MSNBC writes an article on Pakistan... let me break it down.

webmaster

Troll Hunter
Staff member
Okay, one of my friends suggested that I should read this to his astonishment, we found a lots of errors and misreporting. I am going to highlight the conradicting and inaccurate remarks. Its long, if you want to read it just click the link below. Here goes nothing! :p


The issue is very sensitive. Pakistan, or at least some elements of the Pakistani government, has been very helpful in the war on terror, but other elements of the Pakistani government have participated in single most dangerous proliferation of nuclear weapons in the atomic age.


No, not some elements in pak government... just 11 individuals according to reports from around the world and Pakistani officials.

Not only was Khalid Sheik Mohammed grabbed in Rawalpindi, but Ramzi bin al-Shibh, the on-ground organizer of the Hamburg cell was grabbed in Karachi, Abu Zubaydah, the al-Qaida “dean of students†was grabbed in Faisalabad, and Khallad, the mastermind of the USS Cole bombing was grabbed in a Karachi suburb. And of course, the United States believes strongly that Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri are holed up in a remote area of south Waziristan, in Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier. Pakistani troops are searching for the two of them, although there are disputes as to how hard they are looking.

Doesn't that tell us something? That pakistan is very well aware of the problem posed by terrorism and is doing everything to get these idiots? Then, why would it give nukes to the people its trying to kill and capture!?

The nuclear force
At the center of the fears is the Pakistani nuclear force. Conventional wisdom has always held that India, with its advanced industrial base and wealth of scientific knowledge and experience, has significantly more nuclear weapons than Pakistan. The reverse is true.

New U.S. intelligence analyses of nuclear weapons in South Asia indicates that Pakistan now has greater nuclear capability — both in terms of numbers of weapons and quality of delivery systems — than India. Moreover, its weapons are more secure, say people with knowledge of the two programs. [keep this point in your head, will raise it again.]

The numbers, if known with specificity, are classified, but a senior U.S. intelligence official said the Pakistanis have an “almost 2-1 margin†in nuclear weapons. The best guess is that Pakistan has about 40+ weapons with India having somewhere in the high 20’s.

When asked about frequent reports that India has between 25 and 100 nuclear weapons one U.S. intelligence official said that the Pakistanis “are more likely to have those numbers than the Indians.†The most frequently cited number for Pakistan had been around 15 nuclear weapons. Moreover, the official said that the number of nukes ready for use may be greater in Pakistan than in India. “I don’t think their [the Indians’] program is as advanced as the Paks’.â€

Pakistan also has greater air and missile capability and both are “fully capable of a nuclear exchange if something happens.†the official added. Other officials noted that Pakistan’s air force, with its U.S. F-16’s and its French Mirage fighter bombers has some of the best penetrating fighter-bombers in the world.


Okay, now MSNBC decides that pakistani weapons are much better (sorry gf) than Indian and that its weapons are more secure. If I was the "world" i would be worrying about Indian weapons. (no offense intended for indian friends/visitors, please read on the rest)


it has around 30 missiles: the Chinese M-11 short range missile and its Pakistani variant, the Tarmuk, as well as the North Korean Nodong intermediate-range missile known locally as the Ghauri. India on the other hand has no nuclear-capable missiles and fewer and less capable MiG fighter bombers, although it has twice tested the Agni missile, an intermediate range missile that could provide the basis of an ICBM force. Current U.S. analysis is that the Agni will not be fielded with nuclear warheads for another 10 years. The Pentagon document states that Indian “research into missile warhead design probably is underway†but is not complete. Also underway but not complete is research into the miniaturization of nuclear weapons, critical for both warhead and other weapons design.

What the hell is Tarmuk? And its variant of M-11 missile? Pakistan does have m-11 as far as I know, but no such thing as Tarmuk. Very bad reporting!

’The Islamic Bomb’: But in whose service is the bomb?
Pakistan is aiming for a “nuclear armed Islamic bloc around the world†says a U.S. intelligence analyst who has followed the country’s program for more than a decade. A senior U.S. intelligence official agreed, saying it is “Islamic nationalism†more than any other factor that has guided Pakistani dispersal of nuclear technology around the world.


If that was the case, Pakistan would have already provided Al-Qaeda with nukes that it requires along with Iran, Iraq, saudia and Egypt. And I don't think it would be humiliating its top scientists for proliferation!

“Their aim is to thwart what they see as the U.S nuclear hegemony. They want an Islamic bomb as a deterrent for the Islamic world to counter what they see as the Christian bomb, the Jewish bomb, the Hindu bomb,†the analyst added.

If everyone has it no one will bomb anyone.

