Comment by Riaz Haq on August 5, 2018 at 11:10am

Here's a link to a #Stanford study on western #media bias in covering #Pakistan #nuclear program. "clear that a certain amount of propaganda was used to make Pakistan appear threatening" #Islamophobia https://web.stanford.edu/class/e297c/war_peace/media/hpropaganda.html …

We will explore another example of how the facts are tinted using propaganda tactics with a focus on how the American media portrays the stability of Pakistan. As with the tactics that link Pakistan to nations that are considered enemies of the United States, the key will be to focus on how the factual information is presented, in what context, to serve what purpose. By media displaying Pakistan as an unstable nation while discussing nuclear technology, it will persuade the public to fear Pakistan. This tactic which is Enemy as Barbarian: threat to culture is intended to create an enemy, by creating a sense that Pakistan is a country that is not worthy of nuclear technology. The idea behind enemy as barbarian is to portray the subject as rude, crude, uncivilized, and animalistic.

Thus the media describe Pakistan in terms that will establish it as a global threat because of their instability. For example, the Washington Post Quote of the Day was by Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani engineer responsible for nuclear development. It read as follows: "I am one of the kindest persons in Pakistan. I feed the birds, I feed ants in the morning. I feed monkeys that come down the mountain" ("Quote of the Day" 38). Although the Post acknowledges the accomplishments of Khan as an engineer, they clearly represent Pakistan in a way that is far from establishing it as an advanced country technically. The rural feel of "monkeys that come down the mountain" is enough to make any reader question the reliability of nuclear technology in a country that appears to be far from modern.

In fact, this propagandistic tactic is highly subtle, since the connection to nuclear weapons is not directly made in the quote. It is not until the reader read the last two lines that the connection is made:

Abdul Qadeer Khan

"the father of the Islamic bomb" ("Quote of the Day" 38).

By connecting the speaker with the nuclear weapons, the Post was able to thus connect the rural feeling created by the quote to the nuclear technology. Since one does not imply the other, there is a sense of uneasiness created in the mind of the reader. The critical point is that although the quote is correct factually, the context in which it is presented, the specific form and placement of labels, is what makes it propaganda.

In another article in the Los Angeles Times describing nuclear technology in Pakistan, the reference to the instability of the nation was more direct:

For more than two decades, the prospect of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and South Asia has stirred the concept of an ‘Islamic bomb’—the entry of an Islamic nation into the ranks of the nuclear powers and its impact on religious, ethnic and political conflict in one of the world’s most volatile regions (Daniszewski A10).

By locating Pakistan in "one of the world’s most volatile regions" the authors quickly establish why the country should not have nuclear weapons without ever explicitly making the statement. The article continues by explaining that "Myron Weiner, a sociologist and South Asia expert at MIT, is one of the many analysts who say they are concerned that if Pakistan is pushed to the brink of financial ruin...it might respond by selling its nuclear technology" (Daniszewski A10). This tactic relies on authority of an expert testimony which is explained in the introduction as a heuristic that when someone credible and in this case by title of an expert, a person will automatically believe the information to be correct. To media uses this tactic to help establish the ideologue that the unstable region of Pakistan can only cause p

Comment by Riaz Haq on May 28, 2020 at 8:30pm

Engaging India: Diplomacy, Democracy, and the Bomb

Book by Strobe Talbott, Deputy Secretary of State of the United States, 1994-2001.

Sharing excerpts from the book on his visit to Pakistan to convince Nawaz Sharif against nuclear tests.

https://twitter.com/AsharJawad/status/1266118890955948032?s=20

Clinton telephoned Sharif, the Pakistani PM, to whet his appetite for the planes, huge amounts of financial aid, and a prize certain to appeal to Sharif—an invitation for him to make an official visit to Washington.

“You can almost hear the guy wringing his hands and sweating,” Clinton said after hanging up.

Still, we had to keep trying. Our best chance was an emergency dose of face-to-face diplomacy. It was decided that I would fly to Pakistan and make the case to Nawaz Sharif.

On arrival in Islamabad, we had about an hour to freshen up at a hotel before our first official meeting, which was with the foreign minister, Gohar Ayub Khan, and the foreign secretary (the senior civil servant in the ministry), Shamshad Ahmad.

