Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US Has Plan To Safeguard Pakistan Nuclear Weapons

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • US Has Plan To Safeguard Pakistan Nuclear Weapons

    US Has Plan To Safeguard Pakistan Nuclear Weapons:Report-AFP

    WASHINGTON (AFP)--The U.S. has developed contingency plans to safeguard Pakistani nuclear weapons if they risk falling into the wrong hands, the Washington Post reported Sunday.

    But U.S. officials worry their limited knowledge about the location of the arsenal could pose a problem, it said, a week after Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency.

    "We can't say with absolute certainty that we know where they all are," the newspaper quoted an unnamed former U.S. official as saying.

    As for any U.S. effort to seize and secure Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, the official said: "It could be very messy."

    U.S. officials and lawmakers have voiced increasing alarm that the Pakistani government could lose control over its nuclear arsenal amid the mounting political crisis there.

    "I'm very concerned about it. Not immediately, but over the next year to two years," Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., a presidential contender, said on CNN, arguing that the U.S. needed to shore up moderates in Pakistan.

    Islamabad, Washington's key ally in the fight against al-Qaida and Taliban militants, is believed to have about 50 nuclear-armed weapons, an arsenal it began assembling after detonating its first nuclear devices in May 1998.

    There is no evidence that any of the weapons, said to be spread out in various locations around the country, currently are at risk. But the volatile political climate has U.S. officials worried.

    Pakistan also is suspected of selling atomic secrets on a global black market headed by its disgraced chief nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan.

    U.S. intelligence agencies have over time prepared contingency plans for possible action to prevent the theft of a nuclear weapon in Pakistan, two " knowledgeable officials" told the Washington Post.

    Under a more optimistic scenario for possible intervention, the Pakistani military would help the U.S. military in its effort, the Post said. In other cases, that kind of assistance might not be forthcoming, it said.

    "We're a long way from any scenario of that kind," Matt Bunn, a nuclear weapons expert and former White House science official under former president Bill Clinton, was quoted as saying.

    "But the current turmoil highlights the need for doing whatever we can right now to improve cooperation and think hard about what might happen down the road."

    Officials in the Bush administration and former government officials say Pakistan's stockpile is secure but express worry over increasing divisions within Pakistan's military and intelligence leadership, the report said.

    Link

  • #2
    They dont know where the weapons are , they agree that it could be very difficult...but hey!! atleast they got a plan!:))

    Comment


    • #3
      There is no hope of actually securing it through SF operations. Maybe they can buy'em off.

      Comment


      • #4
        Or going by the latest ISI tricks department, just a honeytrap will do ;).
        There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don’t..

        Comment


        • #5
          Pakistan warns against nuclear weapons grab

          Pakistan warned Monday it had sufficient 'retaliatory capacity' to defend its nuclear weapons, after a report the United States had made contingency plans to stop them falling into the wrong hands.

          Denouncing 'irresponsible conjecture,' the foreign ministry said Pakistan was ready and able to defend its nuclear arsenal and there was no risk of the arms being taken.

          Its reaction followed a Washington Post (nyse: WPO - news - people ) report that with Pakistan in the throes of a political crisis, the US has drawn up contingency plans in case the Pakistani military risked losing control of the weapons.

          'If there is any threat to our nuclear assets and sovereignty, we have the capacity to defend ourselves,' foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Sadiq told Agence France-Presse.

          A ministry statement went further, saying in response to the daily's report that 'suffice it to say that Pakistan possesses adequate retaliatory capacity to defend its strategic assets and sovereignty.'

          The ministry strongly denied its weapons were at any risk. 'Our strategic assets are as safe as that of any other nuclear weapons state,' it said.

          A number of US officials and lawmakers have voiced concern that President Pervez Musharraf's government could lose control over its nuclear arsenal amid the crisis triggered by his imposition of a state of emergency.

          The Post cited several former US officials saying that the plans envision efforts to remove a nuclear weapon at imminent risk of falling into the hands of terrorists.

          However, it reported that US officials were worried their limited knowledge about the location of the arsenal could pose a problem.

          That was laughed off by the Pakistani foreign ministry.

