Al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri The Coordinator 2015 Part 5-9-WMD

By Capt (Ret) C de Waart, feel free to share: in Confidence

Al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri The Coordinator 2015 Part 5-9-WMD

The AQ battle space and playing Field.It was Al-Qaeda’s Religious Justification Of Nuclear (WMD) Terrorism

See also 2014 Part 5 and 5-1, --The world's attention has rightly been riveted on negotiations aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear program. If and when that deal is made final, America and the other major powers that worked on it - China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany - should turn their attention to South Asia, a troubled region with growing nuclear risks of its own.

Pakistan, with the world's fastest-growing nuclear arsenal, is unquestionably the biggest concern, one reinforced by several recent developments

Chinese may love their nukes as much as Indians do the same but Pakistanis love nukes the most because its conventional arm arsenals are inferior to Indians and they would unhesitantly use nukes if India for any reason attacks it for a long war.

Saudi Arabia has decided to become a nuclear-weapons state. Saudi Arabia will purchase nuclear weapons from Pakistan, according to a former U.S. Defense official.

Islamic State has claimed it is 'infinitely' closer to buying a nuclear bomb from Pakistan and smuggling it into the US. An article, apparently penned by British hostage John Cantlie for the terror group’s magazine, Dabiq, says the scenario is 'more possible today than it was just one year ago'.

In an Dabiq, article entitled 'The Perfect Storm', it is claimed ISIS has billions of dollars in the bank and describes a 'hypothetical operation' which involves it buying a nuclear bomb 'through weapons dealers with links to corrupt officials' in Pakistan. It describes how the device could be smuggled into North America overland and by boat. 'Perhaps such a scenario is far-fetched but it’s the sum of all fears for western intelligence agencies and it’s infinitely more possible today than it was just one year ago,' it adds. It says 'if not a nuke', a few tonnes of explosives could be used instead. 'The Islamic State make no secret of the fact they have every intention of attacking America on its home soil and they’re not going to mince about with two mujāhidīn (jihadis) taking down a dozen casualties if it originates from the caliphate,' it reads.

Senior Western sources told The Sunday Times Saudi Arabia has decided to become a nuclear-weapons state. Saudi Arabia will purchase nuclear weapons from Pakistan, according to a former U.S. Defense official.

May 15, Speaking to Britain’s The Sunday Times, the unnamed official said: “There has been a longstanding agreement in place with the Pakistanis and the House of Saud has now made the strategic decision to move forward.” Saudi Arabia, which financed much of Pakistan’s nuclear program, will buy nuclear weapons “off-the shelf.” On May 11 an Arab leader told The New York Times “We can't sit back and be nowhere as Iran is allowed to retain much of its capability and amass its research.” It is not yet known whether Saudi Arabia has already bought nuclear weapons or is merely planning to do so. However, the news seems to realize fears of Obama’s nuclear deal in the making with Iran triggering a regional arms race. Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah Sisi concluded a deal with Russia’s Vladimir Putin to build Egypt’s first nuclear power plant in February. It is speculated that Turkey may soon follow suit and begin to pursue its own nuclear ambitions.