When we got to the foreign ministry, we found that the Pakistani civilian leaders had finally figured out how to handle our visit, and the result was a bracing experience. My two hosts rolled their eyes, mumbled imprecations under their breath, and constantly interrupted.

They accused the United States of having turned a blind eye to the BJP’s preparations for the test.

As for the carrots I had brought, the Pakistanis gave me a version of the reaction I had gotten from General Wahid five years earlier.

Offers of Pressler relief and delivery of “those rotting and virtually obsolete air- planes,” said Gohar Ayub, were “shoddy rugs you’ve tried to sell us before.” The Pakistani people, he added, “would mock us if we accepted your offer. They will take to the streets in protest.”

I replied that Pakistanis were more likely to protest if they didn’t have jobs.

Gohar Ayub and Shamshad Ahmad waved the point aside. The two Pakistani officials were dismissive. The current burst of international outrage against India would dissipate rapidly, they predicted.

We set off with police escort, sirens blaring, to General Karamat’s headquarters in Rawalpindi.

Karamat, who was soft-spoken and self-confident, did not waste time on polemics.

He heard us out and acknowledged the validity of at least some of our arguments, especially those concerning the danger that, by testing, Pakistan would land itself, as he put it, “in the doghouse alongside India.”

His govt was still “wrestling” with the question of what to do he said, which sounded like a euphemism for civilian dithering. There was more in the way Karamat talked about his political leadership, a subtle but discernible undertone of long-suffering patience bordering on scorn

For example, he noted pointedly “speculation” that Pakistan was looking for some sort of American security guarantee, presumably a promise that the US would come to Pakistan’s defense if it was attacked by India, in exchange for not testing.

“You may hear such a suggestion later,” Karamat added, perhaps referring to our upcoming meeting with Nawaz Sharif.

I should not take such hints seri- ously, he said, since they reflected the panic of the politicians. Pakistan would look out for its own defense.

What Pakistan needed from the United States was a new, more solid relationship in which there was no “arm- twisting” or “forcing us into corners.”

By stressing this point, Karamat made clear that our arguments against testing did not impress him.

Engaging India: Diplomacy, Democracy, and the Bomb

Book by Strobe Talbott, Deputy Secretary of State of the United States, 1994-2001.

Sharing excerpts from the book on his visit to Pakistan to convince Nawaz Sharif against nuclear tests.

https://twitter.com/AsharJawad/status/1266118890955948032?s=20

I shared a car back to Islamabad with Bruce Riedel and Tom Simons to meet Nawaz Sharif.

What we got from the Prime Minister was a Hamlet act, convincing in its own way—that is, I think he was genuinely feeling torn—but rather pathetic.

On this occasion Nawaz Sharif seemed nearly paralyzed with exhaustion, anguish, and fear. He was—literally, just as Clinton had sensed during their phone call—wringing his hands. He had yet to make up his mind, he kept telling us. Left to his own judgment, he would not test.

His position was “awkward.” His government didn’t want to engage in “tit-for-tat exchanges” or “act irresponsibly.” The Indian leaders who had set off the explosion were “madmen” and he didn’t want “madly to follow suit.”

But pressure was “mounting by the hour” from all sides, including from the opposition led by his predecessor and would-be successor, Benazir Bhutto. “I am an elected official, and I cannot ignore popular sentiment.”

Sharif was worried that India would not only get away with what it had done but profit from it as well. When international anger receded, the sanctions would melt away, and the BJP would parlay India’s new status as a declared nuclear weapons state into a permanent seat on UN SC.

I laid out all that we could do for Pakistan, although this time I tried to personalize the list a bit more. Clinton told me 2 days before that he would use Sharif’s visit to Washington and Clinton’s own to Pak to “dramatize” the world’s gratitude if Sharif refrains from testing.

This point aroused the first flicker of interest I’d seen. Nawaz Sharif asked if Clinton would promise to skip India on his trip and come only to Pakistan. There was no way I could promise that.

All I could tell Nawaz Sharif was that Clinton would “recalibrate the length and character” of the stops he made in New Delhi and Islamabad to reflect that Pakistan was in favor with the United States while India was not.

Sharif looked more miserable than ever.

Toward the end of the meeting, Sharif asked everyone but me to wait outside. Shamshad seemed miffed. He glanced nervously over his shoulder as he left.
When we were alone I gave the PM a written note from Secretary Albright urging him to hold firm against those clamoring to test.

