Pakistan vs Kohr
Dec. 30th, 2007 03:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
libertangoCatching up on reading the Financial Times today, I ran across this article on nuclear security, among other things. It added something I hadn't heard before, but threw the situation in Pakistan into sharper relief for me:
"Non-proliferation groups say if terrorists can twice come close to assassinating Mr Musharraf with the help of military officers, as they did several years ago, it is hard to rule out the possibility of officers guarding the nuclear arsenal helping al-Qaeda.
But diplomats familiar with Pakistan's command and control structure play down this risk.
They say that since the 2004 revelations of the international nuclear proliferation network run by Pakistan's Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani government has made extra efforts to improve export controls and monitor nuclear personnel.
But some fear that anger over Bhutto's death could take on an ethnic dimension, pitting Sindhi nationalists against the dominant Punjabi establishment, and that civil conflict could threaten military command structures.
Husain Haqqani, a Bhutto adviser, referring to her father's execution in 1979, said: "People will now widely ask, 'Why is it that prime ministers from Sindh get assassinated?'"."
That last is important, because I've long held that the most likely place for nuclear weapons to next be used will be in a civil war, given that civil wars tend to be more violent even than nation-to-nation wars. (It's also why China has been tops of my hit parade, because I don't expect China to hold together, in the long run.) Once you put the problem of Pakistan in the frame of regions struggling against each pther, you're suddenly betting against Leopold Kohr (see The Breakdown of Nations) -- and, historically, that bet is generally a loser.
Other concerns -- the US might not launch a pre-emptive strike against Pakistan should control of the nukes come into question... But I wouldn't rule out the Indians. Or the Israelis (for all that it would be a one-way trip for any strike team).
"Non-proliferation groups say if terrorists can twice come close to assassinating Mr Musharraf with the help of military officers, as they did several years ago, it is hard to rule out the possibility of officers guarding the nuclear arsenal helping al-Qaeda.
But diplomats familiar with Pakistan's command and control structure play down this risk.
They say that since the 2004 revelations of the international nuclear proliferation network run by Pakistan's Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani government has made extra efforts to improve export controls and monitor nuclear personnel.
But some fear that anger over Bhutto's death could take on an ethnic dimension, pitting Sindhi nationalists against the dominant Punjabi establishment, and that civil conflict could threaten military command structures.
Husain Haqqani, a Bhutto adviser, referring to her father's execution in 1979, said: "People will now widely ask, 'Why is it that prime ministers from Sindh get assassinated?'"."
That last is important, because I've long held that the most likely place for nuclear weapons to next be used will be in a civil war, given that civil wars tend to be more violent even than nation-to-nation wars. (It's also why China has been tops of my hit parade, because I don't expect China to hold together, in the long run.) Once you put the problem of Pakistan in the frame of regions struggling against each pther, you're suddenly betting against Leopold Kohr (see The Breakdown of Nations) -- and, historically, that bet is generally a loser.
Other concerns -- the US might not launch a pre-emptive strike against Pakistan should control of the nukes come into question... But I wouldn't rule out the Indians. Or the Israelis (for all that it would be a one-way trip for any strike team).
