USA Has Plans To Secure WMDs If Pakistan Falls at Pat Dollard

USA Has Plans To Secure WMDs If Pakistan Falls

May 17th, 2009 (6) Posted By Erik Wong.

FOX News: The United States has a detailed plan for infiltrating Pakistan and securing its mobile arsenal of nuclear warheads if it appears the country is about to fall under the control of the Taliban, Al Qaeda or other Islamic extremists.

American intelligence sources say the operation would be conducted by Joint Special Operations Command, the super-secret commando unit headquartered at Fort Bragg, N.C.

JSOC is the military’s chief terrorists hunting squad and has units now operating in Afghanistan on Pakistan’s western border. But a secondary mission is to secure foreign nuclear arsenals — a role for which JSOC operatives have trained in Nevada.

The mission has taken on added importance in recent months, as Islamic extremists have taken territory close to the capital of Islamabad and could destabilize Pakistan’s shaky democracy.

“We have plans to secure them ourselves if things get out of hand,” said a U.S. intelligence source who has deployed to Afghanistan. “That is a big secondary mission for JSOC in Afghanistan.”

The source said JSOC has been updating its mission plan for the day President Obama gives the order to infiltrate Pakistan.

“Small units could seize them, disable them and then centralize them in a secure location,” the source said.

A secret Defense Intelligence Agency document first disclosed in 2004 said Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal of 35 weapons. The document said it plans to more than double the arsenal by 2020.

A Pakistani official said the U.S. and his country have had an understanding that if either Usama bin Laden, or his deputy, Ayman Zawahiri, is located, American troops and air strikes may be used inside borders to capture or kill them.

What makes the Pakistan mission especially difficult is that the military has its missiles on Soviet-style mobile launchers and rail lines. U.S. intelligence agencies, using satellite photos and communication intercepts, is constantly monitoring their whereabouts. Other warheads are kept in storage. U.S. technical experts have visited Pakistan to advise the government on how to maintain and protect its arsenal.

Also, there are rogue elements inside Pakistan’s military and intelligence service who could quickly side with the extremists and make JSOC’s mission all the more difficult.

“It’s relatively easy to track rail-mounted ones with satellites,” said the intelligence source. “Truck- mounted are more difficult. However, they are all relatively close to the capital in areas that the government firmly controls so we don’t have to look too far.”

JSOC is made up of three main elements: Army Delta Force, Navy SEALs and a high-tech special intelligence unit known as Task Force Orange. JSOC was instrumental in Iraq in finding and killing Abu Musab Zarqawi, the deadly and most prominent Al Qaeda leader in the Middle East.

There is speculation in the intelligence community that a secondary reason for Army Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal being named the next commander in Afghanistan is that he headed JSOC in 2006-08 and is read-in on its contingency missions in Pakistan.

Adm. Michael Mullen, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, this month said that based on the information he has seen Pakistan’s nuclear warheads are safe.

“I remain comfortable that the nuclear weapons in Pakistan are secure, that the Pakistani leadership and in particular the military is very focused on this,” he said. “We the United States have invested fairly significantly over the last three years, to work with them, to improve that security. And we’re satisfied, very satisfied with that progress. We will continue to do that. And we all recognize obviously the worst downside of — with respect to Pakistan is that those nuclear weapons come under the control of terrorists. “

Your Ad Here

TerryTate

Well that just gives me warm fuzzies all over…

Except, when you consider these two items:

1. It’s all contingent upon “for the day President Obama gives the order to infiltrate Pakistan….”

and;

2. One. Just one, slips through, and it could mean a very, bad day, somewhere, sometime, some how.

Yeah, yeah, I read ya, we got the Muzzies covered, but lets just say I’ve heard that before.
Ty

Can I ask a stupid question? I really am curious and not trying to make a joke….

If securing Pakistan’s nukes so no Islamic extremists can get their hands on them is so important, why is Iran being almost completely ignored? It would seem to me to be easier to prevent a country from acquiring nuclear weapons than it would be to “secure” them from the wrong hands. Subsequently, the U.S. has this contingency plan but we’re telling Israel to back off Iran?
AFITgrad86

I think it is important to note that the US has contingency plans for a number of scenarios all of which are reviewed and updated on both a periodic (annual) and event driven basis.