Nukes within a year? ISIS magazine boasts they can be bought in Pakistan

Cees: Intel to Rent of 11 17/04/2023


RT Published time: May 22, 2015

Should the need arise, Islamic State (formerly ISIS/ISIL) could buy a nuclear weapon in Pakistan within 12 months, the group's in-house magazine boasts in an article attributed to hostage journalist John Cantlie. The article talks about a "hypothetical operation" in which the Islamic State uses its "billions of dollars" to buy a nuclear device in Pakistan "through weapons dealers with links to corrupt officials in the region." The weapon could then be transported through Libya and Nigeria. The article suggests that "drug shipments from Columbia bound for Europe pass through West Africa, so moving other types of contraband from East to West is just as possible." The device would land on the south shores of South America and make its way to Mexico, from where "it’s just a quick hop through a smuggling tunnel" to the US. The chilling conclusion is that in the end, "they’re mingling with another 12 million 'illegal' aliens in America with a nuclear bomb in the trunk of their car." The author admits this is a "far-fetched" scenario, but goes on to say it is far more possible now than it was a year ago. Islamic State, he says, "will be looking to do something big, something that would make any past operation look like a squirrel shoot." Something of the scale could be made possible, according to the article, by an unprecedented condensation of various extreme Islamist groups under the terror organization’s wing. The article mentions militant groups such as Boko Haram, which recently pledged allegiance to Islamic State. It says there are many Boko followers across the Middle East given confidence by the territorial gains made by the ISIS terrorists: "Nothing on this scale has happened this big or this quick before. Huge swathes of Pakistan, Nigeria, Libya, Yemen and the Sinai Peninsula are all now united under the black flag." The estimates as to the number of ISIS fighters across the territories it control vary greatly. The total number in Iraq and Syria range from about 30,000, according to CIA estimates, to up to 70,000 according to the Russian military, to as many as 200,000, according to a November statement by a Kurdish leader.

C: -- Saudi nuclear weapons 'on order' from Pakistan - 1 What did we think the Saudis were giving us all that money for? It wasn't charity Senior Pakistani official; The story of Saudi Arabia's project - including the acquisition of missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads over long ranges - goes back decades. -- With another major aid recipient, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia is also expected to step up its efforts to develop a nuclear bomb, potentially setting off an arms race in the region. “Taking matters into our own hands is the name of the game today,” said Jamal Khashoggi, a veteran Saudi journalist and former adviser to the government. --- --- C: As far back in 1979 Pakistan assigned two divisions in support of unrest in SA, Even in 2014, Pakistani media reports, it emerges that Riyadh is seeking Pakistani military arsenal for use in Syria. According to Roznama Ummat of February 7, Riyadh asked for two divisions of Pakistan army—about 30,000 soldiers and 16,000 support staff—to train Saudi troops.

C: remember 2009, Jul 09 2; Al-Qaeda commander threatens US with Pakistani Nukes Al-Qaeda's third-in-command has told Al Jazeera that the group would use Pakistan's nuclear weapons against the US if it gained access to them. "By God's will, the Americans will not seize the Muslims' nuclear weapons and we pray that the Muslims will have these weapons and they will be used against the Americans," Mustafa Abul-Yazeed, al-Qaeda's leader in Afghanistan, said in an exclusive interview that aired on Sunday.

1 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-248238462 http://www.dhushara.com/Biocrisis/09/aug/al-qaeda_nucs.pdf



Previous, In 2012 I wrote; One morning, perhaps in the not too distant future, the President of the United States may wake up to an announcement that, given new dangers in the Middle East, the Saudi government has requested the stationing of Pakistani troops on Saudi soil. Today sources report that the Pakistani army is preparing to airlift a large force of several brigades up to a complete division to Saudi Arabia. Saudis 'turn to Pakistan to train army for Syria war' and Saudi nuclear weapons 'on order' from Pakistan

Sun Apr 19, 2015 Source: Yemen Under Saudi Chemical Attacks 3

TEHRAN (FNA )- New evidence shows that Saudi Arabia has used chemical weapons in its latest round of attacks on the Northern Province of Sa'ada and the capital Sana'a, a Yemeni source said. According to the source who asked to remain anonymous, the Saudi warplanes used toxic gas in their Saturday's strikes on markets and civilian areas in Sa'ada, leaving scores of people dead and injured. Yemeni locals also said that the Saudi warplanes used

prohibited arms in their airstrikes on Fag Attan area in Southern Sana'a on Friday. Eyewitnesses and aid workers said that a white smoke rose after Saudi airstrikes pounded the areas. There has been no report of the exact number of the casualties. Those who were injured during the attacks said they have been suffering from suffocation, nausea and diarrhea since the start of the attacks.Saudi Arabia has been striking Yemen

for 24 days now to restore power to fugitive president Mansour Hadi, a close ally of Riyadh. The Saudi-led aggression has so far killed over 2655 Yemenis, including hundreds of women and children. The attacks have also left thousands of people injured. Hadi stepped down in January and refused to reconsider the decision despite calls by Ansarullah revolutionaries of the Houthi movement. Despite Riyadh's claims that it is bombing the positions of the Ansarullah fighters, Saudi warplanes are flattening residential areas and civilian infrastructures. Five Persian Gulf States -- Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait -- and Egypt that are also assisted by Israel and backed by the US declared war on Yemen in a joint statement issued on March 26.

