Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and
Security Issues
Paul K. Kerr
Analyst in Nonproliferation
Mary Beth Nikitin
Analyst in Nonproliferation
June 12July 30, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL34248
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
Summary
Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal consists of approximately 60 nuclear warheads. Pakistan continues
fissile material production for weapons, and is adding to its weapons, although it could be
larger. Islamabad is producing fissile material, adding to related production facilities, and
deploying additional delivery vehicles. These steps will enable Pakistan to undertake both
quantitative and qualitative improvements to its nuclear arsenal. Whether and to what extent
Pakistan’s current expansion of its nuclear weapons-related facilities is a response to the 2008
U.S.-India nuclear cooperation agreement is unclear. Islamabad does not have a public, detailed
nuclear doctrine and
delivery vehicles. Pakistan reportedly stores its warheads unassembled with the fissile core
separate from non-nuclear explosives, and these are stored separately from their delivery vehicles.
Pakistan does not have a stated nuclear policy, but its “minimum credible deterrent” is thought to
bewidely regarded as primarily a deterrent to Indian military action. Command and control structures have been
dramatically overhauled since September 11, 2001 and export controls and personnel security
programs have been put in place since the 2004 revelations about Pakistan’s top nuclear
scientists, A.Q. Khan’s international proliferation network.
Pakistani and some U.S. officials argue that Islamabad has taken a number of steps to prevent
further proliferation of nuclear-related technologies and materials and improve its nuclear
security. A number of important initiatives such as strengthened export control laws, improved
personnel security, and international nuclear security cooperation programs have improved the
to Indian military action.
Pakistan has in recent years taken a number of steps to increase international confidence in the
security of its nuclear arsenal. In addition to dramatically overhauling nuclear command and
control structures since September 11, 2001, Islamabad has implemented new personnel security
programs. Moreover, Pakistani and some U.S. officials argue that, since the 2004 revelations
about a procurement network run by former Pakistani nuclear official A.Q. Khan, Islamabad has
taken a number of steps to improve its nuclear security and to prevent further proliferation of
nuclear-related technologies and materials. A number of important initiatives, such as
strengthened export control laws, improved personnel security, and international nuclear security
cooperation programs have improved Pakistan’s security situation in recent years.
Instability in Pakistan has called the extent and durability of these reforms into question. Some
observers fear radical takeover of a government that possesses a nuclear bomb, or proliferation by
radical sympathizers within Pakistan’s nuclear complex in case of a breakdown of controls. While
U.S. and Pakistani officials continue to express confidence in controls over Pakistan’s nuclear
weapons,
continued instability in the country could impact these safeguards. For a broader
discussion, see
CRS Report RL33498, Pakistan-U.S. Relations, by K. Alan Kronstadt. This report
will be
updated.
Congressional Research Service
Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
Contents
Background ................................................................................................................................1
Nuclear Weapons ..................................................................................................................2
Responding to India? ......................................................................................................4
Delivery Vehicles ..................................................................................................................46
Nuclear Doctrine...................................................................................................................57
Command and Control ..........................................................................................................67
Security Concerns .................................................................................................................79
Proliferation Threat ............................................................................................................. 1113
Pakistan’s Response to the Proliferation Threat ................................................................... 1214
Issues for Congress ................................................................................................................... 1416
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 1518
Congressional Research Service
Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
Background
Chronic political instability in Pakistan and the current offensive against the Taliban in the
northwest of the country have called attention to the issue of the security of the country’s nuclear
weapons. Some observers fear that Pakistan’s strategic nuclear assets could be obtained by
terrorists, or used by elements in the Pakistani government. Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Admiral Michael Mullen described U.S. concern about the matter during a September 22, 2008
speech:
To the best of my ability to understand it—and that is with some ability—the weapons there
are secure. And that even in the change of government, the controls of those weapons haven't
changed. That said, they are their weapons. They're not my weapons. And there are limits to
what I know. Certainly at a worst-case scenario with respect to Pakistan, I worry a great deal
about those weapons falling into the hands of terrorists and either being proliferated or
potentially used. And so, control of those, stability, stable control of those weapons is a key
concern. And I think certainly the Pakistani leadership that I've spoken with on both the
military and civilian side understand that.
U.S. officials continue to be concerned about the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons in a
destabilized Pakistan. General David H. Petraeus, Commander, U.S. Central Command, testified
March 31, 2009, that “Pakistani state failure would provide transnational terrorist groups and
other extremist organizations an opportunity to acquire nuclear weapons and a safe haven from
which to plan and launch attacks.”
Nevertheless, U.S. officials have generally expressed confidence in the security of Pakistan’s
nuclear weapons. President Obama addressed this issue in an April 29, 2009, press conference,
stating, “I’m
confident that we can make sure that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is secure, primarily,
initially,
because the Pakistani army, I think, recognizes the hazards of those weapons falling into the
the wrong hands. We've got strong military-to-military consultation and cooperation.” He also
recognized the sensitivity of the issue for Pakistan, saying, “We want to respect their sovereignty,
but we also recognize that we have huge strategic interests, huge national security interests in
making sure that Pakistan is stable and that you don't end up having a nuclear-armed militant
state.”1 Declining to engage in “hypotheticals” when asked if the United States is ready to secure
the nuclear arsenal if the Pakistani government could not do so, President Obama said he felt
“confident that that nuclear arsenal will remain out of militant hands.”
General Petraeus reaffirmed this confidence on May 10: “With respect to the—the nuclear
weapons and—and sites that are controlled by Pakistan … we have confidence in their security
procedures and elements and believe that the security of those sites is adequate.”2 Admiral Mullen
echoed this assessment during a May 14, 2009, hearing before the Senate Armed Services
Committee, but added that “we’re limited in what we actually know” about Islamabad’s nuclear
arsenal.” Leon Panetta, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, similarly acknowledged in a
May 18 speech that the United States does not possess the intelligence to know the locations of
locate all of Pakistan’s
nuclear weapons-related sites.
1
President Obama’s 100th-Day Press Briefing transcript, April 29, 2009, accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/
29/us/politics/29text-obama.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print.
2
Interview with General David H. Petraeus, FOX News Sunday, May 10, 2009. http://www.foxnews.com/story/
0,2933,519696,00.html.
Congressional Research Service
1
Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
Pakistani efforts to improve the security of the country’sits nuclear weapons have been on-going
and include
some cooperation with the United States. Since the 1998 Pakistani and Indian nuclear
tests, the
international community has increased attention to reducing the risk of nuclear war in
South Asia.
The two countries most recently came to the brink of full-scale war in 1999 and 2002,
and,
realizing the dangers, have developed some risk reduction measures to prevent accidental
nuclear nuclear
war. Islamabad has also developed its command and control systems and improved
security of
military and civilian nuclear facilities. Since the 2004 revelations of an extensive
international international
nuclear proliferation network run by Pakistani nuclear official Abdul Qadeer Khan,
as well as
possible connections between Pakistani nuclear scientists and Al Qaeda, Islamabad has
made made
additional efforts to improve export controls and monitor nuclear personnel. The main
security security
challenges for Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal are keeping the integrity of the command
structure,
ensuring physical security, and preventing illicit proliferation from insiders.
Pakistan continues to produce fissile material for weapons and appears to be augmenting its
weapons production facilities, as well as deploying additional delivery vehicles—steps that will
enable both quantitative and qualitative improvements in Islamabad’s nuclear arsenal.
Nuclear Weapons
Pakistan’s nuclear energy program dates back to the 1950s, but it was the loss of East Pakistan
(now Bangladesh) in a bloody war with India that probably triggered a political decision in
January 1972 (just one month later) to begin a secret nuclear weapons program.3 Deterring India’s
nuclear weapons and augmenting Pakistan’s inferior conventional forces are widely believed to
be the primary motivationmissions for Islamabad’s nuclear arsenal. Observers point to the peaceful
nuclear explosion by India in 1974India’s 1974
“peaceful” nuclear explosion as the pivotal moment whichthat gave additional urgency to the
program. Pakistan’s path to the bomb was through uranium enrichment technology, mastered by
program.
Pakistan produced fissile material for its nuclear weapons using gas-centrifuge-based uranium
enrichment technology, which it mastered by the mid-1980s. Highly-enriched uranium (HEU) is
one of two types of fissile material used in
nuclear weapons; the other is plutonium. The
country’s main enrichment facility is a gas
centrifuge plant located at Kahuta, although; Pakistan may have
other enrichment sites. 34
Islamabad gained technology from many sources. This extensive assistance is reported to have
included, among other things, uranium enrichment technology from Europe, blueprints for a
small nuclear weapon from China, and missile technology from China.
The United States had information during the 1970s and early 1980s that Pakistan was pursuing
nuclear weapons
designs,5 but exactly when Pakistan produced a workable nuclear explosive
device is unclear.4 A
A 1985 National Intelligence Council report stated that Pakistan “probably has a
workable design
for a nuclear explosive device” and was “probably ... a year or two away from a capacity to
produce enough” highly enriched uranium for such a device. A 1993 National Security Council
report to Congress stated that Islamabad’s nuclear weapons efforts “culminated with the
capability to rapidly assemble a nuclear device if necessary by the end of the 1980s.”5 Khan
stated in an interview published in May 1998 that Islamabad “attained” the capability to detonate
3
Zia Mian, A.H. Nayyar, R. Rajaraman and M.V. Ramana, “Fissile Materials in South Asia: The Implications of the
U.S.-India Nuclear Deal,” International Panel on Fissile Materials,” September 2006. For a list of Pakistani nuclear
facilities, see
3
See, for example, U.S. Department of Defense, Proliferation: Threat and Response, April 1996, p. 37.
