Pakistan and the US double standard

[motivez]

Washington Post article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072400995.html

The Bush administration acknowledged yesterday that it had long known about Pakistan's plans to build a large plutonium-production reactor, but it said the White House was working to dissuade Pakistan from using the plant to expand its nuclear arsenal.

"We discourage military use of the facility," White House spokesman Tony Snow said of a powerful heavy-water reactor under construction at Pakistan's Khushab nuclear site in Punjab state.

More From The Post
Pakistan Expanding Nuclear Program
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.

The reactor, which reportedly will be capable of producing enough plutonium for as many as 50 bombs each year, was brought to light on Sunday by independent analysts who spotted the partially completed plant in commercial-satellite photos. Snow said the administration had "known of these plans for some time."

The acknowledgment came as arms-control experts and some in Congress expressed alarm about a possible escalation of South Asia's arms race. Some also sharply criticized the administration for failing to disclose the existence of a facility that could influence an upcoming congressional debate over U.S. nuclear policy toward India and Pakistan.

"If either India or Pakistan starts increasing its nuclear arsenal, the other side will respond in kind," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), co-chairman of a House bipartisan task force on nonproliferation. "The Bush administration's proposed nuclear deal with India is making that much more likely."

That proposal would allow the United States to share civilian nuclear technology with India.

Construction of the reactor in Pakistan began as early as 2000, and the plant is still several years from completion, according to an analysis by the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington-based nonprofit group that produces technical assessments of nuclear weapons facilities. Based on a study of satellite photos, the group estimated the new reactor to have an operating capacity of 1,000 megawatts thermal and an annual yield of at least 200 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium.

A small reactor already operating at the Khushab site is capable of producing about 10 kilograms of plutonium a year, according to the analysis.

The Pakistani Foreign Ministry, reacting to a Washington Post article about the new plant, neither disputed the report nor offered specifics about the reactor. Pakistani officials acknowledged the nation's long-term ambition to expand its nuclear power infrastructure and modernize its nuclear arsenal. Pakistan is thought to possess up to 50 nuclear bombs, all based on designs that use highly enriched uranium and generally are more cumbersome than plutonium devices.

"This ought to be no revelation to anyone, because Pakistan is a nuclear-weapons state," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said at a news conference in Islamabad, according to the Associated Press.

Aslam said Pakistan's leaders "do not want an arms race in this region," but she noted that Pakistan was not the first nation in South Asia to test nuclear weapons. Rival India first tested a nuclear device in 1974 and currently has about 30 plutonium-based warheads.

Weapons experts worried yesterday that Pakistan's expanded nuclear capabilities would lead countries in the region -- other than India -- to follow suit.

"There are makings of a vigorous competition in fissile material production in South Asia -- between India and Pakistan in the first instance but also China as well," said Robert Einhorn, formerly the State Department's chief nonproliferation official and now a senior adviser to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. "It would be one thing if we were talking just about well-secured nuclear bombs. A larger concern is the greater amounts of fissile material, which create more opportunities for terrorists to get their hands on it."

Henry D. Sokolski, the Defense Department's top nonproliferation official during the George H.W. Bush administration, said he was most surprised by the way news of the reactor in Pakistan became known.

"What is baffling is that this information -- which was surely information that our own intelligence agencies had -- was kept from Congress," said Sokolski, now director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. "We lack imagination if we think that this is no big deal."

Originally Posted by Atrios

Like every other sentient being on the planet I'm rather confused by our policies towards Pakistan. We're generally led to believe that Bin Laden is hanging out there along with some of his pals. It's a dictatorship with an unclear line of succession if that dictator ever accidentally gets in the way of an assassin's bullet. They have an active nuclear program. Their top nuclear scientist was handing out nuclear technology like candy on Halloween. The country promptly pardoned him for this and we didn't say a thing. Oh, and for the Malkins of the world THEY'RE ALL BIG SCARY MUSLIMS.

And, just for fun, they have a new plutonium plant. And the Bush administration hid this fact from Congress.

Atrios makes a good point here. While they've been an "ally" in the war on terrorism, we continually have no problem with a double standard when it comes to supporting them (and India.. violating the NPT)

What happens if the next time there's an assassination attempt, they're successful?

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by motivez

Washington Post article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072400995.html






Atrios makes a good point here. While they've been an "ally" in the war on terrorism, we continually have no problem with a double standard when it comes to supporting them (and India.. violating the NPT)

What happens if the next time there's an assassination attempt, they're successful?

If you're just now discovering the US is a hypocritical ass when it comes to things like this...you need to read more!

[archangel003]

Boo-hoo. Hypocrisy.

The object of American foreign policy is not to right the wrongs of the rest of the world. The object of American foreign policy is to advance and protect its own interests.

[Ardentfrost]

Protection only ends in destruction when manipulating foreign countries to gain it.

[archangel003]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Protection only ends in destruction when manipulating foreign countries to gain it.

It won us the Cold War. Be thankful we came through that 50 year arms race without completely and totally destroying each other and taking Europe down with us.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by archangel003

Kept the Cold War from going hot for 50 years.

What?! No it didn't... modern-style foreign policy didn't really kick up til AFTER the Cold War. The Cold War was us making a shit ton of bombs, and keeping them secret... over-exageratting a threat that we had no clue about.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by archangel003

Boo-hoo. Hypocrisy.

