Might U.S. 'Secure' Pakistan's Nukes? Seymour Hersh Says Yes; Countries Say No

[bananas]

Source: NPR

Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh's latest piece for The New Yorker has this page-one-worthy conclusion:

"Current and former officials said in interviews in Washington and Pakistan that (the Obama) administration has been negotiating highly sensitive understandings with the Pakistani military. These would allow specially trained American units to provide added security for the Pakistani (nuclear) arsenal in case of a crisis."

Hersh adds that the U.S. has a highly trained response team that stands ready to enter Pakistan and grab the nuclear weapons' triggers in the event of a crisis. The goal: Keep those triggers out of terrorists' hands.

<snip>

Pakistani and American officials are out knocking down Hersh's reporting. Pakistan's The Dawn Media Group reports that "the Foreign Office has said that Pakistan will never allow 'any country to have direct or indirect access to its nuclear and strategic facilities'."

<snip>

Read more: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/11/pakistan_seymour_hersh_nuclear.html

[Dreamer Tatum]

1. Serious question

Has Sy Hersh ever been proven 100% absolutely, demonstrably correct in any of the assertions he's ever made about US involvement in Asia and the Middle East? Because I don't think he has.

[closeupready]

3. I'm not sure - he's made explosive claims that never held up, but

it's difficult to know what to make of this. These claims have been made before, so it's not exactly all that radical of a suggestion, but I have my doubts as to the spin and angle of this particular story. By that I mean, the story makes it sound as though the Pakistani government is cooperating with the US military - that just doesn't seem believable.

[MilesColtrane]

8. "doesn't seem believable"

..especially when you consider that many in Pakistan's military intelligence service are sympathetic to Al Quaeda.

Their numbers are probably comparable in the regular army.

[ThisThreadIsSatire]

6. Yes. Abu Ghraib -- torture, rape et.al.

It might take years, but I will give this guy a good long benefit of the doubt...

[HamdenRice]

10. I trust Hersh's reporting and New Yorker's legendary factchecking. Hersh often writes about "plans"

For example, he's getting slammed around here because he wrote about an impending attack on Iran during the Bush administration that never materialized.

But his story actually said that the Bush administration and military were planning to attack Iran, not that they would. He wrote that there was fierce debate within the military, with the Airforce wanting to attack and the Army not wanting to attack.

So he wasn't saying the US would attack but that the US was getting dangerously close to doing so.

In that sense, he reporting was probably correct, but the pro war faction lost out in a power struggle.

Here he is reporting that various factions of the Pakistani government are making plans with the US -- not that the US will actually be able to do this or that any of this will come to pass.

The New Yorker does not allow these kinds of assertions to be published unless they are rigorously fact checked.

[Journeyman]

2. I can't imagine any nation allowing another unfettered access to it's nuclear arsenal. . .

in any form, in any circumstance. . .

I remember the looks of the Pakistani citizens when their acquisition of a Bomb was announced and they knew they were no longer "defenseless" against Indian nukes. It would be suicidal for any Pakistani government to now "turn over" the nation's security to another power. And who's to say the transfer would be accomplished? I can just as easily see elements within the Pakistani military grabbing the "keys to the bomb" and driving off with it, perhaps to turn it over to radical elements or perhaps just to ensure it remained in Pakistani hands.

I think this is another of Sy Hersh's fantasies, an exciting "hook" used to sell a story on deadline.

[closeupready]

4. Yeah, that's sort of my take, too. I don't believe it in the way he is telling it.

n/t

[ThisThreadIsSatire]

7. Bear in mind, in Pakistan

there is the government, the military, and the ISI (intelligence service)... Three separate 'governments within the governemnt' that do not necessarily act in concert. (Best example is 'government' acting as U.S. ally in 'War on Terror' while ISI simultaneously supported Taliban and allegedly other extremists.)

[angrycarpenter]

5. I would not be the least bit surprised

to find that we have a sub or some other system in place with cruise missiles waiting with it's only purpose to destroy Pakistan's nukes.

[MilesColtrane]

9. We don't know where they all are.

Some are on mobile launchers that can be moved at any time. Some are buried in hardened bunkers designed to survive a first strike.

In the extremely ugly scenario of the Pakistan government being overthrown I don't think the United States is going to start lobbing cruise missiles at every suspicious looking building.

[24601]

11. Several years ago, there was a story that US Special Ops troops

were helping Pakistan secure their nukes. Wouldn't it be nice if that included a Permissive Action Link type-device that requires a code to arm the warhead. "Oops, forgot to bring you guys the code, my bad!" Hope, unfortunately, isn't a course of action.