The note warned about the economic damage, to say nothing of the military danger, Pakistan faced from an escalating competition with India. Sharif read the note intently, folded the paper, put his head in his hands for a moment, then looked at me with desperation in his eyes.

At issue, he said, was his own survival. “How can I take your advice if I’m out of office?” If he did as we wanted, the next time I came to Islamabad, I'd find myself dealing not with a clean-shaven moderate like himself but with an Islamic fundamentalist “who has a long beard.”

He concluded by reiterating he had not made up his mind about testing. “If a final decision had been reached I'd be in a much calmer state of mind. Believe me when I tell you that my heart is with you. I appreciate & would even privately agree with what you're advising us to do.”

Comment by Riaz Haq on May 31, 2020 at 5:56pm

Nuclear energy of Pakistan
As it’s rightly said that Pakistan is confident but never complacent regarding nuclear safety and security
by Rabia Javed


https://nation.com.pk/28-May-2020/nuclear-energy-of-pakistan


Advocating the peaceful use of nuclear energy, Stephen Hawking once said, “I would like nuclear fusion to become a practical power source. It would provide an inexhaustible supply of energy, without pollution or global warming.”

Pakistan’s nuclear energy program started in 1954, largely inspired by then US President Dwight Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” speech in December 1953. During his address Eisenhower emphasized on promoting peaceful uses of nuclear energy in the field of agriculture, medicine, and electricity generation.

Over the years, Pakistan’s civilian nuclear energy programme has contributed to its socio-economic uplift. Furthermore, there is an ample room available for Pakistan to enhance its nuclear power generation capability to meet growing energy demands.

Pakistan has played a very important role in utilizing the peaceful nuclear energy sector in various domains. Peaceful applications are best utilized in power generation, minerals exploration, developing high-yield stress tolerant crops, cancer treatment, designing and fabrication of industrial plants and equipment and human resource development for many years.

Pakistan has used its Centres of Excellence to promote and share best practices in nuclear security through three affiliated institutes: the Pakistan Centre of Excellence for Nuclear Security (PCENS), the National Institute of Safety and Security (NISAS), and the Pakistan Institute of Engineering and Applied Sciences (PIEAS). Along with this, Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority (PNRA) was established under the Ordinance III of 2001 for regulation of nuclear safety and radiation protection. In 1994, Pakistan also signed convention on nuclear safety which requires states to established regulatory bodies separated from those involving the promotion of nuclear energy. PNRA, since its development, has demonstrated excellence as a role model for safety culture at national and international levels by adopting various precautionary measures.

-------------

Appreciating the "positive role" played by Pakistan in promoting peaceful uses of nuclear technology, IAEA assisted Pakistan to establish Veterinary Residue Laboratory, which now carries out food safety tests ofinternational standards. The new laboratory can test meat and other food products and certify that they do not contain veterinary drug residues that exceed safety limits.

Nuclear technology is playing a crucial role in cancer treatment. So far, 18 cancer hospitals – spread across Pakistan’s four provinces and the capital, Islamabad – are working on cancer treatment. These hospitals alone, working under the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission, are responsible for 80% of cancer treatment in the country. The IAEA stands ready to assist Pakistan in strengthening capacities for key elements of a cancer control programme. These include prevention, early detection, diagnosis and treatment, and palliative care.

On the eve of global summit on nuclear security in Vienna, Pakistan provided a thorough glance to its ‘stringent’ nuclear safety mechanisms. This event was attended by diplomats around the world. A booklet was presented by Pakistan titled ‘Pakistan’s Nuclear Security Regime,' released alongside IAEA’s third International Conference on Nuclear Security (ICONS) - with the aim to demonstrate Pakistan's “commitment and contribution to the global objectives of civilian nuclear utilization.” Such a step was taken with an aim to counter the myths, disinformation, misperceptions and unfounded propaganda against the country’s peaceful nuclear energy programme. The booklet outlines that there is an urgent need to recognise the best practices Pakistan has in place for safety of its peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Comment by Riaz Haq on June 15, 2020 at 5:54pm

#Pakistan #Uranium exploration in Bannu, Kohat approved. The country is investing heavily for the development of #nuclear #medicine and radiation therapy hospitals and equipment including the #cancer fighting centres.- Pakistan - DAWN.COM

https://www.dawn.com/news/1563546

The government has approved work for exploration of uranium in Bannu basin and Kohat plateau at an estimated cost of Rs926.03 million and allocated Rs200m for Atomic Energy Commission’s project in the budget for fiscal year 2020-21.