'Strong' evidence of Syria regime chemical attacks: HRWAuthor: AFPPosted April 14, 2015 Eyewitness accounts and evidence collected from northwestern Syria "strongly" suggest regime forces dropped toxic chemicals on civilians several times last month, Human Rights Watch said on Tuesday. A high-ranking Syrian security official denied the claim, saying the

3 http://english.farsnews.com/player.aspx?nn=13940130001363



accusations were "lies the insurgents say when they incur losses." Human Rights Watch said the chemicals appeared to have been packed into crude explosives-filled barrels that were dropped by military helicopter on rebel-held areas during heavy fighting for the city of Idlib."Evidence strongly suggests that Syrian government forces used toxic chemicals in several barrel bomb attacks in Idlib governorate between March 16 and 31, 2015," the New York-based group said. It called on the UN Security Council to investigate what would be a breach of both its own resolutions and Damascus's obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention. HRW said it had investigated six reported attacks in Idlib and villages outside, collecting evidence from rescue workers and other civilians that provided a compelling case in three of them.The most conclusive evidence came from a March 16 attack on the village of Sarmin, which left a family of six, including three children, dead, and an attack on Idlib city on March 31."The children were foaming at the mouth, they were suffocating, then their hearts stopped," said Leith Fares, a rescue worker in Sarmin. A high-ranking Syrian security official denied the claim, saying the accusations were "lies the insurgents say when they incur losses." Human Rights Watch said the chemicals appeared to have been packed into crude explosives-filled barrels that were dropped by military helicopter on rebel-held areas during heavy fighting for the city of Idlib. "Evidence strongly suggests that Syrian government forces used toxic chemicals in several barrel bomb attacks in Idlib governorate between March 16 and 31, 2015," the New York-based group said.It called on the UN Security Council to investigate what would be a breach of both its own resolutions and Damascus's obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention.HRW said it had investigated six reported attacks in Idlib and villages outside, collecting evidence from rescue workers and other civilians that provided a compelling case in three of them. The most conclusive evidence came from a March 16 attack on the village of Sarmin, which left a family of six, including three children, dead, and an attack on Idlib city on March 31. "The children were foaming at the mouth, they were suffocating, then their hearts stopped," said Leith Fares, a rescue worker in Sarmin.

A Syrian man is treated at a field hospital after a 2014 alleged gas attack by pro-regime troops on the rebel-held city of Daraya (photo by: Fadi Dirani/AFP)HRW said it could not conclusively establish the chemical used but volunteers from the Syrian Civil Defence said they found remnants of barrel bombs at attack sites and smelled chlorine gas on victims' clothes. The Syrian security official told AFP these were "lies" that armed rebels spread to "explain their failures to their funders." "If the army used chemical weapons or chlorine gas every time they say it did, those people would have been completely wiped out by now," he said.The world's chemical weapons watchdog already expressed "serious concern" on March 25 over the reported use of toxic agents in Idlib province. In January, it reported the use of chlorine gas in three attacks on three Syrian villages last year. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons did not attribute responsibility for those attacks, although its report cited witnesses saying they heard helicopters, which only the regime possesses.In early March, the UN Security Council adopted a US-drafted resolution condemning the use of chlorine in Syria and threatening sanctions if the chemicals were used again. "The Syrian government appears to be thumbing its nose at the Security Council and international law yet again," HRW's deputy Middle East director, Nadim Houry, said. Damascus did not have to declare its stocks of chlorine under a 2013 agreement to dismantle its chemical arsenal as the



substance is widely used for commercial and domestic purposes. But use of the gas for military purposes would be a breach of its undertakings under the Chemical Weapons Convention, which it signed as part of the deal.