          'If they cannot locate Pakistan's nuclear weapons despite their satellites, how can people sitting on a mountain know where they are,' it said.

          Pakistan, a crucial Washington ally in the fight against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, has amassed some 50 nuclear weapons since detonating its first atomic devices in May 1998.

          Pakistan warns against nuclear weapons grab - Forbes.com
          God is a cruise missile.

          Comment


          • #6
            When Pakistan developed its nuclear arsenal, its greatest threat was from India, and it put the weapons in the northwest of the country away from counterstrikes.

            Those sites are now on the doorstep of the tribal militants whose increasing menace is the given reason for the state of emergency in Pakistan, causing policy makers from New Delhi to Tel Aviv to Washington to consider the unthinkable: Pakistan's nuclear weapons falling into the hands of extremists.

            "Make no mistake: This is a very dangerous situation," John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, told CNN yesterday.

            "Everyone should be concerned about this arsenal," said Richard Holbrooke, who held the same position under Bill Clinton. "This is an extraordinarily volatile situation."

            With extensive U.S. assistance, Pakistan has developed a highly sophisticated system for protecting the stockpile of some 200 nuclear weapons. There are layers of technical, physical and personnel security.

            "We should be concerned but not alarmist," said Shaun Gregory, director of the Pakistan Security Research Unit at Bradford University in Britain. "Multiple tiers [of security] and the U.S. involvement add up to a very serious package of protection."

            But no system is absolutely secure.

            "If the military comes unstuck, if it divides," Mr. Bolton said, "then the technical fixes won't protect those weapons."

            If Washington decided that Pakistan was imploding or it needed to act immediately, its most extreme option would be precision air strikes to take out the country's nuclear capability. Israel and India likely have contingencies to destroy the half-dozen key sites in the same way.

            More likely, U.S. Special Forces would secure the weapons. "They would seize them," said Kamran Bokhari, head of Middle East analysis at Strategic Forecasting, a U.S.-based consultancy.

            The idea that the Taliban or al-Qaeda would be able to mount an attack on a nuclear facility and make off with weapons or components, such as the nuclear core, is probably the stuff of fantasy. The danger comes if elements within the Pakistan army itself collude with extremists.

            Unique among nuclear states, the army in Pakistan is solely in charge of the nuclear weapons, even in periods when the country has been a democracy.

            Since General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq's fundamentalist regime of the 1980s, the army and military intelligence agencies have been systematically radicalized. The "beard count" in the military has gone up - facial hair being a sign of religious observance among Muslim males. And since Gen. Zia-ul-Haq's rule, the policy of the armed forces has been to support jihadist groups to fight proxy wars on Pakistan's borders. While that policy was formally brought to an end at U.S. insistence after 9/11, there is widespread evidence that links continue.

            "There is a relationship between some of the military and intelligence services and militants and al-Qaeda. My own view is that, over the past five or six years, that relationship has deepened," said Prof. Gregory, who has advised the Pakistani state on aspects of nuclear security.

            "That for me raises the issue of whether, in certain circumstances, such sympathy might extend to helping some of these militant groups to take possession of nuclear weapons or material. Or at least pass on intelligence to them, information about movement of material."

            There are mounting concerns of disaffection within the armed forces about soldiers being made to turn their guns on their own people, in Pakistan's militant-infested tribal belt. There are stories of surrenders to militants or even mutinies. However, within Pakistan, belief in the army's loyalty remains strong.

            "The nuclear assets are in the hands of the military and the military is still very much under control," said Talat Masood, a retired general. "The international community has no cause for immediate concern."

            However, the track record of securing Pakistan's nuclear technology was massively damaged through revelations in recent years about the activities of renegade scientist A.Q. Khan. It is widely believed that Dr. Khan, who sold Pakistan's nuclear technology abroad, could not have done so without the collusion of army personnel.

            In 2000, there was a meeting between Osama bin Laden and two senior Pakistani nuclear scientists, where some technical information was apparently handed over.

            The task of securing the nuclear assets falls to about 8,000 personnel who are vetted in extraordinary detail. All are Punjabis, the dominant ethnic group in Pakistan, who are considered to be the most loyal to the state. Any action involving the weapons requires the co-operation of at least two individuals.