The country is investing heavily for the development of nuclear medicines and radiation-related hospitals and equipment including the cancer fighting centres.

Currently, there are 18 ongoing development projects of the commission and Rs23.09bn has been allocated for these projects in the new budget. None of the projects have any foreign funding, either in the shape of grants or loans.

These projects include uranium exploration in the Dera Ghazi Khan area of Punjab for which Rs140m has been allocated in the budget though the project’s total cost is Rs794.9m.

For the cancer hospital NORI Islamabad, which is expected to be completed by the end of June 2021, Rs1.23bn has been allocated. For each of the Bahawalpur Institute of Nuclear Medicine & Oncology (BINO) and Karachi Institute of Radiotherapy and Nuclear Medicine, Rs125m has been allocated in the federal budget.

Government plans to invest heavily in nuclear medicines

Similarly, Rs280m has been allocated for Gilgit Institute of Nuclear Medicine, Oncology and Radiotherapy and Rs500m for Gujranwala Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Radiotherapy. Both the centres are expected to become operational next year.

As the country is also investing in the nuclear power projects, Rs18bn has been allocated for units 1 and 2 of the Karachi coastal power projects and Rs1.5bn has been allocated for the research reactor-3 of 10 megawatts.

The 3D printing facility being established in Islamabad has been allocated Rs97.43m in 2020-21.

However, only Rs10m has been allocated for nuclear fuel enrichment plant and Rs21m for the nuclear power fuel testing project in the next budget, indicating that work has been stalled or slowed down at these projects.

Other projects, where the pace of work has apparently slowed down, includes the fuel fabrication plant and the seamless tube plant for which the government has allocated Rs42m and Rs32m, respectively.

The new development budget has allocated Rs100m for studies related to the development of nuclear power plants and Rs140m for survey of mineral resources.

There are two development projects for Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority (PNRA), including the establishment of national radiological emergency coordination centre in Karachi, Islamabad and Mianwali, with the final allocation of Rs199.18m. The other PNRA project is related to enhancing the capacity of the regulator for oversight against vulnerabilities of cyber threats with the allocation of Rs150m.

Comment by Riaz Haq on April 14, 2021 at 6:15am

In "The Way of the Knife", Mark Mazzetti says the CIA proposed using Blackwater to kill Pakistani nuclear scientist AQ Khan in 2001 during a meeting with Dick Cheney.

Blackwater's Erik Prince said in an interview with Vanity Fair, "If it went bad, we weren't expecting the chief station, the ambassador or anyone to bail us out".

https://books.google.com/books?id=ak09_BVX1wMC&newbks=0&pri...

https://twitter.com/clary_co/status/1382313419232194566?s=20

Comment by Riaz Haq on October 11, 2021 at 4:26pm

How #Pakistani #nuclear scientist #AbdulQadeerKhan escaped assassination by #Mossad? Had #Israeli #intelligence chief Shavit understood what Khan was doing, he could've "changed the course of history," at least in the context of Israel-#Iran relations. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/how-pakistan-s-a-q-khan-father-...

by Yossi Melman

Abdul Qadeer Khan, who died this week in Islamabad, got Pakistan the bomb, stole and sold atomic secrets, profited from a shady global proliferation network, helped Iran go nuclear, aided Gadhafi's reactor ambitions – and still passed away from natural causes, not at the hands of the Mossad

Abdul Qadeer (A.Q.) Khan who has just died at the age of 85 from COVID-19, is considered a national hero in Pakistan, his homeland. There, and worldwide, he has been dubbed the "Father of Pakistan's nuclear weapons." But he could equally be called as the Godfather of Iran’s nuclear program.


Born in India in 1936, Khan moved with his family in the wake of partition to Pakistan in 1952. In 1972, at the age of 36, he was sent to specialize in a Dutch laboratory and workshop, which was part of the European URENCO consortium, building centrifuges to enrich uranium.



Khan stole their documents and plans but then, in 1975, he was exposed by Dutch intelligence and fled to Pakistan. There, he persuaded the reluctant prime minister of Pakistan, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, to start a nuclear program to match India’s nuclear weapons.