Nuclear Fears in South AsiaAll India | New York Times | Updated: April 07, 2015 12:02 IST

File photo of PM Modi and Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. (Reuters photo)

The world's attention has rightly been riveted on negotiations aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear program. If and when that deal is made final, America and the other major powers that worked on it - China, Russia, Britain,

France and Germany - should turn their attention to South Asia, a troubled region with growing nuclear risks of its own.

Pakistan, with the world's fastest-growing nuclear arsenal, is unquestionably the biggest concern, one reinforced by several recent developments. Last week, Pakistan's prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, announced that he had approved a new deal to purchase eight diesel-electric submarines from China, which could be equipped with nuclear missiles, for an estimated $5 billion. Last month, Pakistan test-fired a ballistic missile that appears capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to any part of India. And a senior adviser, Khalid Ahmed Kidwai, reaffirmed Pakistan's determination to continue developing short-range tactical nuclear weapons whose only purpose is use on the battlefield in a war against India. These investments reflect the Pakistani army's continuing obsession with India as the enemy, a rationale that allows the generals to maintain maximum power over the government and demand maximum national resources. Pakistan now has an arsenal of as many as 120 nuclear weapons and is expected to triple that in a decade. An increase of that size makes no sense, especially since India's nuclear arsenal, estimated at about 110 weapons, is growing more slowly.

The two countries have a troubled history, having fought four wars since independence in 1947, and deep animosities persist. Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India has made it clear that Pakistan can expect retaliation if Islamic militants carry out a terrorist attack in India, as happened with the 2008 bombing in Mumbai. But the latest major conflict was in 1999, and since then India, a vibrant democracy, has focused on becoming a regional economic and political power. At the same time, Pakistan has sunk deeper into chaos, threatened by economic collapse, the weakening of political institutions and, most of all, a Taliban insurgency that aims to bring down the state. Advanced military equipment - new submarines, the medium-range Shaheen-III missile with a reported range of up to 1,700 miles, short-range tactical nuclear weapons - are of little use in defending against such threats. The billions of dollars wasted on these systems would be better spent investing in health, education and jobs for Pakistan's people.Even more troubling, the Pakistani army has become increasingly dependent on the nuclear arsenal because Pakistan cannot match the size and sophistication of India's conventional forces. Pakistan has left open the possibility that it could be the first to use nuclear weapons in a confrontation, even one that began with conventional arms. Adding short-range tactical nuclear weapons that can hit their targets quickly compounds the danger. Pakistan is hardly alone in its potential to cause regional instability. China, which considers Pakistan a close ally and India a potential threat, is continuing to build up its nuclear arsenal, now estimated at 250


http://www.ndtv.com/india-news

http://www.ndtv.com/topic/new-york-times


weapons, while all three countries are moving ahead with plans to deploy nuclear weapons at sea in the Indian Ocean. This is not a situation that can be ignored by the major powers, however preoccupied they may be by the long negotiations with Iran.

Threats of Asian Nukes for world peace!Threats of Asian Nukes for world peace!

-Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal April 13

1. Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) Nuclear weapons are the deadliest tool developed by nuclear powers to end human race and destroy all living beings on earth, do not target only select person in a crowd but annihilated masses in one go and hence they are known as weapons of mass destruction (WMD). However, nuclear powers have not taken the issue as seriously as it really merits. Nuclear disarmament refers to both the act of reducing or eliminating nuclear weapons and to the end state of a nuclear-weapon-free world, in which nuclear weapons are completely eliminated. Nuclear disarmament groups include the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Greenpeace, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Mayors for Peace, Global Zero, and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. Proponents of nuclear disarmament say that it would lessen the probability of nuclear war occurring, especially accidentally. Critics of nuclear disarmament say that it would undermine deterrence.

