Work with Pakistan to secure nuclear weapons: US analyst

This is the Third Part of a report on “The Crisis in Pakistan and American Policy” - an event held under the auspices of a Washington-based think-tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI) on February 2 (Wednesday). The discussants included Husain Haqqani (Associate Professor of International Relations at Boston University), Thomas Donnelly (AEI), Danielle Pletka (AEI), and Michael O'Hanlon (Brookings Institute) while Frederick Kagan moderated the proceedings.

By Rana Fawad

WASHINGTON: Illustrating the US military options in Pakistan, Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institute, he said that in case of an extreme situation in which Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are at risk of being taken by the wrong people, any unilateral measure by the US or international community should not be the answer.

He clarified that his analysis is only for the worst case scenario which is highly unlikely to occur. He explained that Pakistan has a population of 160 million people, six times the population of Iraq.

He said in case of Pakistan’s collapse, a military operation would require two million troops to protect the people and nuclear weapons. “In other words it’s not an option. We don’t have two million people in the entire US armed force,” he added.

O’Hanlon mentioned that the US had only one million people in the entire army including every reservist. He commented that Pakistan’s terrain and the armed forces’ commitment in Afghanistan and Iraq would make a military option very difficult.

He also pointed out that the basic logistics of moving even a few hundred people across the ocean and into a place where they could help restore the order mean several months time would have lapsed which means any crisis would have able to run its and get worse without any role for the international community.

He argued that any such intervention to help stabilize the situation in certain areas would have to be at Pakistan’s invitation and expressed desire and need for help being acknowledged. He also emphasized that such an effort has to be an international coalition due to anti-American sentiments in Pakistan.

He rejected the notion of unilateral military option and advocated for a joint attempt in association with the major element in the Pakistani government whoever may represent the government at that given moment of time. He said that the US would have to work with the Pakistanis to solve whatever crisis took shape down the road.

As for the Pakistani nuclear weapons, he told the audience that Pakistan had almost 50 nuclear weapons usually weighing a few hundred kilograms each and “it’s hard to cart them around but it’s not hard to drive them around in small vehicles and therefore it’s very easy to hide them.”

O’Hanlon opined that in case of any military action the Pakistani government could hide those weapons or distribute which would not be a good scenario to have. He suggested that the best option is to work closely with the Pakistani government in reinforcing the safety measures around those nuclear warheads. “Ideally, and I think this is the case, fissile material is separate from the delivery vehicle, may be even separate from the rest of the bomb,” he added.

He said there were around half a dozen sites according to different accounts and it was a realistic balance to have instead of keeping the nuclear capability at one place.
(To be continued)