Zia Mian, A.H. Nayyar, R. Rajaraman and M.V. Ramana, “Fissile Materials in South Asia: The Implications of the
U.S.-India Nuclear Deal,” International Panel on Fissile Materials, September 2006 and David Albright, “Securing
Pakistan’s Nuclear Infrastructure,” in A New Equation: U.S. Policy toward India and Pakistan after September 11
(Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) May 2002. For a list of Pakistani nuclear facilities, see
chart in Pakistan chapter of Joseph Cirincione, Jon B. Wolfsthal, and Miriam Rajkumar, Deadly Arsenals,
Carnegie Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, 2005.
45
See, for example, a 1978 Central Intelligence Agency report, available at http://www.faqs.org/cia/docs/44/
0000107983/(UNTITLED)-RE.html, as well as a 1983 State Department document, available at http://www.gwu.edu/
~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB114/chipak-11.pdf.
5
National Security Council, Report to Congress on Status of China, India and Pakistan Nuclear and Ballistic Missile
Programs, 1993. Available at http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/930728-wmd.htm.
Congressional Research Service
2
Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
such a device “at the end of 1984.”64
Congressional Research Service
2
Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
capacity to produce enough” highly enriched uranium for such a device. A 1993 National Security
Council report to Congress stated that Islamabad’s nuclear weapons efforts “culminated with the
capability to rapidly assemble a nuclear device if necessary by the end of the 1980s.”6 A.Q. Khan
stated in an interview published in May 1998 that Islamabad “attained” the capability to detonate
such a device “at the end of 1984.”7 In any case, President Bush’s failure to certify in 1990 that
Pakistan did not “possess a nuclear explosive device” led to a cut-off in military and financial aid
under the Pressler Amendment.78
When India conducted nuclear weapon tests on May 12, 1998, Pakistan’s government responded
two weeks later on May 28 and May 30 with six tests at the Chagai Hills test site in western
in western Pakistan. Test yields were about
10 kilotons and 5 kilotons, according to seismic analysis.89 The
United States imposed additional
sanctions after the tests, but these were lifted after the
September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks on
the United States.
Most observers estimate that According to most public estimates, Pakistan has about 60 nuclear weapons.9,
though it could have more. 10 Pakistan’s nuclear
warheads use an implosion design with a solid
core of HEU, approximately 15-20 kilograms per
warhead. 10of HEU.11 Islamabad reportedly continues to produce highly-enriched uranium
HEU for weapons at a
rate of at least 100 kilograms per year.1112
Pakistan has also pursued plutonium-based warheads and continues to produce plutonium for
weapons. PakistanIslamabad has received Chinese and European assistance for at least some of its
plutonium program. The 40-50 megawatt heavy water Khushab plutonium production reactor has
been operating since 1998.1213 It appears that Islamabad is constructing two additional heavy water
reactors, which will expand considerably Pakistan’s plutonium production capacity, at the same
site.13 Additionally, Pakistan has a reprocessing facility14 at the Pakistan Institute of Science and
6
6
National Security Council, Report to Congress on Status of China, India and Pakistan Nuclear and Ballistic Missile
Programs, 1993. Available at http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/930728-wmd.htm.
7
“Pakistan: Qadeer Khan Interviewed on Pakistan N-Test,” The News, May 30, 1998.
8
The Pressler Amendment (August 1985) linked aid and military sales to two certification conditions: (1) that Pakistan
not possess a nuclear explosive device; and (2) that new aid ‘will reduce significantly the risk’ that Pakistan will
possess such a device. For background summary of sanctions legislation, see CRS Report 98-486, Nuclear Sanctions:
Section 102(b) of the Arms Export Control Act and Its Application to India and Pakistan, by Jeanne J. Grimmett, and
CRS Report RS22757, U.S. Arms Sales to Pakistan, by Richard F. Grimmett.
89
Seismic data showed yields less than those officially announced by Pakistan and India. See Gregory van der Vink,
Jeffrey Park, Richard Allen, Terry Wallace and Christel Hennet, “False Accusations, Undetected Tests and
Implications for the CTB Treaty,” Arms Control Today, May 1998 http://www.armscontrol.org/act/1998_05/
vimy98.asp.
9
10
Robert Norris and Hans Kristensen, “Nuclear Notebook: Pakistan’s nuclear forcesNuclear Forces, 2007,” Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, vol. 63, no.3, May/June 2007;
Arms Control Association Fact Sheet, http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/
Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat.asp;
“Global Fissile Material Report 2007,” International Panel on Fissile Materials
http://www.fissilematerials.org/ipfm/
site_down/gfmr07.pdf; SIPRI Yearbook 2007. The International Panel on Fissile
Materials estimates that Pakistan has
enough fissile material (highly enriched uranium and plutonium) for 65-80
nuclear weapons. This; this estimate assumes 25
kilograms of HEU per weapon and 4.5-6 kilograms of plutonium per
weapon (“Banning the Production of Fissile
Materials for Nuclear Weapons: Country Perspectives on the Challenges to
a Fissile Material (Cutoff) Treaty,”
International Panel on Fissile Materials, 2008. http://www.fissilematerials.org/ipfm/
site_down/gfmr08cv.pdf).
10
“Nuclear Notebook,” ibid.
1111
Norris and Kristensen, 2007.
12
“Global Fissile Material Report 2007,” ibid.
12.”
13
A Pakistani newspaper reported in April 1998 that, according to a “top government source,” the reactor had begun
operating (“Pakistan’s Indigenous Nuclear Reactor Starts Up,” The Nation, April 13, 1998). A June 15, 2000 article
cited “U.S. officials” who indicated that the reactor had begun operating two years earlier (Mark Hibbs, “After 30
Years, PAEC Fulfills Munir Khan’s Plutonium Ambition,” Nucleonics Week, June 15, 2000). A 2001 Department of
Defense report stated that the reactor “will produce plutonium,” but did not say whether it was operating (U.S.
Department of Defense, Proliferation: Threat and Response, January 2001, p. 27).
13
David Albright and Paul Brannan, “Update on Khushab Plutonium Production Reactor Construction Projects in
Pakistan,” Institute for Science and International Security, April 23, 2009; Mark Hibbs and Shahid-ur-Rehman,
“Pakistan Civilian Fuel Cycle Plan Linked To NSG Trade Exception,” Nuclear Fuels, August 27, 2007.
14
“Reprocessing” refers to the process of separating plutonium from spent nuclear fuel.
7
Congressional Research Service
3
Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
Congressional Research Service
3
Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
site.14 Additionally, Pakistan has a reprocessing facility15 at the Pakistan Institute of Science and
Technology (PINSTECH) and is apparently constructing other such facilities. Nuclear Fuel
reported in 2000 that, according to “senior U.S. government officials,” PakistanIslamabad had begun
operating a “pilot-scale” reprocessing facility at the New Laboratories facility at PINSTECH.15
Islamabad16
Pakistan also appears to be constructing a second reprocessing facility at the site 1617 and may be
completing a reprocessing facility located at Chasma.1718
Islamabad’s construction of additional nuclear reactors and expansion of its reprocessing
capabilities could indicate plans to increase and improve Pakistan’s nuclear weapons arsenal in
the near future.
Indeed, Defense Intelligence Agency Director Michael Maples told the Senate
Armed Services
Committee on March 10, 2009, that “Pakistan continues to develop its nuclear
infrastructure, expand
nuclear weapon stockpiles and seek more advanced warheads and delivery
systems.”19 Similarly,
Admiral Mullen confirmed during the May 14 hearing that the United
States has “evidence” that
Pakistan is expanding its nuclear arsenal.
Delivery Vehicles
Pakistan has two types of delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons: aircraft controlled by the
Pakistan Air Force and surface-to-surface missiles controlled by the Pakistan Army. Pakistan
could deliver its nuclear weapons using F-16s purchased from the United States, provided
modifications are made. It is widely believed that Pakistan has made modifications to the F-16s
previously sold to them. 18 Although concerns have been raised about the impact of these sales on
the strategic balance in South Asia,19 the U.S. government maintains that the sale of additional F16s to Pakistan will not alter the regional balance of power.20 The contract for provision of an
additional 36 aircraft was signed on September 30, 2006, as was the contract for the weapons for
those aircraft and a contract to perform the mid-life upgrade on Pakistan’s F-16A/B model
aircraft. Pakistan’s F-16 fleet will therefore be expanded, but it is unclear what portion of the fleet
will be capable of a nuclear mission. Mirage III and V aircraft could also be used, although would
have limited range. A-5’s may have been modified to carry a nuclear payload. 21
15
Responding to India?
Pakistani officials have indicated that they have already determined the arsenal size needed for a
minimum nuclear deterrent and that they will not engage in an arms race with India.
Nevertheless, Pakistan appears to be increasing its fissile production capability and improving its
delivery vehicles in order to hedge against possible increases in India’s nuclear arsenal. Islamabad
may also accelerate its current nuclear weapons efforts.
India has stated that it needs only a “credible minimum deterrent,” but New Delhi has never
defined what it means by such a deterrent and has refused to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty. Furthermore, both the agreement and associated 2008 decision by the Nuclear Suppliers
Group to exempt India from some of its export guidelines will renew New Delhi’s access to the
international uranium market. This access will result in more indigenous Indian uranium available
for weapons because it will not be consumed by India’s newly safeguarded reactors.20
Pakistani officials have stated that the government may need to increase significantly its nuclear
arsenal in response to possible Indian plans to do the same. According to an April 2006 television
14
David Albright and Paul Brannan, “Update on Khushab Plutonium Production Reactor Construction Projects in
Pakistan,” Institute for Science and International Security, April 23, 2009; Mark Hibbs and Shahid-ur-Rehman,
“Pakistan Civilian Fuel Cycle Plan Linked To NSG Trade Exception,” Nuclear Fuels, August 27, 2007.
15
“Reprocessing” refers to the process of separating plutonium from spent nuclear fuel.