In 1945 in the New Mexico desert, American scientists conducted “Trinity,” the first nuclear weapons test, marking the beginning of the atomic age. Even before the Trinity test, national leaders debated the impact of nuclear weapons on domestic and foreign policy. Also involved in the debate about nuclear weapons policy was the scientific community, through professional associations such as the Federation of Atomic Scientists and the Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs. On August 6, 1945, towards the end of World War II, the Little Boy device was detonated over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Exploding with a yield equivalent to 12,500 tonnes of TNT, the blast and thermal wave of the bomb destroyed nearly 50,000 buildings (including theheadquarters of the 2nd General Army and Fifth Division) and killed approximately 75,000 people, among them 20,000 Japanese soldiers and 20,000 Koreans. Detonation of the Fat Man device exploded over the Japanese city of Nagasaki three days later on 9 August 1945, destroying 60% of the city and killing approximately 35,000 people, among them 23,200-28,200 Japanese civilian munitions workers and 150 Japanese soldiers. Subsequently, the world’s nuclear weapons stockpiles grew. Operation Crossroads was a series of nuclear weapon tests conducted by the United States at Bikini Atoll in the Pacific Ocean in the summer of 1946. Its purpose was to test the effect of nuclear weapons on naval ships Radioactive fallout from nuclear weapons testing was first drawn to public attention in 1954 when a Hydrogen bomb test in the Pacific contaminated the crew of the Japanese fishing boat Lucky Dragon. One of the fishermen died in Japan seven months later. The incident caused widespread concern around the world and "provided a decisive impetus for the emergence of the anti-nuclear weapons movement in many countries". The anti-nuclear weapons movement grew rapidly because for many people the atomic bomb "encapsulated the very worst direction in which society was moving". Peace movements emerged in Japan and in 1954 they converged to form a unified "Japanese Council against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs".

Only insane people can love deadly WMD. One can love Pakistan, India or China as their


http://kashmirwatch.com/opinions.php/2015/04/13/threats-of-asian-nukes-for-world-peace.html


favorite nation for some specifically positive reasons except for the nukes they possess because loving or supporting their nukes qualifies them to be the enemies of humanity seeking peaceful environment. Jews all over the world can rejoice at the Israeli nuke arsenals obtained illegally without UN approval but the Jewish nukes are not less dangerous as many in USA seem to believe. Israel can destroy the world if it is not allowed to be an arrogantly fascist in Mideast. Israel, a close ally of USA retains the exclusive right to own nukes illegally without having the obligation to report to the IAEA or UN and big powers, including declared nuclear powers doo not question Israeli nukes, threatening peace in West Asia. They remain monstrous threat to human civilization. It is argued sometimes by nuclear powers that nuclear arsenals help maintaining peace and therefore they are graceful deterrence. They also argue conventional arms cause tensions between nations. Nuclear powers India and Pakistan in South Asia have sustained mutual hatred, mutual suspicions causing tensions and regular cross fires.

2. Promotion of self-destruction by Asian WMD The size and shape of the US nuclear arsenal has always been inherently tied to the defense of its Western European allies, with the Asia-Pacific as a secondary consideration. Relatively recent literature on the subject suggests that it is indeed allies that have always been a major hindrance in US-Russian nuclear arms-control negotiations. Certainly there was constant debate about what constituted “stability” between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but there were a number of factors that could be applied to evaluating the degree of instability, leading to a nuclear exchange. These included arsenal size, readiness and alertness, MIRV numbers, survivability of forces, and megatonnage. These factors, in turn, would help analysts assess the strength of concepts such as deterrence, pre-emption, second-strike capability, escalation control, and escalation dominance which, in turn, would be used to assess “stability” between NATO and the Soviet Union.