            On the technical side, the country has authorization codes for the use of weapons and possibly enabling codes, which work like a "chip and PIN" mechanism for credit cards. The command and control structure closely mirrors that of the United States.

            Physical protection is, of course, extensive, with concentric security circles around the sites. The warhead core would be kept separate from the detonation components. Underground sites and secret locations would also be used.

            U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has stated her confidence that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are in "safe hands."

            The moment that ceases to be true, one can bet on U.S. military action worthy of a Hollywood thriller.

            The nuclear nightmare

            Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is concentrated disturbingly close to areas threatened by Taliban-inspired insurrections. The U.S. is thought to have a contingency plan in case those weapons fall into extremist hands.

            KAHUTA: Ballistic missile development facility and large-scale uranium enrichment centrifuge plant producing weapons-grade uranium for nuclear devices and missile development.

            WAH AND TAXILA: Possible nuclear weapons assembly sites.

            SARGODHA: Storage facility for M-11 short-range ballistic missiles

            globeandmail.com: Fears grow radicals may seize Pakistan's nuclear arms
            God is a cruise missile.

            Comment


            • #7
              So, What About Those Nukes?


              TWO years ago, when Gen. Pervez Musharraf still seemed secure in his rule over Pakistan, he was asked a question that is now urgently coursing through Washington: Are his country’s nuclear weapons safe from Islamic radicals?

              Pakistan’s nuclear protections “are already the best in the world,” he said then, in an interview. He launched into a detailed description of the controls he had put in place. Chief among them was that only a small group of top officials — General Musharraf and men he trusts — hold the keys to moving or using a weapon.

              He also talked about new physical controls over Pakistan’s many nuclear facilities, including the laboratories that were once the playground of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the national hero who established Pakistan as the hub of the biggest proliferation network in nuclear history. The leaking of much of the technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya, starting in the late 1980s, often coincided with times of political turmoil when Pakistan’s leadership was weak and its attention elsewhere.

              That precedent was driving much of the fear in Washington last week as General Musharraf clung to power by declaring a state of emergency and trying to quell political demonstrations and near-rioting in the streets — the fear that leaks would resume and that Pakistan might even lose control over a nuclear arsenal of uncertain size — estimated at from 55 to 115 weapons.

              General Musharraf dismissed such possibilities in 2005. “There is no doubt in my mind that they can ever fall in the hands of extremists,” he said, relaxed and confident, as he was filmed for a New York Times documentary, “Nuclear Jihad: Can Terrorists Get the Bomb?” But over the years he has said many things that turned out to be too optimistic, including a declaration at the White House that Osama bin Laden was probably dead.

              So Bush administration officials have quietly begun debating — along with the new leaders of France and Britain — just how bad things could get in a country whose nuclear controls are just seven years old and have never been tested by chaos, street turmoil or a violent government overthrow.

              “We just don’t have any idea how this is going to unfold,” one senior administration official conceded late Friday. With that uncertainty, the nuclear problem took on at least two dimensions.

              If General Musharraf is overthrown, no one is quite sure what will happen to the team he has entrusted to safeguard the arsenal. There is some hope that the military as an institution could reliably keep things under control no matter who is in charge, but that is just a hope.

              “It’s a very professional military,” said a senior American official who is trying to manage the crisis and insisted on anonymity because the White House has said this problem will not be discussed in public. “But the truth is, we don’t know how many of the safeguards are institutionalized, and how many are dependent on Musharraf’s guys.”

              Even if it never comes to a loss of control over weapons or their components, the crisis carries another level of danger. Administration officials say privately that if the chaos in the streets worsens, or Al Qaeda exploits the moment, Pakistan’s government could become distracted from monitoring scientists, engineers and others who, out of religious zeal or plain old greed, might see a moment to sell their knowledge and technology.

              Dr. Khan did just that. Some of his most profitable moments, including sales of centrifuge technology to Iran that the International Atomic Energy Agency is still investigating, took place at moments of great government weakness in Pakistan.