By pure coincidence, the same year, Arnon Milchan, future Hollywood tycoon and then an Israeli spy, was also involved in a similar theft. According to foreign reports, Milchan and Israel’s 'Scientific Liaison Bureau' intelligence unit bought URENCO’s drawings of centrifuges from a German engineer and built similar centrifuges in Dimona for Israel’s nuclear weapons.


After helping his home country build a significant nuclear arsenal, Khan retired and opened an unusual private business. He set up shop in Dubai and from there ran a convoluted and secretive global network of helpers, engineers, contractors, and financiers, offering other states his nuclear knowhow, tradecraft, technology, and equipment. The network rented workshops, factories, offices, and computer centers in several countries including Malaysia, North Korea, and Switzerland, to name a few.



Clothed with the aura of the nuclear genius who facilitated the first "Muslim bomb," A.Q. Khan traveled extensively during the late 80’s and early 90’s throughout the Middle East, offering his services. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria and even Syria rejected his mercenary approach of bombs for bucks. Iran and Libya did accept, but altered the terms and scope of the offer.


Lacking serious scientific infrastructure and expertise, Libya’s then-leader Muammar Gadhafi asked Khan and his team to provide Tripoli with a turn-key project whereby Khan would be responsible for handing over a completed nuclear capacity.


Post-revolutionary Iran, on the other hand, being a proud nation with an already relatively advanced nuclear program developed during the Shah's reign, and good universities and scientists who had studied in the West, chose its own path.

Iran bought from Khan the drawings and plans of Pakistan’s centrifuges known as P1 and P2. Iranian scientists, led by Dr. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, who was recently gunned down by a Mossad hit team, built their own centrifuges, renaming them Ir-1 and Ir-2, according to foreign reports.


These original centrifuges, which Iran has upgraded and improved since then to be faster and more efficient, continuing the series by calling them Ir-3-4-5-6-7, are now spinning in the uranium enrichment facilities of Natanz and Fordow and are the major concern for Israel, the U.S., and the western world in terms of Iran's nuclear program and intentions.

Comment by Riaz Haq on October 12, 2021 at 6:05pm

Fidato
@tequieremos

In 1980, India and Israel collaborated a joint attack against Pakistan's nuclear plant in Kahuta. The nuclear program was still in the embryonic state. Plus there were no F-16 aircrafts with the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) to counter such a strike. A squadron of Israeli aircraft...


https://twitter.com/tequieremos/status/1447977997177442310?s=20


https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/48288/did-india-plan-t...


The timing of Khan’s outpourings could not have been worse. Reagan was due in Beijing. The aid package to Pakistan was up for renewal on Capitol Hill. In New Delhi, too, there was anger at Khan and at the US. The talk was that Washington had betrayed India’s secret plans to strike at Pakistan’s nuclear project. K. Subrahmanyam, chairman of India’s joint intelligence committee, picked over the Khan interviews. “We knew we were being challenged by Islamabad,” Subrahmanyam recalled. “Our intelligence people also had evidence of the Pakistan air force increasing their levels of readiness, further proof, if any more were needed, that our covert intentions to hit Kahuta were not secret any more.”

But what made India’s joint intelligence committee livid was that it had been sitting on the plan to strike KRL for a year. A committee of soldiers and intelligence people had first come together to discuss what became known as “the Osirak contingency” in 1981, after Lieutenant General Krishnaswami Sundarji had published his Pakistan war-gaming manual. Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi had consented and placed Air Marshal Dilbagh Singh, chief of air staff, in charge of the operation. He had ordered Indian Air Force Jaguar squadrons to practice low-level flying, simulating runs with 2,000-lb bombs.

In February 1983, with the strike plan at an advanced stage, Indian military officials had travelled secretly to Israel, which had a common interest in eliminating Khan, to buy electronic warfare equipment to neutralize Kahuta’s air defenses. On 25 February 1983, Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi had accused Pakistan of “covertly attempting to make nuclear weapons,” and three days later, Raja Ramanna, director of India’s Bhabha Atomic Research Center, had revealed that India, too, was developing a uranium enrichment facility. Suspecting something was brewing, the ISI sent a message to their Indian intelligence counterparts in RAW that autumn, and as a result Munir Ahmed Khan of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission met Dr. Ramanna at the Imperial Hotel in Vienna. He warned Ramanna that if India were to strike at Kahuta, Pakistan would hit India’s nuclear facilities at Trombay. It lay downwind from the teeming Indian city of Mumbai and an attack would result in the release of “massive amounts of radiation to a large populated area, causing a disaster.”


