb to a nut-job group like Al Qaeda, there wouldn't BE a hell of a lot of safety features involved, would there?
I don't want to downplay the danger posed by the 'crazies' and religious fanatics and I may be way out to lunch here, but why are they so scary? Wasn't the last nuclear bomb detonated in a civilian area delivered there by a rational, athiest, stable state with democratically elected leadership? To my knowledge this action was reportedly taken for the sake of saving military lives among said civilized nation? One might be under the impression that if nuclear options were to be exercised again that they would be used to maintain the power structure rather than tear it down. Sort of a pre-emptive surgical strike into the Swat valley kind of scenario. Might garner all sorts of capitulations and bring the barbarians over to the rational side of things. Plus keep the photos of coffins draped in flags off of CNN.
"...by a rational, athiest, stable state with democratically elected leadership?"
The US has no state religion, ostensibly. It's not "atheist."
Actually, at the time of the bombing, the country was effectibvely, if not officially, Christian.
Christianity remains the dominant religious viewpoint claimed by the vast majority of public officials and opinion leaders, although I personally find it odd that so many right wing Christians spend most of their time mining the Old Testament for their supporting quotations.
Of course, the charge that opponents are atheists goes way back in our history, including its use against Thomas Jefferson.
Wasn't the last nuclear bomb detonated in a civilian area delivered there by a rational, athiest, stable state with democratically elected leadership?
yes it was. And so was the second-last one.
I could kind of see the reasoning behind the second-last one, but not the last one.
Your article brings out the important points I have often thought about with respect to the ability to actually arm a nuclear weapon. The upsetting thought is that the Taliban or others who may obtain a weapon may or could devise another terrorist related use for it in a so called "dirty bomb" devise, etc. From Bill Myers - vdoaktvnet
I am amazed that no nuclear bomb has been used since 1945.
The odds are astronomical, given the madmen-of-the-world's propensity to wreak havoc.
What is the timeline of radiation decay after a nuke .... .100s, 1000s of years?
The area remains uninhabitable for a very long time. Bikini atoll is still too hot for human life.
The only solution is to declare a complete moratorium on ALL nuclear bombs, and after dismantling or recycling fissionable material, hoping and praying that the material still out there doesn't find its way into madmen's hands.
Less than 6% of all containers coming into the USA are checked for ionizing radiation. . . . insanity to not have made this a priority screening.
As it stands now, it is not "if," but "when" a city somewhere in the world is atomically torched.
The US government declared Bikini habitable in 1968, though many disagree. However, it was subjected to multiple tests, not a single bomb. People never abandoned Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They aren't all dying of cancer.
But I'd have to agree with you that sooner or later, someone with a gripe will strike pay dirt and some city will be leveled. But which one? Tel Aviv? Washington DC? Riyadh? Seoul? Or will it be someplace that will leave people scratching their heads, like Chattanooga? After all, who would have picked a home-grown US terrorist to blow up a Federal Building in Oklahoma with so many other targets the righties love to hate?
If I had to guess id say Tehran.
The inference that safety is derived in part from a requirement for entering complex codes to trigger nuclear devices always assume no one replaces the control mechanism with one of their own.
But say that additional safeguards exist, and the nukes themselves are booby-trapped; you try to replace the control module, and the device's conventional explosives detonate in an inconvenient pattern.
So what would a terrorist organization do - especially one that has no problem sacrificing its members for the cause?
I wager they'd move the device to their target first, and then attempt to replace the control module. If the device detonates in a non-fission/fusion fashion, it is a dirty bomb...they would likely even enhance the effect by using several tons of Semtex as their workbench in their attempt to replace the device's arming package.
The ONLY thing that matters is the physical control of the fissionable material itself.
lollll...now I know I'm not the smartest bean in the world, so I have no doubt that somebody has already reached that conclusion, and has likewise taken steps to ensure that a failure to control results in the denial of any transfer of control.
Immediately. With offensive capability, comes targeting; you get a two-fer, when you decide to dabble at being a nuclear power.
The Pakistani military has never been at threat of succumbing to the Taliban or any other group. All of the fear mongering about Pakistani nukes is just that. Do I think it is insane for them to have them? Of course, but the military in Pakistan has always been the most stable institution, and I see no reason why this has or will change at any time in the future. In fact, the Taliban attempting and nearly succeeding to take over the government would create a situation where the military would be forced to act. This could be the very best situation. I suspect within a year there wouldn't be a militant alive anywhere in Pakistan, and those who flee to Afghanistan will be corralled (or killed) there.
The Pakistani Army is not a monolith. If you had paid attention to the reports since 911, you would know that their Intelligence Service played a major role in the creation and arming of the militant groups during the Soviet-Afghan War and that they have maintained close ties to the Taliban since. One problem for our military and the CIA is that they have to deal with the Pakistani Intelligence Service without clearly knowing who they can trust within that group. While they have given us some good leads, there have also been operations which have been blown by Taliban sympathizers we involved in the planning.
However the terrorists do it, it will come as a big surprise. We will then "pick" a target for retaliation. India recently said they could take 20-30 million dead but they could destroy Pakistan in return.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