16
Hibbs, June 15, 2000. According to a 1983 State Department document, the New Laboratories facility was “capable
of extracting small quantities of plutonium,” but large enough to “allow for expansion of reprocessing capacity.”
Available at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB114/chipak-11.pdf.
1617
David Albright and Paul Brannan, “Pakistan Expanding Plutonium Separation Facility Near Rawalpindi,” Institute
for Science and International Security, May 19, 2009. The 2001 Defense Department report stated that reprocessing
facilities “are under construction,” but did not identify any sites (Proliferation: Threat and Response, p. 27.)
17).
18
David Albright and Paul Brannan, “Chashma Nuclear Site in Pakistan with Possible Reprocessing Plant,” Institute
for Science and International Security, January 18, 2007. Construction on the facility was begun during the 1970s with
French assistance, but France cancelled it later that decade.
18
The 1993 National Security Council report to Congress indicated that Pakistan would use these aircraft to deliver
nuclear weapons. See National Security Council, Report to Congress.
19
CRS Report RL33515, Combat Aircraft Sales to South Asia: Potential Implications, by Christopher Bolkcom,
Richard F. Grimmett, and K. Alan Kronstadt; Zachary Ginsburg, “US Renews Fighter Exports to Pakistan,” Arms
Control Today, September 2007. http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_09/USPakistan.asp.
20
“Release of these systems would not significantly reduce India’s quantitative or qualitative military advantage.
Release of these modifications to Pakistan will neither affect the regional balance of power nor introduce a new
technology as this level of capability or higher already exists in other countries in the region.” Defense Security and
Cooperation Agency news release, June 28, 2006. http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2006/Pakistan_06-11.pdf.
21
CRS Report RL30623, Nuclear Weapons and Ballistic Missile Proliferation in India and Pakistan: Issues for
Congress, by K. Alan Kronstadt.
Congressional Research Service
4
Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
After India’s first test of its Prithvi ballistic missile in 1988, Pakistan jump-started its own missile
program and has three types of ballistic missiles thought to be nuclear-capable: the solid fuel
Hatf-III (Ghaznavi) and Hatf-IV (Shaheen) with a range of 100-290 and 200-650 km respectively;
and the medium-range Hatf-V (Ghauri) with a 1200 km range. Maples stated on March 10 that
Islamabad has made “significant progress” on the Hatf-VI (Shaheen-2) missile, which, when
deployed, “would become Pakistan’s longest ranged ballistic missile, capable of reaching targets
out to 2000 kilometers.”22 Maples also indicated that Pakistan is developing nuclear-capable
cruise missiles; the Babur (ground-launched) and the Ra’ad (air-launched). Islamabad continues
to carry out ballistic missile tests, but notifies India in advance in accordance with an October
2005 bilateral missile pre-notification pact.23
Nuclear Doctrine
Pakistan’s strategic doctrine is undeclared, and will probably remain so, but prominent officials
and analysts have offered insights concerning its basic tenets. 24 Describing the guiding principle
as minimum credible nuclear deterrence, high level officials’ statements point to four policy
objectives for Islamabad’s nuclear weapons: deter all forms of external aggression; deter through
a combination of conventional and strategic forces; deter counterforce strategies by securing
strategic assets and threatening nuclear retaliation; and stabilize strategic deterrence in South
Asia.25 Pakistani officials have also indicated that this nuclear posture is designed to preserve
territorial integrity against Indian attack, prevent military escalation, and counter its main rival’s
conventional superiority.26
Pakistani officials have stated that they have already determined the arsenal size needed for a
minimum nuclear deterrent and they will not engage in an arms race with India. However,
Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) wrote in
July 2008 that the U.S.-India nuclear cooperation agreement, which entered into force in
December 2008, could cause a nuclear arms race between Pakistan and India.27 Moreover, a
Foreign Ministry spokesperson indicated during a May 21, 2009, press briefing that, despite the
government’s continued opposition to a “nuclear or conventional arms race in South Asia,”
22
See also, Nuclear Notebook, ibid.; “Worldwide Ballistic Missile Inventories,” Arms Control Today Fact Sheet,
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/missiles.asp; and Mahmud Ali Durrani, “Pakistan’s Strategic Thinking and the
Role of Nuclear Weapons,” Cooperative Monitoring Center Occasional Paper 37, July 2004.
http://www.cmc.sandia.gov/cmc-papers/sand2004-3375p.pdf.
23
“Agreement Between the Republic of India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on Pre-Notification of Flight Testing
of Ballistic Missiles.” Full text on the Henry L. Stimson Center website: http://www.stimson.org/?SN=
SA20060207949.
24
Peter Lavoy, “Pakistan’s Nuclear Posture: Security and Survivability,” Paper presented to the Conference on
Pakistan’s Nuclear Future, Nonproliferation Education Center, Washington, DC, April 28, 2006: http://www.npecweb.org/Frameset.asp?PageType=Single&PDFFile=20070121-Lavoy-PakistanNuclearPosture&PDFFolder=Essays.
25
Mahmud Ali Durrani, “Pakistan’s Strategic Thinking and the Role of Nuclear Weapons,” Cooperative Monitoring
Center Occasional Paper 37, July 2004. http://www.cmc.sandia.gov/cmc-papers/sand2004-3375p.pdf.
26
For an in-depth discussion of minimum deterrence, see Naeem Salik, “Minimum Deterrence and India Pakistan
Nuclear Dialogue: Case Study on Pakistan,” Landau Network Centro Volta South Asia Security Project Case Study,
January 2006. http://www.centrovolta.it/landau/
South%20Asia%20Security%20Program_file%5CDocumenti%5CCase%20Studies%5CSalik%20%20S.A.%20Case%20Study%202006.pdf.
Available at http://verificationthoughts.blogspot.com/2008/07/indian-separation-plan.
html.
27
Congressional Research Service
5
Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
Pakistan may need to increase its nuclear arsenal in response to Indian conventional and nuclear
arms expansion. As noted, U.S. officials have acknowledged Islamabad’s nuclear expansion.
Pakistan has also pledged no-first-use against non-nuclear-weapon states, but has not ruled out
first-use against a nuclear-armed aggressor, such as India, that attacks Pakistan.28 Some analysts
say this ambiguity serves to maintain deterrence against India’s conventional superiority. And the
Foreign Ministry spokesperson stated May 21 that “there are acquisitions of sophisticated
weaponry by our neighbour which will disturb the conventional balance between our two
countries and hence, lower the nuclear threshold.” Other analysts argue that keeping the first-use
option against New Delhi allows Islamabad to conduct sub-conventional operations, such as
support for low intensity conflict or proxy war in Kashmir, while effectively deterring India at the
strategic level. 29 Pakistan has reportedly addressed issues of survivability through second strike
capability, possible hard and deeply buried storage and launch facilities, road-mobile missiles, air
defenses around strategic sites, and concealment measures.30
Command and Control
Pakistan’s command and control over its nuclear weapons is compartmentalized and includes
strict operational security. The government’s command and control system is based on “C4I2SR”
(command, control, communication, computers, intelligence, information, surveillance and
reconnaissance). Islamabad’s Strategic Command Organization has a three-tiered structure,
consisting of the National Command Authority (NCA), the Strategic Plans Division (SPD), and
the Strategic Forces Commands.
The NCA supervises the functions and administration of all of Pakistan’s organizations involved
in nuclear weapons research, development, and employment, as well as the military services that
operate the strategic forces.31its assistance for the project later that decade.
19
Norris and Kristensen explain that plutonium reactors “provide the Pakistani military with several options:
fabricating weapons that use plutonium cores, mixing plutonium with HEU to make composite cores, or using tritium
to ‘boost’ the warheads’ yield.” (Norris and Kristensen, 2007).
20
See CRS Report RL33016, U.S. Nuclear Cooperation with India: Issues for Congress, by Paul K. Kerr.
Congressional Research Service
4
Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
broadcast, Pakistani officials from the government’s National Command Authority expressed
“concern” that the 2008 U.S.-India nuclear cooperation agreement could tilt the strategic balance
between India and Pakistan in favor of the former. The officials suggested that Islamabad may
need to increase or improve its nuclear arsenal in order to “to meet all requirements of minimum
credible defence deterrence.”21 (See the “Nuclear Doctrine” section for more on Pakistan’s
deterrence concept.) Similarly, Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) wrote in July 2008 that the agreement could cause a nuclear arms race
between Pakistan and India.22 Moreover, a Foreign Ministry spokesperson indicated during a May
21, 2009, press briefing that, despite the government’s continued opposition to a “nuclear or
conventional arms race in South Asia,” Pakistan may need to increase its nuclear arsenal in
response to Indian conventional and nuclear arms expansion.
Illustrating this point, a Pakistani Foreign Office spokesperson reacted to India’s July 26, 2009,
launch of its first indigenously built nuclear-powered submarine by asserting that “continued
induction of new lethal weapon systems by India is detrimental to regional peace and stability,”
adding that “[w]ithout entering into an arms race with India, Pakistan will take all appropriate
steps to safeguard its security and maintain strategic balance in South Asia.” The submarine,
which has not yet been deployed, will reportedly be capable of carrying nuclear-armed ballistic
missiles.23
However, whether and to what extent Pakistan’s current expansion of its nuclear weapons-related
facilities is a response to the U.S.-India agreement is unclear, partly because the government’s
decisions regarding those facilities are not publicly available.
In addition to making qualitative and quantitative improvements to its nuclear arsenal, Pakistan
could increase the number of circumstances under which it would be willing to use nuclear
weapons. For example, Peter Lavoy has argued that India’s efforts to improve its conventional
military capabilities could enable New Delhi to achieve “technical superiority” in Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance, as well as precision targeting, proving India with “the
capability to effectively locate and efficiently destroy strategically important targets in
Pakistan.”24 Islamabad could respond by lowering the threshold for using nuclear weapons,
according to Lavoy. Indeed, a Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokesperson warned in May 2009 that
Islamabad could take this step. (See the “Nuclear Doctrine” section.)