— Adrian Levy & Catherine Scott-Clark: "Deception: Pakistan, the United States and the global nuclear weapons conspiracy", Walker Books, 2010.

Comment by Riaz Haq on October 12, 2021 at 6:06pm

Fidato
@tequieremos

In 1980, India and Israel collaborated a joint attack against Pakistan's nuclear plant in Kahuta. The nuclear program was still in the embryonic state. Plus there were no F-16 aircrafts with the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) to counter such a strike. A squadron of Israeli aircraft...


https://twitter.com/tequieremos/status/1447977997177442310?s=20


https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/48288/did-india-plan-t...

----------

New Delhi paused. Israel stepped in, suggesting that it carry out the raid, using India’s airbase at Jamnagar to launch Israeli air force jets and a second base in northern India to refuel. A senior Israeli analyst close to the operation recalled that the plan was to enter Pakistan beneath the radar, with jets tracking the line of the Himalayas through Kashmir. As Reagan’s staff finalized arrangements for the president’s visit to China in March 1984, prime minister Indira Gandhi signed off the Israeli-led operation, bringing India, Pakistan and Israel to within a hair’s breadth of a nuclear conflagration. It was at this point that the CIA tipped off President Zia, hoping the chain reaction would defuse the situation. And after Khan’s outbursts in the Pakistani newspapers, India and Israel had backed off. But these were high-stakes games, played between a known nuclear nation—India—and another—Pakistan—that Reagan continued to insist had no capability, the US deception bringing the region even further towards an apocalyptic conflagration.

Soon afterwards, Khan was at it again. This time sticking to a tight script, he contacted the Daily Jang and The Muslim. “Pakistan can set up several nuclear centers of the Kahuta pattern,” he bragged, knowing that every one of his words was being read over the border. “In the event of the destruction of the Kahuta plant, more than one such plant can be set up in Pakistan.” To make things absolutely clear, Pakistan’s ambassador in New Delhi approached the Indian foreign office, promising that they would make it rain fire if India went ahead.

Indira Gandhi had her resolve to do something about Kahuta rekindled in March 1984, when, just weeks after the Chinese president Li Xiannian visited Pakistan and stated that China endorsed a nuclear weapons-free South Asia, the Indian foreign ministry learned that China appeared to have detonated a nuclear-capable device on behalf of Pakistan at its test site at Lop Nor, an event witnessed by Pakistan’s foreign minister.30 In Washington, the true nature of the China–Pakistan nuclear pact also began to surface. Len Weiss, Senator Glenn’s staffer, recalled the congressional backlash as newspaper stories from the UK reached Washington claiming that US and Western intelligence had concluded that China had passed its bomb designs to Pakistan. “This news for us came from nowhere and its consequences were obvious. It was no longer just inexperienced Pakistan striving for a bomb and the US turning a blind eye. It was Pakistan backed by a sophisticated and proven nuclear power with the US burying the bad news from elected officials.”
— Adrian Levy & Catherine Scott-Clark: "Deception: Pakistan, the United States and the global nuclear weapons conspiracy", Walker Books, 2010.

Comment by Riaz Haq on October 13, 2021 at 9:33pm

When Pakistan feared Israel, India would attack its nuclear weapon sites - The Week
Inbox

https://www.theweek.in/news/world/2021/05/28/when-pakistan-feared-i...

( Brig Feroz Hasan) Khan ( in his book Eating Grass) referred to purported plans by India and Israel to attack Pakistan's nuclear facilities, most notably the uranium enrichment and research facility at Kahuta in the early 1980s.

"... Pakistani intelligence picked up leads of Israeli and Indian intelligence collaboration and discovered that the Indian Air Force had begun planning a strike on Pakistan’s nuclear facilities. India conducted a feasibility study on an Osirak-type attack against Pakistan at its Combat College, and the Indian Air Force conducted a series of exercises related to this study, some of which used top-of-the-line Jaguar aircraft. Meanwhile, Israel offered a new proposal that would accomplish New Delhi’s goals. Under this new plan, Israeli planes would take off from an Indian Air Force base in Jamnagar, refuel at a satellite airfield somewhere in northern India, and in the final stage, the planes would track the Himalayas to avoid early radar detection before penetrating Pakistani airspace,” Khan wrote in his book.