Just because we have a plan does not mean we will act. However, publicizing that the plan exists is not helpful from a diplomatic point of view — that’s one reason why they are classified.

Plans of this nature are developed in response to a threat (real or perceived) and the action(s) advocated may be at odds with the diplomatic community. However, the feeling is better to have and not need than to need and not have.

Typically the level of detail in such plans is pretty top level. The real intent is to assign responsibility for specific tasks (including detailed planning, command structures, support agreements, etc.) to various commanders.

Executing such plans generally comes in a multi-step process where the intent to execute is communicated which authorizes such actions as developing updated detail plans, refining intelligence, and training forces in specific aspects of the plan. Such steps need not be authorized by the National Command Authority (e.g., the President) but can be initiated at a lower level.

From the above … I think me may be there.
Political.fish

Thats all well and good. I expect we have such plans, and if neccessary, to effect action upon them. But what about a plan to take our country back? Are these commanders not duty bound by oath and honor to uphold our constitution? Is it proper that we prepare for external threats only, and simply ignore the domestic enemy in the White House? Am I, a private citizen, businessman and father the enemy? Am I a delusional witness to an imagined socialist takeover of America? If I am, then I should be placed in protective custody, for the protection of my children, and I would go willingly. If I am not, then I demand that these generals take decisive action to prevent the continuing destruction of my Nation. I demand that they uphold the constitution. I demand that they uphold their oaths, and if they will, I will stand or fall beside them, and render to history the fate of our once great nation, either into the death throes of tyranny, or into the returning glory upon which our country was originally founded. Live free, or die!

AFITgrad86

“….. But what about a plan to take our country back? Are these commanders not duty bound by oath and honor to uphold our constitution?”

All military officers swear to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

However before we go off into a “7 Days in May” (interesting book) scenario one has to examine the dividing line between Patriot and Mutineer.

Opinions among the officer corps has always sided towards the conservative point of view. Many view themselves as called to service by a higher power in much the same way as pastors do. (Although there are always exceptions and scalawags in any group)

These career officers will only step forward and take action if and when a clear line has been crossed … and we’re not there yet. Despite the feelings of betrayal and creeping socialism that many of us feel, no clear violation of Constitutional principles has been made.

That fact that we can see the writing on the wall and can connect the dots to predict where things are headed does not constitute a breach of Constitutional rights.

What we are seeing so far is the swing of the political pendulum from one side to the other. The fact that some of us have not seen it swing so far to the left in their lifetime only means they haven’t lived long enough. FDR and the “New Deal” was a further swing left than we have seen lately when viewed from the ‘norm’ of the day. LBJ and the “Great Society” was also a huge swing to the left.

One can take comfort in the fact that after each great swing, the pendulum returned to the center and then swung in the other direction. Truman and Eisenhower tamed much of FDR’s socialist ambitions as did Nixon tame LBJ’s.

The unfortunate part is the irreversible damage done to the nation during these swings .. Social Security (FDR), Welfare (LBJ) etc.

Our job then is that undertaken by our fathers and grandfathers before us. Teach our children our core values. Vote in every election. Organize into political action groups. Speak out on the issues. Have patience because the tide will ebb and flow.

Look to the past for the answers to the future. Look to Reagan’s life. Look to the founding fathers especially my favorite Thomas Payne.

Do not give the other side ammunition by which to attack us. Calls for force are premature and bring the risk of us being labeled as ‘extreme’, ‘violent’ or worse. Witness the John Birch society of the 1950′s and 1960′s.

Rest assured that when and if the line is crossed you and I will be side-by-side. Until then keep your powder dry.
Political.fish

I appreciate and thank you for your thoughtful comments, and to a degree concur. However, I disagree as to the extent of federal incursion into the private domain and state that foundational constitutional principles have been breached. Please note the recent revival of State declarations of sovereignty and the overwhelming expansion of federal power outside the limits defined by the constitution itself. This is no game of semantics, and I am no mutineer. I am an American patriot. I have drawn a line in the sand, and stand by my previous statements.