Nevertheless, Islamabad’s nuclear weapons program apparently faces some budget constraints.
Maples testified that “the economic decline will likely slow” the government’s progress in
improving its nuclear and conventional military forces. Furthermore, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons
program is reportedly facing “severe financial cuts.”25
21
22
“Pakistan Command Meeting Voices Concern Over Indo-US Nuclear Deal,” Pakistan TV, April 12, 2006.
Available at http://verificationthoughts.blogspot.com/2008/07/indian-separation-plan.html.
23
Bappa Majumdar, “India Launches Its First Nuclear-Powered Submarine,” Reuters, July 26, 2009; Nasir Jaffry,
“Pakistan Hits Out At ‘Detrimental’ Indian Nuclear Sub,” Agence France Presse, July 28, 2009; “Induction Of
Indigenous Nuke Sub Into Navy Longway Off: Experts,” The Press Trust of India, July 26, 2009; “N-Submarine Still
Wrapped In Secrecy,” Indo-Asian News Service, July 27, 2009.
24
Peter Lavoy, “Islamabad’s Nuclear Posture: Its Premises and Implementation,” in Pakistan’s Nuclear Future:
Worries Beyond War, Henry Sokolski, Ed. (Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute) January 2008. p. 158.
25
“Pak Nuclear Program Faces 35% Cut,” The News, May 1, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
5
Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
Delivery Vehicles
Pakistan has two types of delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons: aircraft controlled by the
Pakistan Air Force and surface-to-surface missiles controlled by the Pakistan Army. Pakistan
could deliver its nuclear weapons using F-16s purchased from the United States, provided that
modifications are made. It is widely believed that Islamabad has made modifications to the F-16s
previously sold to them. 26 Although concerns have been raised about the impact of these sales on
the strategic balance in South Asia,27 the U.S. government maintains that the sale of additional F16s to Pakistan will not alter the regional balance of power.28 The contract for provision of an
additional 36 aircraft was signed on September 30, 2006, as was the contract for the weapons for
those aircraft and a contract to perform the mid-life upgrade on Pakistan’s F-16A/B model
aircraft. Pakistan’s F-16 fleet will therefore be expanded, but it is unclear what portion of the fleet
will be capable of a nuclear mission. Mirage III and V aircraft could also be used, although would
have limited range. A-5’s may have been modified to carry a nuclear payload. 29
After India’s first test of its Prithvi ballistic missile in 1988, Pakistan jump-started its own missile
program and has three types of ballistic missiles thought to be nuclear-capable: the solid-fuel
Hatf-III (Ghaznavi), with a range of about 400 kilometers; the solid-fuel Hatf-IV (Shaheen), with
a range of over 450 kilometers30; and the liquid-fuel Hatf-V (Ghauri), with an approximate range
of almost 1,300 kilometers.31 32 The solid-fuel Hatf-VI (Shaheen-2) missile, when deployed, will
be “capable of reaching targets out to 2,000 kilometers,” Maples stated March 10,33 adding that
Islamabad has made “significant progress” on the missile. A 2009 National Air and Space
Intelligence Center report appears to support this conclusion, stating that the missile “probably
will soon be deployed.” Islamabad continues to carry out ballistic missile tests, but notifies India
in advance in accordance with an October 2005 bilateral missile pre-notification pact.34 Maples
also indicated that Pakistan is developing nuclear-capable cruise missiles; the Babur (ground-
26
The 1993 National Security Council report indicated that Pakistan would use these aircraft to deliver nuclear
weapons. See National Security Council, Report to Congress.
27
CRS Report RL33515, Combat Aircraft Sales to South Asia: Potential Implications, by Christopher Bolkcom,
Richard F. Grimmett, and K. Alan Kronstadt; Zachary Ginsburg, “US Renews Fighter Exports to Pakistan,” Arms
Control Today, September 2007. http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_09/USPakistan.asp.
28
“Release of these systems would not significantly reduce India’s quantitative or qualitative military advantage.
Release of these modifications to Pakistan will neither affect the regional balance of power nor introduce a new
technology as this level of capability or higher already exists in other countries in the region.” Defense Security and
Cooperation Agency news release, June 28, 2006. http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2006/Pakistan_06-11.pdf.
29
CRS Report RL30623, Nuclear Weapons and Ballistic Missile Proliferation in India and Pakistan: Issues for
Congress, by K. Alan Kronstadt.
30
Dr. Samar Mubarakmand, Chairman of Pakistan’s National Engineering and Scientific Commission, gave the
missile’s range as 700 kilometers during a 2004 television interview.
31
National Air and Space Intelligence Center, Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threat, 2009.
32
All ballistic missiles described in this paragraph are road-mobile.
33
See also, Nuclear Notebook, ibid.; “Worldwide Ballistic Missile Inventories,” Arms Control Today Fact Sheet,
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/missiles.asp; and Mahmud Ali Durrani, “Pakistan’s Strategic Thinking and the
Role of Nuclear Weapons,” Cooperative Monitoring Center Occasional Paper 37, July 2004.
http://www.cmc.sandia.gov/cmc-papers/sand2004-3375p.pdf. Mubarakmand gave the missile’s range as 2,500
kilometers in the 2004 interview.
34
“Agreement Between the Republic of India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on Pre-Notification of Flight Testing
of Ballistic Missiles.” Full text on the Henry L. Stimson Center website: http://www.stimson.org/?SN=
SA20060207949.
Congressional Research Service
6
Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
launched) and the Ra’ad (air-launched), both of which will have estimated ranges of 320
kilometers.35
Nuclear Doctrine
Pakistan’s strategic doctrine is undeclared, and will probably remain so, but prominent officials
and analysts have offered insights concerning its basic tenets. 36 Describing the guiding principle
as minimum credible nuclear deterrence, high level officials’ statements point to four policy
objectives for Islamabad’s nuclear weapons: deter all forms of external aggression; deter through
a combination of conventional and strategic forces; deter counterforce strategies by securing
strategic assets and threatening nuclear retaliation; and stabilize strategic deterrence in South
Asia.37 Pakistani officials have also indicated that this nuclear posture is designed to preserve
territorial integrity against Indian attack, prevent military escalation, and counter its main rival’s
conventional superiority.38
Pakistan has pledged no-first-use against non-nuclear-weapon states, but has not ruled out firstuse against a nuclear-armed aggressor, such as India.39 Some analysts say this ambiguity serves to
maintain deterrence against India’s conventional superiority; the Foreign Ministry spokesperson
stated May 21 that “there are acquisitions of sophisticated weaponry by our neighbour which will
disturb the conventional balance between our two countries and hence, lower the nuclear
threshold.” Other analysts argue that keeping the first-use option against New Delhi allows
Islamabad to conduct sub-conventional operations, such as support for low intensity conflict or
proxy war in Kashmir, while effectively deterring India at the strategic level. 40 Pakistan has
reportedly addressed issues of survivability through pursuing a second strike capability, possibly
building hard and deeply buried storage and launch facilities, deploying road-mobile missiles,
deploying air defenses around strategic sites, and utilizing concealment measures.41
Command and Control
Pakistan’s command and control over its nuclear weapons is compartmentalized and includes
strict operational security. The government’s command and control system is based on “C4I2SR”
35
National Air and Space Intelligence Center, 2009.
Peter Lavoy, “Pakistan’s Nuclear Posture: Security and Survivability,” Paper presented to the Conference on
Pakistan’s Nuclear Future, Nonproliferation Education Center, Washington, DC, April 28, 2006: http://www.npecweb.org/Frameset.asp?PageType=Single&PDFFile=20070121-Lavoy-PakistanNuclearPosture&PDFFolder=Essays.
37
Durrani, 2004.
38
For an in-depth discussion of minimum deterrence, see Naeem Salik, “Minimum Deterrence and India Pakistan
Nuclear Dialogue: Case Study on Pakistan,” Landau Network Centro Volta South Asia Security Project Case Study,
January 2006. http://www.centrovolta.it/landau/
South%20Asia%20Security%20Program_file%5CDocumenti%5CCase%20Studies%5CSalik%20%20S.A.%20Case%20Study%202006.pdf.
39
It is worth noting, however, that President Zardari stated in late 2008 that Pakistan would not be the first to use
nuclear weapons against India. See James Lamont and Farhan Bokhari, “Pakistan In Trade And Arms Offer To India,”
Financial Times, November 23, 2008; “Pakistan Against Use Of Nuclear Weapons: Zardari,” Associated Press of
Pakistan, November 22, 2008; “Interview with President Asif Ali Zardari,” CNN Larry King Live, December 2, 2008.
40
Kanti Bajpai, “No First Use in the India-Pakistan Context,” Pugwash Workshop No. 279, November 2002.
http://www.pugwash.org/reports/nw/bajpai.htm.
41
Lavoy, 2006.
36
Congressional Research Service
7
Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
(command, control, communication, computers, intelligence, information, surveillance and
reconnaissance). Islamabad’s Strategic Command Organization has a three-tiered structure,
consisting of the National Command Authority (NCA), the Strategic Plans Division (SPD), and
the Strategic Forces Commands.
The NCA supervises the functions and administration of all of Pakistan’s organizations involved
in nuclear weapons research, development, and employment, as well as the military services that
operate the strategic forces.42 The President is Chairperson of the NCA; the Prime Minister is the
Vice-Chairperson. The NCA also includes the chair of the joint chiefs of staff, the Ministers of
Defense, Interior, and Finance, the Director- General of the SPD, and the Commanders of the
Army, Air Force, and Navy. The final authority to launch a nuclear strike requires consensus
within the NCA; the Chairperson must cast the final vote. The NCA is comprised of two
committees, the Employment Control Committee (ECC) and the Development Control
Committee (DCC), each of which includes a mix of civilian and military officials. The ECC’s
functions include establishing a command and control system over the use of nuclear weapons.