The object of American foreign policy is not to right the wrongs of the rest of the world. The object of American foreign policy is to advance and protect its own interests.

Advance and protect its own interests.. but, with no clear line of succession, and multiple assassination attempts on the dude currently running the country, don't you think it'd be prudent for us to exercise some caution when it comes to sharing technology with them?

As well as that, their nuclear scientists, as was pointed out, is the one who essentially gave us the North Korea and Iran problems by sharing their technology.

[archangel003]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

What?! No it didn't... modern-style foreign policy didn't really kick up til AFTER the Cold War. The Cold War was us making a shit ton of bombs, and keeping them secret... over-exageratting a threat that we had no clue about.

The Cold War also had us propping up dictatorships in places like Iran, then Iraq, insurgents in Afghanistan, coups in Latin America. The Cold War set all the gears into motion decades ago.

[archangel003]

Originally Posted by motivez

Advance and protect its own interests.. but, with no clear line of succession, and multiple assassination attempts on the dude currently running the country, don't you think it'd be prudent for us to exercise some caution when it comes to sharing technology with them?

As well as that, their nuclear scientists, as was pointed out, is the one who essentially gave us the North Korea and Iran problems by sharing their technology.

If the US could prop up Pinochet, we can prop up Pervez Musharaff.

Iran and North Korea are both aware that M.A.D. applies to them as well.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by archangel003

The Cold War also had us propping up dictatorships in places like Iran, then Iraq, insurgents in Afghanistan, coups in Latin America. The Cold War set all the gears into motion decades ago.

MOST of that happened in the previous 20 years. One of my coworkers is about to retire from the Marines (20 years) and talks about going to places that he "hasn't been." lol, it's so bad man. That's the shit that has gotten us in so much trouble. I know it happened before that, but look at the rate from before 1988 to after... big fucking difference.

[archangel003]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

MOST of that happened in the previous 20 years. One of my coworkers is about to retire from the Marines (20 years) and talks about going to places that he "hasn't been." lol, it's so bad man. That's the shit that has gotten us in so much trouble. I know it happened before that, but look at the rate from before 1988 to after... big fucking difference.

That's exactly the point I was making. The Cold War kept all of those tensions frozen. With the sudden collapse of a superpower, shit happened pretty quickly.

[Ardentfrost]

Man, you're talking in circles now. It seems like you're saying that the Cold War kept us out of war... which sounds kinda weird, since all it would have taken was one mistake made by someone we deemed an enemy to start a real war... then, somehow you're saying that us performing assassinations and overthrowing governments during that time (despite the fact that we did them far more often after the CW) in conjunction with the Cold War kept us out of a real war.

But then all this comes to today, where we have terrorist threats/attacks and foreign countries are at war with each other because of what we did... I don't see how all this relates in your head.

To me it's very simple. More and more frequently since WW2 we have gotten involved in foreign affairs that had nothing to do with us. This has created instability in a number of nations (in some cases causing some MAJOR conflicts that ended in TONS of people dying, like Vietnam and Cambodia). Besides constant conflict (that we also tend to get involved in), we have made a bad name for ourselves and our "allies" in numerous countries, the fruit of which is many terrorist-style attacks across the globe. But instead of admiting our 50 years of mistakes and trying to make amends by staying out, we get more and more involved... only now we think we have a better reason: to protect ourselves from their instability.

[archangel003]

I'm not talking in circles, you're not understanding me.

Protectionism prevented nuclear holocaust. It kept the chess pieces frozen in position. Once the Cold War ended, it put us in this position. It's an uncomfortable place to be, yes, but the solution is not to let the government of Pakistan fall into the hands of Islamofascists simply because its hypocritical to support them. That would be very threatening to US security.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by archangel003

I'm not talking in circles, you're not understanding me.

Protectionism prevented nuclear holocaust. It kept the chess pieces frozen in position. Once the Cold War ended, it put us in this position. It's an uncomfortable place to be, yes, but the solution is not to let the government of Pakistan fall into the hands of Islamofascists simply because its hypocritical to support them. That would be very threatening to US security.

I'm not against selling shit to other countries (be it munitions, technology, or whatever else). I'm against our attitude that other countries shouldn't do it, or shouldn't do it to countries that we don't agree with.

And what REALLY prevented nuclear holocaust (and what still prevents it to this day) is that EVERYONE knows what the bomb is capable of.... and NO ONE wants that. Well, let me recant a little, no nation wants that. If a group of people have a nation to call home, sending a nuclear weapon WILL result in receiving one. The Cold War was an exaggeration of other nations' desire. And the only way to guarantee that we wouldn't get hit, in our minds, was to amass the most nukes in the world.

As an aside, let me tell you that I lived next to the Savannah River Site growing up, which used to be the biggest nuke manufacturer in the nation before it was shut down and decommissioned (I heard they might recommmission it for power though). That shit was crazy before the CW ended, and SUPER secretive. I know a guy that had to drive through it to deliver some air duct to a job site on the far side back in the early 80's. He was old even then, and since it's a 20 mile trek to the other side, he ended up having to take a piss REALLY bad right in the middle of the site. He stops his truck, gets out, and starts to piss. Once he finishes up, he turns around to see 2 black sedans and 4 men in suits, 2 of which had guns trained on him. They asked his business, and he told them he had to pee. One of the guys went to where he had relieved himself, felt the ground, and sent him on his way after checking his truck.

That shit is nuts