              Mr. Khan’s global nuclear manufacturing and sales network was shut down only three years ago, after international pressure on Pakistan intensified, and after General Musharraf consolidated enough political leverage to take down Dr. Khan — a man who is still a hero to Pakistani nationalists.

              The administration says it hopes to put Pakistan on a path to democracy. But Washington’s actions show it does not want to go so fast that nuclear control becomes a casualty. So President Bush was on the phone to General Musharraf on Wednesday to press for the patina of a return to democracy: He said General Musharraf must shed his title as army chief, hold parliamentary elections early next year, and find a way to work with Benazir Bhutto, the opposition leader with whom the United States has urged him to share power. The general promised to hold elections by February, but the crisis was far from over.

              “The nightmare scenario, of course, is what happens if an extremist Islamic government emerges — with an instant nuclear arsenal,” said Robert Joseph, a counterproliferation expert who left the administration this year. John R. Bolton, the former United Nations representative who has accused Mr. Bush of going soft on proliferation, said more bluntly that General Musharraf’s survival was critical. “While Pervez Musharraf might not be a Jeffersonian democrat,” Mr. Bolton said, “he is the best bet to secure the nuclear arsenal.”

              Americans might feel better about the arsenal if they knew how big it was — or even where the weapons were stored. Pakistan has done its best to keep that information secret.

              There are also more than a dozen nuclear facilities, from fuel fabrication plants to laboratories that enrich uranium and produce next-generation weapons designs, that Al Qaeda and other terror groups have eyed for years. How safe are they?

              Last year, the Pakistanis sent Lt. Gen. Khalid Kidwai, whom General Musharraf had put in charge of nuclear security, to Washington. In briefings for officials and reporters, he maintained that the era of A. Q. Khan was “closed.”

              On paper, the relatively new system he described looks impressive: weapons are kept separate from delivery systems, nuclear cores from their detonators. The people who run the system are screened, presumably for both mental stability and latent sympathies with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Other Pakistani officials have described ways they protect nuclear material as it is trucked around the country or tinkered with in the laboratory still named for Dr. Khan.

              But some former and current American officials are skeptical: They remember General Musharraf’s assurances five years ago that no nuclear technology was leaking. New histories of the Khan network, notably “The Nuclear Jihadist,” by Douglas Frantz and Catherine Collins, detail how well Dr. Khan in fact worked the Pakistani system, cutting some military officials into the deals, and using the air force to deliver nuclear goods.

              In retrospect, it is clear that Dr. Khan’s proliferation business thrived when Pakistan’s leadership was at its weakest and most corrupt.

              His relationship with Iran flourished in the chaos that followed the death of President Muhammad Zia ul-Haq in a suspicious plane crash in 1988; the first deliveries of centrifuges to Iran took place in 1989, and there are competing accounts about whether it was done behind the back of Ms. Bhutto, who says she opposed any such nuclear trade. But she helped cut the first missile deals with North Korea. And the Khan network started doing business with Libya in 1997, just as Islamabad was consumed with political jockeying that involved the generals and Nawaz Sharif, the prime minister whom Mr. Musharraf overthrew two years later.

              “The diffusion of domestic political power among the troika of the president, prime minister and the army chief,” said a major study of the Khan network published earlier this year by the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, “obscured the command and control authority over the covert nuclear weapons program.”

              It was General Musharraf who finally confronted Dr. Khan — after he had consolidated power, and, conveniently for the Pakistani military, after Pakistan itself had become a nuclear power.

              Some experts say they think the institutions Mr. Musharraf built starting around 2000 will prove durable because they rely on Pakistan’s strongest institution, the military. “The military realized that they didn’t have the sophisticated command and control they needed,” said Neil Joeck, a Pakistan expert at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and a professor at the University of California at Berkeley. He says the military’s protections are strong and the labs “very professional.”

              Still, figuring out what to do if Pakistan’s weapons or nuclear material fall into the wrong hands has been the subject of many Pentagon simulations. Earlier this year, a participant concluded a description of them this way:

              “Once you’ve figured out the weapon is gone, it’s probably too late.”



              http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/we.../11sanger.html
              God is a cruise missile.