The DCC “exercises technical, financial and administrative control over all strategic
organisations, including national laboratories and research and development organisations
associated with the development and modernisation of nuclear weapons.”32
28
It is worth noting that President Zardari stated in late 2008 that Pakistan will not be the first to use nuclear weapons
against India. See James Lamont and Farhan Bokhari, “Pakistan In Trade And Arms Offer To India,” Financial Times,
November 23, 2008;“Pakistan Against Use Of Nuclear Weapons: Zardari,” Associated Press of Pakistan, November
22, 2008; “Interview with President Asif Ali Zardari,” CNN Larry King Live, December 2, 2008.
29
Kanti Bajpai, “No First Use in the India-Pakistan Context,” Pugwash Workshop No. 279, November 2002.
http://www.pugwash.org/reports/nw/bajpai.htm.
30
Lavoy, ibid.
31
December 2007 Ordinance To Provide For The Constitution And Establishment Of National Command Authority.
Nuclear Black Markets: Pakistan, A.Q. Khan and the Rise of Proliferation Networks, (London: The International
Institute of Strategic Studies), 2007. p. 111; Pakistan Announcement of Nuclear-Weapons Command-and-Control
(continued...)
32
Congressional Research Service
6
Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
43
The SPD is headed by a Director General from the Army and acts as the secretariat for the NCA.
The SPD’s functions include formulating Islamabad’s nuclear policy, strategy, and doctrine;
developing the nuclear chain of command; and formulating operational plans at the service level
for the movement, deployment, and use of nuclear weapons. The Army, Air Force, and Navy each
have their own strategic force command, but operational planning and control remains with the
NCA. The SPD coordinates operational plans with the strategic forces commands. According to
current and former Pakistani officials, Islamabad employs a system which requires that at least
two, and perhaps three, people authenticate launch codes for nuclear weapons. 3344
On December 13, 2007, President Musharraf formalized these authorities and structure in the
“National Command Authority Ordinance, 2007.”3445 The NCA was established by administrative
order, but now has a legal basis. Analysts point out that the timing of this ordinance was meant to
help the command and control system weather political transitions and potentially preserve the
military’s strong control over the system. The ordinance also addresses the problems of the
proliferation of nuclear expertise and personnel reliability. It outlines punishable offenses related
to breach of confidentiality or leakage of “secured information,” gives the SPD authority to
42
December 2007 Ordinance To Provide For The Constitution And Establishment Of National Command Authority.
43
Nuclear Black Markets: Pakistan, A.Q. Khan and the Rise of Proliferation Networks, (London: The International
Institute for Strategic Studies), 2007. p. 111; Pakistan Announcement of Nuclear-Weapons Command-and-Control
Mechanism, Associated Press of Pakistan, February 3, 2000. Nuclear Black Markets, pp. 110-111, has organization
charts of the NCA and SPD.
44
See P. Cotta-Ramusino and M. Martellini, “Nuclear Safety, Nuclear Stability And Nuclear Strategy In Pakistan: A
Concise Report Of A Visit By Landau Network - Centro Volta,” January 14, 2002. Available at
http://www.pugwash.org/september11/pakistan-nuclear.htm; Kenneth N. Luongo and Brig. Gen. (Ret.) Naeem Salik,
“Building Confidence in Pakistan’s Nuclear Security,” Arms Control Today, December 2007; Robin Walker,
“Pakistan’s Evolution as a Nuclear Weapons State: Lt. Gen. Khalid Kidwai’s CCC Address, Strategic Insights,
November 1, 2006.
45
“President Promulgated National Command Authority Ordinance,” Associated Press of Pakistan, December 13,
2007.
Congressional Research Service
8
Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
investigate suspicious conduct, states that punishment for these offenses can be up to 25 years
imprisonment, and applies to both serving and retired personnel, including military personnel,
notwithstanding any other laws. As a result, Pakistani authorities say that the ordinance should
strengthen their control over strategic organizations and their personnel.
Security Concerns
PakistanAccording to a 2001 Department of Defense report, Islamabad’s nuclear weapons “are probably
stored in component form,”46 which suggests that the nuclear warheads are stored separately from
delivery vehicles. According to some reports, the fissile cores of the weapons are separated from
the non-nuclear explosives. 47 But whether this is actually the case is unclear; one report states that
the warheads and delivery vehicles are probably stored separately in facilities close to one
another, but says nothing about the fissile cores.48 And, according to an account of a 2008 experts’
group visit to Pakistan, Lt. Gen. Khalid Kidwai, the head of the SPD, suggested that the nuclear
warheads (containing the fissile cores) may be mated with their delivery vehicles.49 According to
Kidwai, the report says, the SPD’s official position is that the weapons “will be ready when
required, at the shortest notice; [but] the Pakistani doctrine is not endorsing a US-USSR model
with weapons on hair trigger alert.” The 2001 Defense Department report says that Pakistan can
probably assemble its weapons fairly quickly.50
Althoughare reportedly stored unassembled, with the fissile core separated
from the non-nuclear explosives. These components are stored separately from delivery vehicles.
A 2001 Department of Defense report says that Pakistan can probably assemble the weapons
fairly quickly. 35 Nevertheless, separate storage may provide a layer of protection against
accidental launch or prevent
theft of an assembled weapon. On the other hand, it may be easier
for unauthorized people to remove a weapon’s
fissile material core if it is not assembled.
Dispersal of the assets may also create more potential
access points for acquisition and may
increase the risk of diversion. 3651
As the United States prepared to launch an attack on the Afghan Taliban after September 11,
2001, President Musharraf reportedly ordered that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal be redeployed to “at
(...continued)
Mechanism, Associated Press of Pakistan, February 3, 2000. Nuclear Black Markets, pp. 110-111, has organization
charts of the NCA and SPD.
33
See P. Cotta-Ramusino and M. Martellini, “Nuclear Safety, Nuclear Stability And Nuclear Strategy In Pakistan: A
Concise Report Of A Visit By Landau Network - Centro Volta,” January 14, 2002. Available at
http://www.pugwash.org/september11/pakistan-nuclear.htm; Kenneth N. Luongo and Brig. Gen. (Ret.) Naeem Salik,
“Building Confidence in Pakistan’s Nuclear Security,” Arms Control Today, December 2007; Robin Walker,
“Pakistan’s Evolution as a Nuclear Weapons State: Lt. Gen. Khalid Kidwai’s CCC Address, Strategic Insights,
November 1, 2006.
34
“President Promulgated National Command Authority Ordinance,” Associated Press of Pakistan, December 13,
2007.
35
Proliferation: Threat and Response, p. 28.
36
See Graham Allison, “What About the Nukes?” Newsweek Web, December 28, 2007. http://www.newsweek.com/id/
82259
Congressional Research Service
7
Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
least six secret new locations.”37 This action came at a time of uncertainly about the future of the
region, including the direction of U.S.-Pakistan relations. Islamabad’s leadership was uncertain
whether the U.S. would decide to conduct military strikes against Pakistan’s nuclear assets if
Islamabad did not assist the United States against the Taliban. Indeed, President Musharraf cited
protection of Pakistan’s nuclear and missile assets as one of the reasons for Islamabad’s dramatic
policy shift.38
least six secret new locations.”52 This action came at a time of uncertainly about the future of the
region, including the direction of U.S.-Pakistan relations. Islamabad’s leadership was uncertain
whether the United States would decide to conduct military strikes against Pakistan’s nuclear
assets if the government did not assist the United States against the Taliban. Indeed, President
46
Proliferation: Threat and Response, p. 27.
47
Joby Warrick, “Pakistan Nuclear Security Questioned; Lack of Knowledge About Arsenal May Limit U.S. Options,”
Washington Post, November 11, 2007; Peter Wonacott, “Inside Pakistan’s Drive To Guard Its A-Bombs,” Wall Street
Journal, November 29, 2007; David E. Sanger, “Trust Us: So, What About Those Nukes?,” New York Times,
November 11, 2007; Nuclear Black Markets, 2007, p.33; Cotta-Ramusino and Martellini, 2002. See also, George
Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace quoted in Nigel Hawkes, “Pakistan Could Lose Control
Of Its Arsenal,” The Times (London), September 20, 2001.
48
Lavoy, “Islamabad’s Nuclear Posture: Its Premises and Implementation.” p. 141.
49
Maurizio Martellini, “Security and Safety Issues about the Nuclear Complex: Pakistan’s Standpoints. A Concise
Report Of A Visit To Islamabad By Landau Network Centro Volta (LNCV) Mission Carried Out On February 9-13
2008.”
50
Proliferation: Threat and Response, p. 28.
51
See Graham Allison, “What About the Nukes?” Newsweek Web, December 28, 2007. http://www.newsweek.com/id/
82259
52
Molly Moore and Kamran Khan, “Pakistan Moves Nuclear Weapons - Musharraf Says Arsenal Is Now Secure,”
Washington Post, November 11, 2001.