Khan claimed then prime minister Indira Gandhi had cleared the operation, but the US government, under president Ronald Reagan, warned India and Israel to back off. Khan wrote Indira Gandhi abandoned plans to attack Kahuta in 1982 and 1984.

In a post on his websitein November 2016, eminent strategic analyst Bharat Karnad appeared to corroborate the claims by (Brig Feroz Hasan) Khan. Karnad wrote the plan for the attack on Kahuta in 1982 involved Israeli F-16 fighters carrying bombs and F-15 air superiority aircraft providing air defence to the attacking aircraft. Karnad claimed the Israeli aircraft would launch from Udhampur. Karnad wrote the information about the operation came from retired Israeli major-general Aharon Yaariv, who told him "Indira Gandhi had first approved of an Israeli strike on the Pakistani uranium enrichment centrifuge complex in Kahuta in 1982 with Indian help but called off the raid just before it got under way."

Khan claimed the fear of possible Israeli attacks had led Pakistan to upgrade security at Kahuta and the Karachi nuclear power plant, with the Pakistan Air Force beginning combat air patrols over the areas.

In 1988, India, under Rajiv Gandhi, and Pakistan, under Benazir Bhutto, announced an agreement prohibiting attacks on each other's nuclear installations. Every year on January 1, the two nations have exchanged lists of their nuclear installations as part of their adherence to the Agreement on the Prohibition of Attack against Nuclear Installations and Facilities.

Comment by Riaz Haq on October 13, 2021 at 9:34pm

Solidifying India-Israel relations with miltech quid pro quo; 1982 Indo-Israeli plans for Kahuta strike
Posted on November 14, 2016 by Bharat Karnad


https://bharatkarnad.com/2016/11/14/solidifying-india-israel-relati...

A year later, I was reporting on the Israeli military advance into Beirut where I met with the Israeli army chief Moshe Dayan’s legendary MilIntel head from the 1956 Sinai Operations, retired Major General Aharon Yaariv then in Reserve and called up for duty, at the Kiryat Shimona kibbutz just this side of the Israeli border. It was Yaariv who told me over breakfast the story of how Indira Gandhi had first approved of an Israeli strike on the Pakistani uranium enrichment centrifuge complex in Kahuta in 1982 with Indian help but called off the raid just before it got underway.

The Israelis who had taken out Saddam Hussein’s Osiraq military reactor in Baghdad in June 1981 had planned the attack, according to Yaariv, thus: A sortie of six IsAF F-16s and like number of F-15s flying combat air patrol (CAP) were to come in from Haifa over the southern Arabian Sea into Jamnagar where the crews would rest up for a couple of days, and tie-up last minute, minor, changes in the flight and mission plans. The IsAF strike and CAP aircraft would then take off from Jamnagar, fly over central India and into Udhampur where previously IsAF C-17s would have landed with a cargo of deep penetration and detonation weapons for use on Kahuta targets. The Israelis had warned GOI that their aircraft would fly with Israeli roundels and entirely unmasked because, as Yaariv put it, they didn’t trust the Indians, who would be the principal beneficiaries, to not claim that it was a solely Israeli initiative in which India had no role whatsoever. “We wanted India to be fully involved and implicated and to share in the responsibility for the mission”, he told me, even though the IsAF could have carried out the entire operation all by itself using aerial refuelers as was done on the strike on the PLO HQ outside Tunis (over 1,500 miles away) in 1985. The plans were thereafter for the Israeli F-16-F-15 complement to top off their tanks, upload the special heavy ordnance on fuselage points and take off, flying in the lee of the mountains to avoid Pakistani radar detection, before coming into the open for the final bomb run over target — two F-16s at a time drooping their loads and egressing as the F-15s circled overhead to take care of any interference by PAF air defence aircraft. The attacks completed the F-16s would continue flying west, out of Pakistani airspace, before dipping southwards and returning to home base. The IsAF aircraft breaking out into the open from the mountain shadows would not have afforded PAF and Pakistani RBS-70 anti-aircraft guns (ex-Sweden) enough time to erect and fire away. (Wrote about it first in the Sunday Observer in the mid 1980s.)

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page