              Comment


              • #8
                US has no good option in a Pakistan nuclear 'nightmare'
                by Lachlan Carmichael
                Wed Nov 14, 2007

                WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US armed forces are virtually powerless to prevent Pakistan's nuclear arsenal from falling into Islamist hands if the political crisis in Islamabad spins out of control, analysts warned.

                Instead, they said, Washington can do little but help to resolve the crisis and preserve its strong ties with Pakistan's pro-Western military elite, whether or not General Pervez Musharraf stays in power.

                "There's no good military option at all," Daniel Markey, a former US government policy planner for South Asia, told AFP on Tuesday in Washington.

                It would be an "incredibly ugly scenario," he said, for US forces to try to find and secure the nuclear sites in the event of an Islamist takeover because they lack the intelligence needed to do so in such a large country.

                "Having some certainty of finding them is just, I think, out of the realm of reality," said Markey, a former State Department official who is now at the Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank.

                Averting such a "nightmare scenario," he added, "means having a good working relationship" with the army, as has been the case for years.

                "We shouldn't kid ourselves that we can work with Pakistan without working with their army and that doesn't mean we have to back a dictator."

                If the US government decides to drop Musharraf, he warned, it will have to be careful to avoid burning ties with the institution he heads. "That's the difficult balancing act."

                Musharraf's deputy in the army, General Ashfaq Kiyani, would be his obvious successor but the analyst said it is not certain that such a transition would go smoothly, even though he has reasonably good ties with Washington.

                Musharraf, who seized power in a 1999 bloodless coup and who became a frontline US ally in the war on terrorism after the September 11, 2001 attacks, insists there is nothing to worry about.

                In an interview Tuesday with Fox News radio, Musharraf said Pakistan's nuclear weapons are under "total custodial controls," citing security measures in place since 2000.

                "We created a strategic planning division and we have a national command authority which is overall organization institution into development and employment of strategic assets," he said.

                Pakistan has amassed an estimated 50 nuclear weapons since detonating its first atomic devices in May 1998.

                Leonard Spector, deputy director of the James Martin Center for Non-Proliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California, doubted there was much of a military option.

                "The idea that somehow we're going to step in, I think that's a very remote possibility," Spector said from his office in Washington.

                And for now, he said, the US government is probably seeking reassurance from Musharraf that his chain of command is in order or that it endures if there is an orderly transfer of power.

                "Only if there's a complete breakdown in society, would there be an issue. Even then, I think you'll find a cadre, a very loyal military who protect the assets because it's the patrimony of the country," he said.

                Andrew Koch, a defense and security analyst with the consulting firm Scribe Strategies and Advisors, said Pakistan's atomic weapons are for now in the hards of a "very professional, pro-Western elite" operating a secure network.

                The Taliban and Al-Qaeda, which are making inroads in northwestern Pakistan, would have trouble seizing materiel in a raid because the fissile weapons cores are held separate from the weapons, he said.

                "You'd have to knock down two facilities to get both parts," he added.

                The military personnel involved in the nuclear program are also closely vetted for sympathies with the Islamists, he added.

                However, he said some scientists associated with the nuclear program are suspected of harboring extremist sentiments and could leak secrets to terrorists or anti-Western regimes, even if they do not smuggle out weapons.

                Such a risk would increase the longer political instability lasts, he said.

                The reputation of Pakistan, the world's only known nuclear-armed Muslim country, has been tarnished with the sale of atomic secrets on a global black market headed by its disgraced chief nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan.

                Khan confessed in 2004 to passing atomic secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea. He was pardoned by Musharraf but remains under virtual house arrest in Islamabad.

                In the longer term, Koch feared that Pakistan's professional military class could be compromised if the country becomes increasingly pro-Taliban and anti-Western.

                In the ultimate "doomsday" or "nightmare" scenario, he feared that the Pakistani military would see its loyalities split if the government falls and Islamists and other factions struggle to fill the void.

                He said "there's always the ultimate option of trying some sort of raid to snatch the weapons" but this would be difficult because "we don't have absolute certainty we know where all of Pakistan's weapons are kept."

                US has no good option in a Pakistan nuclear 'nightmare' - Yahoo! News

                Comment


                • #9
                  Yes you are right..like it or not there is not a thing US or anyone else can do anything about Pak, its nukes or whatever Pak wishes to do about it. Pak holds all the cards in this one!