Congressional Research Service
9
Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
Musharraf cited protection of Pakistan’s nuclear and missile assets as one of the reasons for
Islamabad’s dramatic policy shift.53
These events, in combination with the 1999 Kargil crisis, the 2002 conflict with India at the Line
of Control, and revelations about the A.Q. Khan proliferation network, inspired a variety of
reforms to secure the nuclear complex. Risk of nuclear war in South Asia ran high in the 1999
Kargil crisis, when the Pakistani military is believed to have begun preparing nuclear-tipped
missiles.3954 It should be noted that, even at the high alert levels of 2001 and 2002, there were no
reports of Pakistan mating the warheads with delivery systems. 4055
In the fall of 2007 and early 2008, Pakistan faced another crucial moment in its history and some
observers expressed concern about the security of the country’s arsenal if political instability were
to persist.4156 Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto said in an interview on November 5, 2007,
that while President Musharraf says he is firm control of the nuclear arsenal, she is afraid this
control could weaken due to instability in the country.4257 Similarly, Michael Krepon of the Henry
L. Stimson Center has argued that “a prolonged period of turbulence and infighting among the
country’s President, Prime Minister, and Army Chief” could jeopardize the army’s unity of
command, which “is essential for nuclear security.”4358 During that time, U.S. military officials also
expressed concern about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.4459 Director General of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, also has expressed fears that
a radical regime could take power in Pakistan, and thereby acquire nuclear weapons.4560 Experts
also worry that while nuclear weapons are currently under firm control, with warheads
disassembled, technology could be sold off by insiders during a worsened crisis.46
37
Molly Moore and Kamran Khan, “Pakistan Moves Nuclear Weapons - Musharraf Says Arsenal Is Now Secure,”
Washington Post, November 11, 2001.
3861
However, U.S. intelligence officials have expressed greater confidence regarding the security of
Islamabad’s nuclear weapons. Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte in testimony to
Congress on November 7, 2007 said he believed that there is “plenty of succession planning that’s
going on in the Pakistani military” and that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are under “effective
technical control.”62 Similarly, Donald Kerr, Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence,
told a Washington audience May 29, 2008, that the Pakistani military’s control of the country’s
53
“Partial transcript of Pakistan President Musharraf’s televised speech asking the people of Pakistan to support his
course of action,” September 19, 2001. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/
pakistantext_091901.html.
3954
Bruce Riedel, “American Diplomacy and the 1999 Kargil Summit at Blair House,” Center for the Advanced Study of
India, Policy Paper Series, 2002. http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/research/kargil/reidel.pdf.
4055
Lavoy, ibid.
412006.
56
“Opinions Mixed on Pakistani Nuclear Security,” Global Security Newswire, November 6, 2007. http://www.nti.org/
d_newswire/issues/recent_stories.asp?category=nuclear#6783E660.
4257
Also see comments by David Albright in the same interview. (“Pakistan in Crisis: Interview with Benazir Bhutto,”
CNN, November 5, 2007).
58.
43
“U.S.-Pakistan Strategic Relations,” Statement before the Committee on Senate Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services,
and International Security June 12, 2008.
4459
“Lieutenant General Carter Ham Holds a Defense Department Briefing,” CQ Transcripts, November 7, 2007.
45
60
“Al Baradei to Al Hayat,” Dar Al Hayat, English Edition on-line, January 10, 2008, http://english.daralhayat.com/
Spec/01-2008/Article-20080110-639032eb-c0a8-10ed-01ae-81ab2ea588db/story.html.
4661
Also see comments by David Albright in “Pakistan in Crisis: Interview with Benazir Bhutto,” CNN, November 5,
,” 2007.
62
House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing on Democracy, Authoritarianism and Terrorism in Contemporary
Pakistan, November 7, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
8
Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
However, U.S. intelligence officials have expressed greater confidence regarding the security of
Islamabad’s nuclear weapons. Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte in testimony to
Congress on November 7, 2007 said he believed that there is “plenty of succession planning that’s
going on in the Pakistani military” and that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are under “effective
technical control.”47 Similarly, Donald Kerr, Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence,
told a Washington audience May 29, 2008, that the Pakistani military’s control of the country’s
10
Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
nuclear weapons is “a good thing because that’s an institution in Pakistan that has, in fact,
withstood many of the political changes over the years.” A Department of Defense spokesperson
told reporters December 9, 2008, that Washington has “no reason at this point to have any
concern with regards to the security” of Islamabad’s nuclear arsenal. More recently, Maples stated
March 10 that Islamabad “has taken important steps to safeguard its nuclear weapons,” but
also
pointed out that “vulnerabilities exist.”
Other governments have also voiced opinions regarding the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.
For example, Indian National Security Adviser M. K. Narayanan said that the arsenal is safe and
has adequate checks and balances. 4863 Similarly, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
Affairs David Miliband told the Charlie Rose Show December 15, 2008, that Islamabad’s nuclear
weapons “are under pretty close lock and key.” Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov
sounded somewhat less optimistic in a March 24, 2009, television interview, stating that Moscow
is “very much concerned” about the security of Pakistan’s arsenal.4964
Pakistani officials have consistently expressed confidence in the security of the country’s nuclear
arsenal. Then-President Musharraf stated in November 2007 that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are
under “total custodial controls.”5065 More recently, President Asif Ali Zardari told CNN December
2, 2008, that the country’s nuclear command and control system “is working well.” Additionally,
a Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesperson stated May 21, 2009, that “there is simply no question
of our strategic assets falling into the wrong hands. We have full confidence in our procedures,
mechanisms and command and control systems.”
In addition to the above scenarios, the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons could also be
jeopardized by another conflict between India and Pakistan, Michael Krepon argued, explaining
that an “escalating war with nuclear forces in the field would increase the probability of
accidents, miscalculations, and the use of nuclear weapons.” This is because when
[w]hen tensions rise
precipitously with India, the readiness level of Pakistan’s nuclear
deterrent also rises. Because the
geographical coordinates of Pakistan’s main nuclear weapon
storage sites, missile, and air bases
can be readily identified from satellites—and therefore
targeted by opposing forces—the dictates
of deterrence mandate some movement of
launchers and weapons from fixed locations during
crises. Nuclear weapons on the move are
inherently less secure than nuclear weapons at heavilyguardedheavily-guarded storage sites. Weapons and
launchers in motion are also more susceptible to “insider”
threats and accidents.51 66
Such a war, Krepon added, would also place stress on the army’s unity of command,
Krepon added.
47
House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing on Democracy, Authoritarianism and Terrorism in Contemporary
Pakistan, November 7, 2007.
48
. Krepon has
also pointed out that Islamabad faces a dilemma, because less-dispersed nuclear weapons may be
more vulnerable to a disarming military strike from India.67
U.S. plans to secure Pakistani nuclear weapons in case of a loss of control by the Pakistani
government were famously addressed during Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s confirmation
hearing in January 2005. In response to a question from Senator John Kerry asking what would
63
“Pak Nukes Safely Guarded, Says Narayanan,” The Press Trust of India, December 16, 2007.
49
Lyubov Pronina and Ellen Pinchuk, “Russia ‘Concerned’ About Security of Pakistan’s Nuclear Arsenal,”
Bloomberg, March 25, 2009.
5065
“Pakistan Nukes Under Control: Musharraf,” Agence France Presse, November 13, 2007.
5166
Krepon, June, 12, 2008. 12, 2008.
67
Michael Krepon, “Complexities Of Nuclear Risk Reduction In South Asia,” The Hindu, May 29, 2009.
64
Congressional Research Service
911
Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
U.S. plans to secure Pakistani nuclear weapons in case of a loss of control by the Pakistani
government were famously addressed in Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s confirmation
hearing in January 2005. In response to a question from Senator John Kerry asking what would
happen to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons in the event of a radical Islamic coup in Islamabad,
Secretary Rice answered, “We have noted this problem, and we are prepared to try to deal with
it.”5268 On November 12, 2007, responding to press reports about this contingency, a Pakistan
Foreign Office spokesperson said, “Pakistan possesses adequate retaliatory capacity to defend its
strategic assets and sovereignty,” emphasizing that Islamabad’s nuclear weapons have been under
“strong multi-layered, institutionalized decision-making, organizational, administrative and
command and control structures since 1998.” 5369 The issue of U.S. contingency plans to take over
Pakistani strategic assets was raised again in the press following Benazir Bhutto’s assassination,
and was met with similar assurances by Pakistan’s government.5470
The United States reportedly offered Pakistan nuclear security assistance soon after September
11th, 2001.5571 U.S. assistance to Islamabad, which must comply with nonproliferation guidelines,
has reportedly included the sharing of best practices and technical measures to prevent
unauthorized or accidental use of nuclear weapons, as well as contribute to physical security of
storage facilities and personnel reliability. 5672 Some press reports say that the United States
provided Pakistan with Permissive Action Links (PALs) in 2003, although former Pakistani
military officials have said Pakistan has developed PALs for theirits warheads without assistance.57 73
PALs require a code to be entered before a weapon can be detonated. As noted above, Islamabad
employs a system requiring that at least two, and perhaps three, people authenticate launch codes
for nuclear weapons.74 Security at nuclear sites in Islamabad is the responsibility of a 10,000member security force, commanded by a two-star general.
Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage confirmed in a November 2007 interview
that there has been U.S. assistance in this area, explaining that the United States was unlikely to
intervene militarily in a crisis in Pakistan because “we have spent considerable time with the
Pakistani military, talking with them and working with them on the security of their nuclear
weapons. I think most observers would say that they are fairly secure. They have pretty
sophisticated mechanisms to guard the security of those.”5875 Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, former Director
of the Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence at the U.S. Department of Energy, pointed
52
68
“The Nomination of Dr. Condoleezza Rice to be Secretary of State,” Hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, January 18 and 19, 2005. The concept of a contingency plan to take over Pakistan’s nuclear assets was first
written about by Seymour Hersh, “Watching the Warheads,” The New Yorker, November 5, 2001.
5369
“Strategic Assets Are Safe, Says FO,” Dawn, November 12, 2007.
