Why does Pakistan have world's fastest-growing nuclear program?
By
NewsweekDailyBeast
Even in the best of times, Pakistan鈥檚 nuclear-weapons program warrants alarm. But these are perilous days. At a moment of unprecedented misgiving between Washington and Islamabad, new evidence suggests that Pakistan鈥檚 nuclear program is barreling ahead at a furious clip.
According to new commercial-satellite imagery obtained exclusively by Newsweek, Pakistan is aggressively accelerating construction at the Khushab nuclear site, about 140 miles south of Islamabad. The images, analysts say, prove Pakistan will soon have a fourth operational reactor, greatly expanding plutonium production for its nuclear-weapons program.
鈥淭he buildup is remarkable,鈥� says Paul Brannan of the Institute for Science and International Security. 鈥淎nd that nobody in the U.S. or in the Pakistani government says anything about this鈥攅specially in this day and age鈥攊s perplexing.鈥�
Unlike Iran, which has yet to produce highly enriched uranium, or North Korea, which has produced plutonium but still lacks any real weapons capability, Pakistan is significantly ramping up its nuclear-weapons program. Eric Edelman, undersecretary of defense in the George W. Bush administration, puts it bluntly: 鈥淵ou鈥檙e talking about Pakistan even potentially passing France at some point. That鈥檚 extraordinary.鈥�
RELATED: The top 5 Al Qaeda leaders still hiding in Pakistan
Pakistani officials say the buildup is a response to the threat from India, which is spending $50 billion over the next five years on its military. 鈥淏ut to say it鈥檚 just an issue between just India and Pakistan is divorced from reality,鈥� says former senator Sam Nunn, who co-chairs the Nuclear Threat Initiative. 鈥淭he U.S. and Soviet Union went through 40 years of the Cold War and came out every time from dangerous situations with lessons learned. Pakistan and India have gone through some dangerous times, and they have learned some lessons. But not all of them. Today, deterrence has fundamentally changed. The whole globe has a stake in this. It鈥檚 extremely dangerous.鈥�
It鈥檚 dangerous because Pakistan is also stockpiling fissile material, or bomb fuel. Since Islamabad can mine uranium on its own territory and has decades of enrichment know-how鈥攂eginning with the work of nuclear scientist A. Q. Khan鈥攖he potential for production is significant.
Although the White House declined to comment, a senior U.S. congressional official who works on nuclear issues told Newsweek that intelligence estimates suggest Pakistan has already developed enough fissile material to produce more than 100 warheads and manufacture between eight and 20 weapons a year. 鈥淭here鈥檚 no question,鈥� the official says, 鈥渋t鈥檚 the fastest-growing program in the world.鈥�
The White House appears to have made a tacit tradeoff with Islamabad: for your cooperation in Afghanistan, we鈥檒l leave you to your own nuclear devices.
What has leaders around the world especially worried is what鈥檚 popularly known as 鈥渓oose nukes鈥濃�攏uclear weapons or fissile material falling into the wrong hands. 鈥淭here鈥檚 no transparency in how the fissile material is handled or transported,鈥� says Mansoor Ijaz, who has played an active role in back-channel diplomacy between Islamabad and New Delhi. 鈥淎nd the amount鈥攖hey have significant quantities鈥攊s what鈥檚 so alarming.鈥�
RELATED: Top 10 most nuclear dependent nations
That Osama bin Laden was found in a Pakistani military community, and that the country is home to such jihadi groups as Lashkar-e-Taiba, only heightens concerns. 鈥淲e鈥檝e looked the other way from Pakistan鈥檚 growing program for 30 years,鈥� says Sharon Squassoni, a director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. What we鈥檙e facing, she says, is 鈥渁 disaster waiting to happen.鈥�
A Defense Department official told Newsweek that the U.S. government is 鈥渃onfident that Pakistan has taken appropriate steps toward securing its nuclear arsenal.鈥� But beyond palliatives, few in Washington want to openly discuss the of terrorists getting hold of nuclear material or weapons. 鈥淭he less that is said publicly, the better,鈥� says Stephen Hadley, national-security adviser to President George W. Bush. 鈥淏ut don鈥檛 confuse the lack of public discussion for a lack of concern.鈥�
The bomb lends the Pakistanis a . Nukes, after all, are a valuable political tool, ensuring continued economic aid from the United States and Europe. 鈥淧akistan knows it can outstare鈥� the West, says Pakistani nuclear physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy. 鈥淚t鈥檚 confident the West knows that Pakistan鈥檚 collapse is too big a price to pay, so the bailout is there in perpetuity. It鈥檚 the one thing we鈥檝e been successful at.鈥�
Pakistani leaders defend their weapons program as a strategic necessity: since they can鈥檛 match India鈥檚 military spending, they have to bridge the gap with nukes. 鈥淩egretfully, there are several destabilizing developments that have taken place in recent years,鈥� Khalid Banuri of Pakistan鈥檚 Strategic Plans Division, the nuclear arsenal鈥檚 guardian, wrote in response to Newsweek questions. Among his country鈥檚 concerns, Banuri pointed to India鈥檚 military buildup and the U.S.鈥檚 -civilian nuclear deal with India.
鈥淢ost Pakistanis believe the jihadist scenario is something that the West has created as a bogey,鈥� says Hoodbhoy, 鈥渁n excuse, so they can screw us, defang, and denuclearize us.鈥�
鈥淥ur program is an issue of extreme sensitivity for every man, woman, and child in Pakistan,鈥� says former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf, adding that the nukes are 鈥渨ell dispersed and protected in secure locations.鈥� When asked whether the U.S. has a role to play in securing the arsenal, Musharraf said: 鈥淎 U.S. role to play? A U.S. role in helping? Zero role. No, sir. It is our own production 鈥� We have not and cannot now have any intrusion by any element in the U.S.鈥� To guard its 鈥渟trategic assets,鈥� Pakistan employs two Army divisions鈥攁bout 18,000 troops鈥攁nd, as Musharraf drily puts it, 鈥淚f you want to get into a firefight with the forces guarding our strategic assets, it will be a very sad day.鈥�
For now, the White House appears to have with Islamabad: for your cooperation in Afghanistan, we鈥檒l leave you to your own nuclear devices. 鈥淧eople bristle at the suggestion, but it follows, doesn鈥檛 it?鈥� says Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, formerly the CIA鈥檚 chief officer handling terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. 鈥淭he irony is that the U.S. presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the money we鈥檙e giving them to fight terrorism, could inadvertently aggravate the very problem we鈥檙e trying to stop. After all, terrorism and nukes is the worst-case scenario.鈥�
With this fourth nuclear facility at Khushab coming online as early as 2013, and the prospect of an accelerated nuclear-weapons program, the U.S. is facing a diplomatic dilemma. 鈥淭he Pakistanis have gone through a humiliation with the killing of Osama bin Laden,鈥� says Nunn. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 never a time to corner somebody. But with both recent and preexisting problems, we are in a race between cooperation and catastrophe. Both sides need to take a deep breath, count to 10, and find a way to cooperate.鈥�
With Ron Moreau in Islamabad and Fasih Ahmed in Lahore
Andrew Bast is a senior articles editor for the international edition of Newsweek. He has reported from four continents for several newspapers, including The New York Times, and now writes about global security. Follow him on Twitter: @