                  Countries are now forced to handle Pak with velvet gloves whatever happens.
                  God is a cruise missile.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by FullTank View Post
                    Yes you are right..like it or not there is not a thing US or anyone else can do anything about Pak, its nukes or whatever Pak wishes to do about it. Pak holds all the cards in this one!

                    Countries are now forced to handle Pak with velvet gloves whatever happens.
                    Thanks, appreciate your sincere reply.

                    The idea of going nuclear is to create some level of deterrance, by joing the club we made it clear that we're there to stay...like it or not.

                    Somehow western leaders and think tank have failed to adapt to the changing world, desipte hard learnt lessons and failures in Iraq and Afghanistan they still have wet dreams about striking where ever and whenever they want.

                    They don't even know the size of our nuclear arsenal or our true capabilities.
                    What guarantee do you have that the nukes will not be flown to nearest arab ally in case of a possible attemp to snatch our nukes?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      So again the threat of "Do as I say or I will do bad things"?
                      There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don’t..

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Pakistan is a radicalized country, it is not a country where the modrate's are by any chance a majority. it believes in a cosmic war between Islamic faith and the infidels. The "Islamic" bomb as they have termed , is and will be used for against the Americans, according to them are christian warriors , and the nuke is weapon in this cosmic fight.

                        Musharraf is the only bet, and the nuke in terrorist hand is very real.

                        Can special forces retrieve warheads and airforce strike at installations...bring about the end of pakistani nuke capability.If all it is going to be mission about war-heads, nuclear sites and scientists. Then it will be a mission not ever seen in the history of this world, which may have at stake have the very existence of ideals of democracy and secualrism.
                        Last edited by Adux; 15 Nov 07,, 08:00.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by FullTank View Post
                          Yes you are right..like it or not there is not a thing US or anyone else can do anything about Pak, its nukes or whatever Pak wishes to do about it. Pak holds all the cards in this one!

                          Countries are now forced to handle Pak with velvet gloves whatever happens.
                          Nope, plenty of really nasty and awful things can be done to Pak and its nukes. Pak holds all the cards in this one, US holds the pistol. The US has handled Pak with velvet gloves so far, but it is geting mighty suspicious that Pak holds more than 52 cards... it is fast approaching the time for a card count. How well do velvet gloves hide twitchy fingers?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Neo View Post
                            1. The idea of going nuclear is to create some level of deterrance, by joing the club we made it clear that we're there to stay...like it or not.

                            2. Somehow western leaders and think tank have failed to adapt to the changing world, desipte hard learnt lessons and failures in Iraq and Afghanistan they still have wet dreams about striking where ever and whenever they want.

                            3. They don't even know the size of our nuclear arsenal or our true capabilities. What guarantee do you have that the nukes will not be flown to nearest arab ally in case of a possible attemp to snatch our nukes?
                            1. You can only deter what you can hit; how can you deter something you can't even touch? You have two nuclear-armed direct neighbors, yet you can barely deter only one. You say you can deter a superpower located 16,000 km away?

                            2. Strawman Argument. No one with half-a-brain would seriously the problems of distance and time... and some distances and timeframes are simple not possible with current technology. Bashing that strawman won't distract anyone. Back to the point: Does Pakistan have the right distance and the right time? Does Pakistan have deterrence?

                            3. The guarantee is in (Greater) Afghanistan.
                            Last edited by Cactus; 15 Nov 07,, 16:46.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Adux View Post
                              There is no hope of actually securing it through SF operations. Maybe they can buy'em off...

                              Can special forces retrieve warheads and airforce strike at installations...bring about the end of pakistani nuke capability.If all it is going to be mission about war-heads, nuclear sites and scientists. Then it will be a mission not ever seen in the history of this world, which may have at stake have the very existence of ideals of democracy and secualrism.
                              If history is any indicator, it won't be a snatch. It would either be a simple buy-off as you suggested earlier; or it would be a job for special weapons. Arrangements for snatch-and-exfil would be too cumbersome in the worst-case scenario this sub-case is being envisioned in.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X