5470
“Pentagon Readies Plan for Pakistan’s Nuclear Arsenal,” The Guardian, December 28, 2007. For a discussion of the
difficulties of such a scenario, see Shaun Gregory, “The Security of Nuclear Weapons in Pakistan,” Pakistan Security
Research Unit Brief Number 22, University of Bradford, November 18, 2007. Available at
http://spaces.brad.ac.uk:8080/download/attachments/748/Brief_22finalised.pdf
5571
Alex Wagner, “U.S. Offers Nuclear Security Assistance to Pakistan,” Arms Control Today, December 2001.
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001_12/paknucsecdec01.asp.
5672
Joby Warrick, “U.S. Has Concerns Over Security of Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons,” The Washington Post, November
11, 2007; David Sanger and William Broad, “U.S. Secretly Aids Pakistan in Guarding Nuclear Arms,” The New York
Times, November 17, 2007.
5773
Kaushik Kapisthalam, “Guarding Pakistan’s Nuclear Estate,” Asia Times, April 6, 2005. http://www.atimes.com/
atimes/South_Asia/GD06Df04.html; Robert Windrem, “Pakistan’s Nuclear History Worries Insiders,” NBC News,
November 6, 2007. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660667/.
58 General Kidwai has stated that “if a country can make
complex nuclear weapons and ballistic cruise missiles grant it that PALs is a far simpler technology.” (Cited in
Martellini, 2008).
74
Mubarakmand provided some details about Pakistan’s use of such codes in the 2004 interview.
75
“A Conversation With Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage,” PBS: The Charlie Rose Show,
November 6, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
1012
Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
out in May 2009 that “there’s not a lot of transparency into” how Islamabad spends the U.S.
funds, but he nevertheless characterized them as “money well spent.”5976
The U.S. government has also reportedly offered assistance to secure or destroy radioactive
materials that could be used to make a radioactive dispersal device, and to ship highly enriched
uranium used in the Pakistani civilian nuclear sector out of the country.6077 It is not clear what
Pakistan’s response has been to these proposals.
It is worth noting that, according to some observers, spent fuel from Pakistan’s Karachi and
Chasma nuclear power plants could be vulnerable to theft or attack.78 Pakistani officials have
expressed confidence in the security of its facilities, however.79
Proliferation Threat
Many observers are concerned that other states or terrorist organizations could obtain material or
expertise related to nuclear weapons from Pakistan.6180 Beginning in the 1970s, Pakistan used
clandestine procurement networks to develop its nuclear weapons program. Former Pakistani
nuclear official A.Q. Khan subsequently used a similar network to supply Libya, North Korea,
and Iran with materials related to uranium enrichment.6281
Al-Qaeda has also sought assistance from the Khan network. According to former Director of
Central Intelligence George Tenet, the United States “received fragmentary information from an
intelligence service” that in 1998 Osama bin Laden had “sent emissaries to establish contact”
with the network.6382 Other Pakistani sources could also provide nuclear material to terrorist
organizations. According to a 2005 report by the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of
the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, al-Qaeda “had established contact
with Pakistani scientists who discussed development of nuclear devices that would require hardto-obtain materials like uranium to create a nuclear explosion.”6483 Tenet explains that these
scientists were affiliated with a different organization than the Khan network.
The current status of Pakistan’s nuclear export network is unclear, although most official U.S.
reports indicate that, at the least, it has been damaged considerably. Director of National
Intelligence John D. Negroponte implied that the network had been dismantled when he asserted
in a January 11, 2007, statement to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that “Pakistan
had been a major source of nuclear proliferation until the disruption of the A.Q. Khan network.”65
More recently, a January 12, 2009, State Department press release said that the network “is no
longer operating.” For its part, Pakistan’s Foreign Office stated February 7, 2009, that Pakistan
“has dismantled the nuclear black market network.”
59
76
Ben Arnoldy, “Could Taliban Get Keys To Pakistan’s A-Bomb? Experts See The Islamic Fighters As Less Of A
Risk Than Radical Insiders Gaining Access To Nuclear Materials,” The Christian Science Monitor, May 15, 2009.
60
77
Bryan Bender, “Pakistan, US In Talks On Nuclear Security,” The Boston Globe, May 5, 2009.
61Abdul Mannan, “Preventing Nuclear Terrorism in Pakistan: Sabotage of a Spent Fuel Cask or a Commercial
Irradiation Source in Transport,” in Pakistan’s Nuclear Future, 2008; Martellini, 2008.
79
Martellini, 2008.
80
For more information on Pakistani proliferation, see CRS Report RL32745, Pakistan's Nuclear Proliferation
Activities and the Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission: U.S. Policy Constraints and Options, by Richard P.
Cronin, K. Alan Kronstadt, and Sharon Squassoni. Also see CRS Report RL33498, Pakistan-U.S. Relations, by K.
Alan Kronstadt.
6281
Libya obtained uranium enrichment technology and nuclear weapons designs that could support a nuclear weapons
program. North Korea currently has a plutonium-based nuclear weapons program, but it is unclear whether it and may also has a
have a uranium-based one
program. Iran is suspected of pursuing both plutonium- and uranium-based nuclear weapons programs.
6382
Tenet, George and Harlow, Bill, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, HarperCollins: New York, 2007. p.
261.
6483
The report can be foundis available at http://www.wmd.gov/report/index.html.
65
Unclassified Statement for the Record Annual Threat Assessment, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, January
11, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
11
Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
78
Congressional Research Service
13
Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
The current status of Pakistan’s nuclear export network is unclear, although most official U.S.
reports indicate that, at the least, it has been damaged considerably. Director of National
Intelligence John D. Negroponte implied that the network had been dismantled when he asserted
in a January 11, 2007, statement to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that “Pakistan
had been a major source of nuclear proliferation until the disruption of the A.Q. Khan network.”84
More recently, a January 12, 2009, State Department press release said that the network “is no
longer operating.” For its part, Pakistan’s Foreign Office stated February 7, 2009, that Pakistan
“has dismantled the nuclear black market network.” Asked during a July 20, 2009, interview
whether North Korea was transferring “nuclear weapons” or related advice to North Korea,
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton replied that there is “no evidence” that Pakistan is doing so.
However, when asked about the network’s current status during a July 25, 2007, Senate Foreign
Relations Committee hearing, Undersecretary for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns replied that:
I cannot assert that no part of that network exists, but it’s my understanding based on our
conversations with the Pakistanis that the network has been fundamentally dismantled. But
to say that there are no elements in Pakistan, I’m not sure I could say that.
Similarly, the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies found in a May 2007
report that “at least some of Khan’s associates appear to have escaped law enforcement attention
and could ... resume their black-market business.”6685
Asked about Pakistan’s cooperation in investigating the network, Burns acknowledged that the
United States has not had “personal, consistent access” to Khan, but added that he did not “have
all the details of everything we’ve done.” Similarly, the IAEA has not yet been able to interview
Khan directly, according to an agency official. However, Islamabad has responded to written
questions from the IAEA and has been cooperative in itswith the agency’s investigation of Iran’s nuclear
program. 67
nuclear program.86 Khan himself told Dawn News TV May 29, 2008, that he would not cooperate with
with U.S. or IAEA investigators. A Pakistani Foreign Office spokesperson told reporters in May 2006
2006 that the government considered the Khan investigation “closed”—a position an Office
spokesperson reiterated February 6, 2009.
The State Department announced January 12, 2009, that it was imposing sanctions on 13
individuals and three companies for their involvement in the Khan network. The sanctions were
imposed under the Export-Import Bank Act, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act, and
Executive Orders 12938 and 13382.
Pakistan’s Response to the Proliferation Threat
Undersecretary Burns testified in July 2007 that the Bush administration has “told the Pakistani
government that it is its responsibility ... to make sure” that neither the Khan network nor a
“similar organization” resurfaces in the country. Since the revelations about the Khan network,
Pakistan appears to have increased its efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation. But whether and to
what extent these efforts have been successful is not yet clear. It is worth noting that, because
84
Unclassified Statement for the Record Annual Threat Assessment, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, January
11, 2007.
85
Nuclear Black Markets, 2007, p. 159.
86
Personal communication, November 9, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
14
Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
Khan conducted his proliferation activities as a government official, they do not necessarily
indicate a failure of Islamabad’s export controls.
Pakistani officials argue that Islamabad has taken a number of steps to prevent further
proliferation of nuclear-related technologies and materials.6887 For example, Islamabad adopted in
September 2004 new national export controls legislation which includes a requirement that the
government issue control lists for “goods, technologies, material, and equipment which may
contribute to designing, development, stockpiling, [and] use” of nuclear weapons and related
delivery systems. According to a February 2008 presentation by Zafar Ali, Director of Pakistan’s
Strategic Export Controls Division (SECDIV), 69 the lists, which were issued in October 2005 and
66
67
See http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-dossiers/nbm.
Personal communication, November 9, 2007.
68
Details of Pakistan’s nuclear-related legislation can be found in the country’s reports to the UN 1540 Committee.
Both can be found at http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/597/46/PDF/N0459746.pdf?OpenElement.
69
Presentation given to Partnership for Global Security Workshop, “Meeting the Nuclear Security Challenge in
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
12
Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
88 the lists, which were issued in October 2005 and
are to be periodically updated, include items controlled by multilateral export control regimes,
such as the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Australia Group, and the Missile Technology Control
Regime. 7089 The export controls legislation also includes a catch-all clause, which requires
exporters to notify the government if they are aware or suspect that goods or technology are
intended by the end-user for use in nuclear or biological weapons, or missiles capable of
delivering such weapons. 7190
The legislation includes several other important elements, such as end-use and end-user
certification requirements and new penalties for violators. Since its adoption, Pakistan has
established the SECDIV and an associated Oversight Board. The SECDIV is responsible for
formulating rules and regulations for implementing the legislation. The board is comprised of
officials from multiple agencies and is headed by Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary.
