Pakistan's nuclear reactor
Lost in all the blogging that the Bush administration hid from Congress the existence of the new Pakistani nuclear reactor is the fact that this new reactor has the capacity to produce enough plutonium for 40-50 new warheads a year. I'm sure that's an optimum number, but even if you half it, it is still outrageous.
Also, consider this administration concealment of the new Pakistani reactor in the context of the F-16 sales the Bush administration is trying to rush through Congress.
(The Pakistani reactor story just happened to break on Monday of this week when the Congressional deadline on the F-16 sales runs out. Amazing coincidence, no?)
Also, consider this administration concealment of the new Pakistani reactor in the context of the F-16 sales the Bush administration is trying to rush through Congress.
(The Pakistani reactor story just happened to break on Monday of this week when the Congressional deadline on the F-16 sales runs out. Amazing coincidence, no?)
posted by mikevotes at
1:39 PM
4 Comments:
I find it curious that the admin still courts Pakistan even though the country plays host to terrorists.
Unlike Lebanon, Pakistan is not 'too weak' to deal with Taliban and the rest. They choose not to.
The game seems very uneven.
But on thye nuclear development, Bush would have been aware of that on his Indian sub-continent 'nuclear' visit.
No wonder his neo-con buddies are starting to become disillusioned.
By
Cartledge, at 2:23 PM
Yeah.
I think it's a "devil you know" situation. From a US point of view, there's no good replacement for Musharraf. Even if open elections were held, there's a fair chance that the "rightists" would win.
So, Musharraf holds all the cards. That would explain overlooking the reactor, but the f-16's are a US decision.
It's not too publicly clear the degree to which the Pak government supports and assists the Taleban and other elements in Afghanistan. Maybe the F-16 thing was phrases as an unstated threat,"You know, we might have much more luck along the border is we had the f-16's."
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 2:32 PM
Agreed. I was thinking in the black and white terms, the absolutes which the Admin and their followers are fond of.
Have you ever noticed any efforts to qualify those absolutes when they become a burden?
I haven't, just a quite change of tack to meet the situation, without explanation.
By
Cartledge, at 6:18 PM
Right. Basic Orwell.
WMD, WMD, WMD.
We invaded Iraq for democracy . We've always invaded Iraq for democracy. Any thoughts that we ever didn't invade Iraq for democracy reflects poor thinking or disloyalty and a lck of patriotism.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 8:57 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home