This is where it gets funny and interesting:

Nuclear security
Leaving aside physical security, there is no nuclear arsenal as insecure as Pakistan’s is today. The litany of evidence is remarkable.


If you remember the quote above saying how secure Pakistani nukes were than India and now this. My question: Does that mean india's weapons are less secure even less than pakistani less secure weapons? Pakistan recently created NCA - National Command Authority which is a much better way to control nuclear material but this article does not make any mention of that. Its mind boggling how much bad and wrong info is put into this long and boring article. If terrorists wanted to get their hands on Pakistani nukes, they would have done it by now but in last 20 years that hasn't happened and I don't see any reason why it would happen in the next 20 years.

Al-Qaida attempt to get to the nukes
The easiest way for al-Qaida to gain control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons would be for them or their allies, Jaish E Mohammed, to kill Musharraf and take over the country in a civil war or, more likely, have radical Islamic elements of the Pakistani army mount a coup. But there is ample evidence that al-Qaida has long been interested in Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons technology.


Support for Musharraf in Pakistan is above 80% and support for these radical terrorist groups is around 1-2% and even most religious people don't support them because their way is the wrong way.

Mehmood ran Khusab, the nuclear reactor where Pakistan produces its plutonium,

I believe Khusab is where Pakistan produces Uranium. Right? Please correct me if i'm wrong.


I don't know how this article was written but it has some errors and that is not good.

You can read the full article here
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4216102/
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Okay, now MSNBC decides that pakistani weapons are much better (sorry gf) than Indian and that its weapons are more secure. If I was the "world" i would be worrying about Indian weapons. (no offense intended for indian friends/visitors, please read on the rest)
You lost me on this one. What do you mean re "sorry gf".
 

Red aRRow

Forum Bouncer
WEBS its not just NBC, all the other media outlets are trying to create this sense of fear among the public. It works as long as increasing paper circulation or channel viewership is concerned but totally falls apart when looked at from a logical perspective.
 

webmaster

Troll Hunter
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #4
gf0012 said:
Okay, now MSNBC decides that pakistani weapons are much better (sorry gf) than Indian and that its weapons are more secure. If I was the "world" i would be worrying about Indian weapons. (no offense intended for indian friends/visitors, please read on the rest)
You lost me on this one. What do you mean re "sorry gf".
Well, I wasn't but what I wrote sound like "pakistani nukes better than indian nukes" a potential recepie for flames among pakistanis and indians. :D
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
WebMaster said:
gf0012 said:
Okay, now MSNBC decides that pakistani weapons are much better (sorry gf) than Indian and that its weapons are more secure. If I was the "world" i would be worrying about Indian weapons. (no offense intended for indian friends/visitors, please read on the rest)
You lost me on this one. What do you mean re "sorry gf".
Well, I wasn't but what I wrote sound like "pakistani nukes better than indian nukes" a potential recepie for flames among pakistanis and indians. :D
Thats what I thought you meant, just needed to make sure! Still, you aren't responsible for MSNBC assessments. (although I wonder how and where they did their research on some of this). Some of it is a bit flawed.
 

Gremlin29

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Guys, if you didn't know it or don't believe it this is a prime example of the rubbish news agencies churn out. I believe about 10% of what's reported, I know there's a basis to what's being said but they dilute their reports with so much crap that it's hard to figure out what that basis is. Free media does it's best to drum up sensational stories, while other media slant their stories in favor of their regime and or socio political views. The real and true sad thing is that people actually believe everything they see on TV, or on the net for that matter.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Gremlin29 said:
Guys, if you didn't know it or don't believe it this is a prime example of the rubbish news agencies churn out. I believe about 10% of what's reported, I know there's a basis to what's being said but they dilute their reports with so much crap that it's hard to figure out what that basis is. Free media does it's best to drum up sensational stories, while other media slant their stories in favor of their regime and or socio political views. The real and true sad thing is that people actually believe everything they see on TV, or on the net for that matter.
I go absolutely bonkers at some of the stuff that is posted on the web and then by assumption is accepted as absolute fact by advocates of that story.

Inject a partial truth and then cloak the rest in flaky supporting arguments - hey presto! what is actually a perception becomes absolute and an unimpeachable truth.

I'd like to do a "shock and awe" on some of these publishers and news editors sometimes. ;)
 

webmaster

Troll Hunter
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
Moreover, its weapons are more secure, say people with knowledge of the two programs.
Agree Gremlin.

They insult themselves okay, thats fine but they go even further to insult those with knowledge (the people they quote as "anaylsts, knowledgeble people, etc.) and some understanding of what is truth and what is not.
 