Islamabad says that it has also taken several other steps to improve its nuclear security. For
example, the government announced in June 2007 that it is “implementing a National Security
Action Plan with the [IAEA’s] assistance.” That same month, Pakistan also joined the U.S.—and
Russian-led Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. As noted above, the December 2007
National Command Authority Ordinance also includes measures to prevent the spread of nuclearrelated materials and expertise.
Pakistani officials participating in an April 2007 Partnership for Global Security workshop argued
that Islamabad has improved the reliability of its nuclear personnel by, for example, making its
security clearance procedures more stringent. However, the officials also acknowledged that
Islamabad still needs to do more to control its nuclear expertise. 72 Similarly, Admiral Mullen
stated May 14, 2009, that the country’s personnel reliability system must “continue to improve.”
The United States has also provided export control assistance to Pakistan. Burns described several
such efforts in his July 2007 testimony.73 And according to an October 2007 U.S. Government
Accountability Office report, Islamabad was during FY2003-FY2006 the second-largest recipient
(...continued)
87
Details of Pakistan’s nuclear-related legislation can be found in the country’s reports to the UN 1540 Committee.
Both can be found at http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/597/46/PDF/N0459746.pdf?OpenElement.
88
Presentation given to Partnership for Global Security Workshop, “Meeting the Nuclear Security Challenge in
Pakistan,” February 21-22, 2008. http://www.partnershipforglobalsecurity.org/documents/zafar_export.pdf.
7089
The Nuclear Suppliers Group is a multilateral, voluntary group of nuclear supplier states which have agreed to
coordinate their exports of civilian nuclear technology and materials in order to prevent importers from using them to
produce nuclear weapons. The Australia Group is a voluntary, informal, export-control arrangement through which
participating countries coordinate their national export controls to limit the supply of chemicals and biological agents,
as well as related equipment, technologies, and knowledge, to countries and nonstate entities suspected of pursuing
chemical or biological weapons capabilities. The Missile Technology Control Regime is an informal, voluntary
arrangement in which participants agree to adhere to common export policy guidelines applied to an “annex” that lists
items related to the proliferation of ballistic and cruise missiles, rockets, and unmanned air vehicles capable of
delivering weapons of mass destruction.
7190
The Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Ordinance of 2000 regulates the import and export of chemicals
in accordance with the convention.
72
Building Confidence in
Congressional Research Service
15
Pakistan’s Nuclear Security: Workshop Synopsis. April 30, 2007.
73
Burns mentioned Pakistan’s participation in the Container Security Initiative and the Secure Freight Initiative. Under
these programs, “the United States and Pakistan worked together to install screening and radiation detection equipment
to scan U.S.-bound cargo.” He also stated that the Department of Energy “is working with Pakistan on radiation source
security and is in the process of finalizing an agreement to install radiation detection equipment at Pakistani ports and
border crossings.”
Congressional Research Service
13
Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
of bilateral U.S. assistance designed to improve target countries’ export controls. Pakistan
received such assistance from the Departments of State, Energy, and Homeland Security.74Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
Islamabad still needs to do more to control its nuclear expertise. 91 Similarly, Admiral Mullen
stated May 14, 2009, that the country’s personnel reliability system must “continue to improve.”
The United States has also provided export control assistance to Pakistan. Burns described several
such efforts in his July 2007 testimony.92 And according to an October 2007 U.S. Government
Accountability Office report, Islamabad was during FY2003-FY2006 the second-largest recipient
of bilateral U.S. assistance designed to improve target countries’ export controls. Pakistan
received such assistance from the Departments of State, Energy, and Homeland Security.93
Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security-Designate Ellen Tauscher
told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the Obama administration does not support
conditioning aid to Pakistan on permitting direct U.S. access to Khan, arguing, in part, that the
United States has “obtained a great deal of information about the Khan network without having
direct access to A.Q. Khan.”94
Issues for Congress
Members of Congress have also expressed concerns regarding the security of Pakistan’s nuclear
weapons and related material. Senator Richard Lugar has spoken out in favor of using the
cooperative threat reduction tools in Pakistan to help with the security of nuclear, biological, and
chemical materials and weapons in the country. 7595
Additionally, a number of pieces of legislation appear designed to influence Islamabad’s policies
regarding the Khan network. Section 2 of H.R. 1463, which was introduced March 12, 2009, and
referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee the same day, states that U.S. military assistance
may be provided to Pakistan only if the President certifies that Islamabad is both making A.Q.
Khan available to the United States for questioning and “providing adequate assurances to the
United States Government that it will monitor Khan’s movements and activities in such a manner
as to prevent his participation in any efforts to disseminate nuclear technology or know-how.”
This section allows the President to waive restrictions on U.S. assistance imposed pursuant to the
proposed legislation if the President “certifies to Congress that it is in the national interests of the
United States to do so.”
H.R. 2481, the United States-Pakistan Security and Stability Act, which was introduced May 19,
2009, and referred the same day to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the House Armed
91
Building Confidence in Pakistan’s Nuclear Security: Workshop Synopsis. April 30, 2007.
Burns mentioned Pakistan’s participation in the Container Security Initiative and the Secure Freight Initiative. Under
these programs, “the United States and Pakistan worked together to install screening and radiation detection equipment
to scan U.S.-bound cargo.” He also stated that the Department of Energy “is working with Pakistan on radiation source
security and is in the process of finalizing an agreement to install radiation detection equipment at Pakistani ports and
border crossings.”
93
GAO Report, Nonproliferation: U.S. Efforts to Combat Nuclear Networks Need Better Data on Proliferation Risks
and Program Results, October 31, 2007.
94
Question #54, Pre-Hearing Questions for the Record by Senator Richard Lugar Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Nomination of Ellen M. Tauscher to be Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.
http://lugar.senate.gov/sfrc/pdf/TauscherQFR.pdf.
95
“Statement by Sen. Lugar on Nunn-Lugar and Pakistan,” May 6, 2009, http://lugar.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=
312588&
92
Congressional Research Service
16
Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
Services Committee, and the House Intelligence Committee, would require the President to
“develop and transmit to the appropriate congressional committees a comprehensive interagency
strategy and implementation plan for long-term security and stability in Pakistan.” The strategy is
to include a “description of how United States assistance” authorized by the bill “will be used to
achieve the objectives of United States policy toward Pakistan,” one of which is “to empower and
enable” Islamabad to “maintain robust command and control over its nuclear weapons
technology.” The bill would authorize foreign assistance for Pakistan, including funds for
improving the government’s counter-insurgency capability.
H.R. 1886, the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement Act of 2009,
authorizes U.S. assistance to Pakistan for a variety of purposes. These include strengthening
democratic institutions and law enforcement, as well as supporting economic development,
education, human rights, and heath care. The bill would also authorize additional U.S. security
assistance for Islamabad. However, Section 206 of the bill places conditions on some of this
assistance; it states that no U.S. military assistance shall be provided to Pakistan if the President
has not made a series of determinations, one of which is that the government “is continuing to
cooperate with the United States in efforts to dismantle supplier networks relating to the
acquisition of nuclear weapons related materials, including, as necessary, providing access to
Pakistani nationals associated with such networks.” The section includes a national security
waiver. The bill also requires a report to Congress that includes a “description of Pakistan’s
74
GAO Report, Nonproliferation: U.S. Efforts to Combat Nuclear Networks Need Better Data on Proliferation Risks
and Program Results, October 31, 2007.
75
“Statement by Sen. Lugar on Nunn-Lugar and Pakistan,” May 6, 2009, http://lugar.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=
312588&
Congressional Research Service
14
Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
efforts to prevent proliferation of nuclear-related material and expertise” and an “assessment of
whether assistance provided to Pakistan pursuant to this Act has directly or indirectly aided the
expansion of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program.” The conferencecommittee report underlines continuing
concerns about getting full information about the activities of the Khan network and development
of Pakistan’s own nuclear arsenal:
Pakistan’s history of nuclear development and Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan’s establishment of a
nuclear proliferation network remain a source for concern to many in the United States,
particularly since the Committee understands that representatives of the United States have
not interviewed certain individuals involved in the network. The Committee believes the
United States should continue to engage the Government of Pakistan on the network, and
should, as necessary, obtain direct access to the individuals covered by this subsection,
including Dr. Khan. The Committee also maintains strong concerns regarding recent reports
of Pakistan expansion of its nuclear arsenal. Given the expanding threat of Pakistan’s
domestic insurgency, the Government of Pakistan’s further development of nuclear materials
appears inconsistent with its immediate security threats and is unhelpful in the context of
efforts to strengthen U.S.-Pakistani relations.
H.R. 1886 was introduced April 2, 2009, and referred the same day to both the House Foreign
Affairs Committee and Rules Committee. The Foreign Affairs Committee reported the bill May
22, and the Rules Committee discharged it the same day. The bill was referred to the House
Armed Services Committee May 22 and discharged June 2. TheOn June 11, the House passed H.R. 1886 on June
11
1886, which was appended to H.R. 2410, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years
2010 and 2011. H.R. 2410 has been received by the Senate and referred to the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee.
The Senate is considering the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009 (S. 962), which
would provide aid to Pakistan but does not include conditions regarding the nuclear
nonproliferation or nuclear weapons activities. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will
mark marked
up the bill on June 16.
Senator Webb introduced an amendment (S.Amdt. 1202) to the 2009 Supplemental
Appropriations Act (H.R. 2346) that would require the President to certify that appropriate
measures are taken to ensure that none of the aid could “support, expand, or in any way assist in
the development or deployment of the nuclear weapons program of the Government of Pakistan.”June 16. S. 962 passed the Senate June 24.
Congressional Research Service
17
Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues
Author Contact Information
Paul K. Kerr
Analyst in Nonproliferation
pkerr@crs.loc.gov, 7-8693
Congressional Research Service
Mary Beth Nikitin
Analyst in Nonproliferation
mnikitin@crs.loc.gov, 7-7745
1518