Gremlin29

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I did a static display for a recruitment drive years ago in my hometown. It was a thrill to fly to and setup at my old high school. The Major Big City newspaper was there as were a couple of local TV reporters. My folks sent me the clipping of the story a week later. They ran second page story with a huge pic of me with my aircraft which was cool, but they also wrote 3 paragraphs full of "my" quotes that were not only completely false but half of which were in opposition to what I actually did say. Unfortunately, that was only my first experience with the media (I reportedly crash landed once!).

I don't have much to say other than news is reported by people that usually have absolutley no knowledge of the subject matter in which they are reporting. What's especially sickening is that these reports actually do have a major influence on individuals and how they view local, national and international matters. In a perfect world they would be held accountable for false and or misleading information.
 

Winter

New Member
Gremlin29 said:
I did a static display for a recruitment drive years ago in my hometown. It was a thrill to fly to and setup at my old high school. The Major Big City newspaper was there as were a couple of local TV reporters. My folks sent me the clipping of the story a week later. They ran second page story with a huge pic of me with my aircraft which was cool, but they also wrote 3 paragraphs full of "my" quotes that were not only completely false but half of which were in opposition to what I actually did say. Unfortunately, that was only my first experience with the media (I reportedly crash landed once!).

I don't have much to say other than news is reported by people that usually have absolutley no knowledge of the subject matter in which they are reporting. What's especially sickening is that these reports actually do have a major influence on individuals and how they view local, national and international matters. In a perfect world they would be held accountable for false and or misleading information.
I myself have had frustrating incidents with the media (taking a group photo then finding the shot missed me off the edge, asking me to come down for a interview then forgetting about me so I left) though nothing quite on that scale Gremlin. ;)

The author, Robert Windrem, probably thinks he knows a lot about Pakistani nukes, though I'm not one to say whether he does or not. His other MSNBC articles he has done in relation to this include: 'Pakistan’s nuclear father, master spy.' 'Pakistan nuclear ‘father’s’ offer to Saddam,' and 'Indian quake or Pakistani attack?' Well.

Regardless, MSNBC just published a nice little interview with Musharraf.

By Tom Brokaw, NBC News

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - NBC's Tom Brokaw reports from the official residence of Pakistan’s President Musharraf where, in a wide ranging exclusive interview they talked about reports there will be a spring offensive along the Pakistan-Afghan border.

Tom Brokaw: It’s reported now in Washington that Secretary of State Powell is coming to see you before the end of the month, and one of the items on his agenda will be some kind of a spring offensive. If he says, we’d like to put more troops in Afghanistan to put more pressure on Al Qaida, would you recommend against that?

President Pervez Musharraf: No, I would support it. I have all along been saying that there is a requirement of more force. I have all along been saying that there’s a vacuum in Afghanistan which we have to fill in the countryside. So I’m for increasing strength there. That is the way forward.

TB: As long as the American troops stay on the Afghan side of the border.

PM: Yes indeed, yes indeed.

TB: Would it ever be possible for American troops to physically operate in Pakistan in the frontier region in an effort to root out terrorism?

PM: Not only is it not possible, but it’s not required. Here is no, the enemy, I am calling the Al Qaida or the Taliban abettors; they are not in such strength that a whole operation, a massive operation has to be launched. There are people, there are groups hiding in small numbers. And we have developed a very effective quick reaction force. A mobile, hard-hitting, quick reaction force. So that is what is required, and we are capable of doing all of that.

TB: Your country has been the center of a lot of news and controversy this past week because of the confession of Dr. A.Q. Khan, who was the father of the Pakistani nuclear bomb. That in fact he sold nuclear secrets to Libya, North Korea and to Iran. Were you proud of what Dr. Khan was doing?

PM: Yes. Proud of it as long as he did what he did for Pakistan.

TB: It appears to a lot of people that a deal was struck with Dr. Khan by you. That he confesses, you pardon him, and say we’re moving on. The Washington Post said this week, ‘that’s a whitewash.’ It hurts your credibility and your integrity.

PM: I disagree with it absolutely. One must understand reality. There’s an international perception. There’s a domestic perception. There’s a person involved who’s a hero because of what he’s done for us. He’s a hero—he was a hero even for me. And here’s a person who’s brought the deterrence—given us deterrence, potential in the unconventional field. So this certainly is—is a very, very sensitive issue. Now, he did something that could hurt the nation. I was in a dilemma, certainly. The dilemma is: he’s a great man, he’s a hero, and he’s a hero of every individual in the street. Yet he has done something which could bring harm to the nation. Now how do I deal with it? We had to handle it very carefully.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4216924/

---------

Funnily enough, what could be seen as a favourable interview with Musharraf actually links to Robert Windrem's 'Pakistan: Crazy Soup' article that Webbie posted and we just all broadsided... :roll

:frosty
 

Red aRRow

Forum Bouncer
Thank you for the article Winter. I personally think Musharraf is the right man for Pakistan. For long the country has gone towards extremism and has been ruled by corrupt and inept politicians. I think he is the man to lead the country out of the hole it was going into.
 

Winter

New Member
Revival_786 said:
Webmaster, you should send the corrected copy to MSNBC... let's see what they say :mad
An automated typed reply from a low-level clerk who hasn't even read it let alone cares, probably. :roll

Yes, that's my sad side...

:frosty
 

AK_PAK

New Member
Winter said:
Revival_786 said:
Webmaster, you should send the corrected copy to MSNBC... let's see what they say :mad
An automated typed reply from a low-level clerk who hasn't even read it let alone cares, probably. :roll

Yes, that's my sad side...

:frosty
LOL, so true.
 

ullu

New Member
similar article but old from 2000. One of its authors is same plus they are quoting some Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni in this report so maybe its true? :D


Pakistan nukes outstrip India’s, officials say
U.S. reverses assessment of South Asia nuclear balance

By Robert Windrem and Tammy Kupperman

MSNBC.com NBC NEWS 06 June 2000

WASHINGTON, June 6 — Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is vastly superior to that of rival India, with up to five times the nuclear warheads, say U.S. military and intelligence officials now reassessing the South Asian balance of power. Interviews with senior U.S. officials in the past week revealed the view that Pakistan not only has more warheads than its longtime adversary, but has far more capability to actually use them.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS TESTS by India and Pakistan in May 1998 caught American intelligence off guard. While U.S. agencies long had known about weapons-development research in both countries, the decision by both to go public with their capabilities shocked policymakers.

Since then, U.S. intelligence and diplomacy has focused on South Asia with a new intensity. Until recently, for instance, Pakistan was considered to have somewhere between 10 and 15 nuclear weapons and India between 25 and 100.

But after two years of intelligence gathering, officials now believe those figures overstate the capabilities of India’s home-grown arsenal and understate those of Pakistan, whose program has relied on generous Chinese assistance. One official said the Pakistanis “are more likely to have those numbers [25 to 100 weapons] than the Indians.â€

Perhaps most important, the official said, is that Pakistan appears far more capable than India of delivering nuclear payloads. “I don’t think their [the Indian] program is as advanced as the Paks,†the official said, speaking particularly of ballistic missiles.

Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni, commander of the U.S. Central Command, said longtime assumptions that India had an edge in the South Asian strategic balance of power were questionable, at best.

“Don’t assume that the Pakistani nuclear capability is inferior to the Indians,†said Zinni, the senior U.S. officer responsible for the Middle East and South Asia.

Other military and intelligence officials, as well as an intelligence analysis of South Asia’s nuclear balance obtained by NBC News, shed more light on the revised view. NBC News is the broadcast partner of the MSNBC.com joint venture.

“They both have a capability,†said one senior military official. “Pakistan’s may be better than India’s, with more weapons and more capability.

“You can’t underestimate the Pakistani program,†said the official. Like most of the officials NBC News contacted, this one would speak only on condition of anonymity.
DOCUMENTS SUPPORT REVISED VIEW

These officials believe India understands that it is behind. A recent Defense Department analysis of the Indian program obtained by MSNBC.com states that India is moving to address its shortcomings.

Quoting India’s recently publicized draft nuclear doctrine, the Defense Department report said that “India announced its plans to develop a minimum nuclear deterrent force comprised of a triad of nuclear delivery systems — air, mobile land-based launches and sea-based platforms. The air component of its triad is the only one that may be in place already.â€

The U.S. report also states that “India probably has a handful of nuclear bombs,†meaning about five. With regard to delivery systems — the missiles and bombers needed to launch a nuclear strike — U.S. officials now believe Indian capabilities to be seriously lagging.

According to the Defense Department document, which is unclassified, India has no nuclear-capable missiles and fewer aircraft capable of delivering a nuclear payload than Pakistan does. India has twice tested a new intermediate-ranged missile, the Agni, which may eventually provide the basis of a nuclear missile force. However, current U.S. analysis suggests the Agni will not be fielded with nuclear warheads for another 10 years. Additionally, India appears to only have begun work on missile warhead design and on the miniaturization of weapons — two critical hurdles to the actual use of weapons.

The U.S. assessment of Pakistan, on the other hand, has been greatly upgraded.

A U.S. official stated that Pakistani air and missile delivery systems are now believed to be “fully capable of a nuclear exchange if something happens.†Other officials noted that Pakistan’s air force, with its U.S. F-16’s and its French Mirage fighter-bombers, are superior at penetrating enemy airspace than India’s Soviet-designed MiGs and Sukhois.

Most importantly, Pakistan is now thought to possess about 30 nuclear-capable missiles: the Chinese M-11 short-range missile and its Pakistani variant, the Tarmuk, as well as the North Korean Nodong intermediate-range missile (known locally as the Ghauri).
HAIR-TRIGGER CONCERN
The mystery that shrouds both of these growing nuclear arsenals has become a major cause for concern among U.S. policymakers, who even before the 1998 tests had deemed South Asia the most likely site of a nuclear war.

According to one analysis done by the U.S. Air Force, more than 150 million Indians and Pakistanis could perish in an all-out nuclear exchange — three times the total number of people who died in World War II.

One frequently cited fear among U.S. intelligence officials is an accidental nuclear war in which Pakistan mistakes the firing of an Indian missile bearing a conventional warhead as a nuclear strike.

Despite what appears to be a healthy fear of the other on both sides, the United States still fears there could be a series of crises that lead to something worse. Last year’s Pakistani incursion in the Kargil area of Kashmir, the disputed Muslim territory controlled by India, is a good example of the region’s unpredictability.

“Kargil scared both sides,†Zinni said. “There is usually a gentleman’s agreement to keep conflict around the Line of Control,†he said, referring to the U.N. cease-fire line set after the two nations’ 1947 war over the region. “It escalated with mobilizations on different fronts — tit for tat. Both sides are now very concerned about how escalation works and how it could happen very quickly.â€

Zinni said the United States intervened in the “nick of time†with Kargil. The United States doesn’t exert much influence on the daily level of fighting, but a senior military official does believe that Washington has some sway in terms of escalation because neither side really wants an all-out war, despite some hard-liners on both side who publicly claim they want to bring the issue to a head.
 

ullu

New Member
Another similar article but from different source than msnbc so chances are its true! :p



250 NUCLEAR WARHEADS HANDY IN INDIA AND PAKISTAN

LONDON , JUNE,(IPS)-: India has up to 150 nuclear warheads while Pakistan holds almost 100 that total at most 250 Nuclear Warheads that are handy in the Indo-Pakistan Subcontinent,if a nuclear war breaks out and they are atleast 10 times powerfull what USA used in Hiroshima(Japan),a recent study report conducted by the strategic nuclear observers revealed here.

Although both sides have declined to give details of the size or capability of their arsenals, this survey has estimated their destructive potentials.

India may be able to deploy a 20 kiloton device from a Mig, Jaguar or Mirage aircraft, and could be able to deliver a bomb of a similar size on Prithvi, Dhanush and Agni ballistic missiles, the survey said. "It is estimated that India probably has between 50 and 150 nuclear warheads available," the London-based group said.

Pakistan's capability that is acquired in recent years and may be much more sophisticated,as indications are that it also has a hydrogen bomb , probably has between 50 and 100 nuclear warheads available.

"Pakistan's planned yield for its larger nuclear weapons design was 25 to 35 kilotons providing a warhead that would probably be fitted to Shaheen and Ghauri ballistic missiles." besides its F-16s and Mirage combat fighter planes.

The survey warned that even if 10 to15 warheads,if used, could inflict devastating death tolls on any of India and Pakistan's cities, following other assessments this week that reached a potential of millions of deaths in any nuclear conflict in South Asia. It also warned that for both sides any nuclear conflict would be essentially self-defeating, as bombs would inflict terrible casualties on home populations as well as targeted cities. I.P.S.


:pak
 

farina

New Member
Good break down WM. Its amusing to see self-declared "defense experts" write stuff based on their imagination and according to what they think things are like.

Ullu, the articles you posted were very popular among Pakistanis and Indians when they came out since it gave people chance to look at things with different set of glasses.
 

Faisal_Masud

New Member
Few days ago when I wrote that a secret meeting between Indo-Israel Intelligence was reported,a man In do not remember said that the newspapers in pakistan have their own stupid Agenda.And now I'll like to say that the media in West have the worst agenda.Their target is pakistan's nuclear program.Now who is the greater one.
 

webmaster

Troll Hunter
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #20
Faisal, double standards exist in all medias, one cannot deny that fact. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise the type of double standards the western media excercises. Its outrageous sometimes to see them cross the limits of what we may call allowable double standards. Thats how things are I guess - once they know they can change public opinion according to what they tell the public then it becomes very hard to control. ;)
 
Top