Asia with large sections of hungry people without shelter is in danger. China as the exclusive veto power of Asian continent has freedom to blast and manufacture as many nukes as the red Army desires. India and Pakistan keep on adding more nukes for “peaceful purposes” when many people this largest democracy sleep on pavements and in leaking huts all over the country. In order not to lag behind India, Pakistan too is busy increasing its nuke arsenals, while more and more, and haplessly poor Pakistanis, also terrorized by NATO-Pak joint military attacks on them, continue to eat grass if allowed by the military. Rich Pakistanis, including Islamic media lords, however, enjoy life with cocktail parties in US embassy. Chinese may love their nukes as much as Indians do the same but Pakistanis love nukes the most because its conventional arm arsenals are inferior to Indians and they would unhesitantly use nukes if India for any reason attacks it for a long war. Islamabad has made the point clear to India as a matter of caution if not warning. So far they fought only short wars and exchanged cross fires over the issue of Jammu Kashmir which both occupy along with China. Indian occupational strategy has been extra brutal.

Humanity in Asian continent should seriously consider the existential threat the nations of this continent face from the ever increasing nuke arsenals of China, India and Pakistan. Thank god Bangladesh is not in nuclear race with India or Pakistan, while Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Nepal do not have the resources for extensive nukes. Afghanistan, badly destabilized by NATO democracies in order to end Islamization process by successfully enacting Sept-11 hoax, has not time to think about nukes at all. Maldives is more worried than Sri Lanka about climate change that threatens its existence than nukes.



The Asian nuke powers – China, India, Israel and Pakistan - must be proud of their nukes and damn sure nothing would happen towards any credible denuclearization or disarmament and world powers are just making gimmicks by way of summits and talks. Arms reduction treaties are also not very encouraging. But people in these nuke enabled countries in South Asia region as well as Asian continent in general should be deeply concerned about the perpetual threat from nuclear arms they face in the neighborhoods. Pakistan now has an arsenal of as many as 110-120 nuclear weapons and is expected to triple that in a decade, and an increase of that size makes no sense, especially since India's nuclear arsenal, estimated at about the same 110-120 weapons, is growing more slowly. Reports emanating from Washington and London say that Pakistan has got the world's fastest-growing nuclear arsenal, and is unquestionably the biggest concern for Asia, especially in South Asia. Reports say Pakistan plans to purchase eight diesel-electric submarines from China, which could be equipped with nuclear missiles, and test-firing a ballistic missile that appears capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to any part of India. It noted that a senior adviser, Khalid Ahmed Kidwai, reaffirmed Pakistan's determination to continue developing short-range tactical nuclear weapons whose only purpose is use on the battlefield in case of a war against India - the only country Islamabad fears. When India blasted its first bomb in Rajasthan, close to Pakistan, the ruling elite got panicky as Pakistanis were taken aback by the big explosion in India. Advanced military equipment - new submarines, the medium-range Shaheen-III missile with a reported range of up to 1,700 miles, short-range tactical nuclear weapons - are of little use in defending against such threats. Even more troubling, the Pakistani Army has become increasingly dependent on the nuclear arsenal because Pakistan cannot match the size and sophistication of India's conventional forces. But Pakistan is hardly alone in its potential to cause regional instability. China, which considers Pakistan a close ally and India a potential threat, is, according to estimates, continuing to build up its nuclear arsenal, now estimated at 250 weapons.

India, a corrupt but vibrant democracy, has focused so far on becoming a regional economic and political power. Achieving a nuclear free nation is the last thing New Delhi wants because India would not have got nukes in the first place had it not been its motto. In contrast, Pakistan, terrorized by occupation forces for the West and insurgency from within to drive the forces away from Islamabad, has sunk deeper into chaos, threatened by economic collapse, the weakening of political institutions and, most of all, a Taliban insurgency that aims to bring down the state. Islamabad also does not want to make Pakistan WMD free in the region and Asia at large, at least so long as India remains a nuclear power. Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India, like Indian media lords, thinks that the 2008 Mumbai attack was committed by Pakistanis who had come to India’s financial capital by a fishing boat , unnoticed by Indian Navy’s big high precision radar screens monitored by experts. Under pressure from USA and on duress from New Delhi which wants to increase cross border trade with Indian businessmen Pakistani government tired a few Muslims charging them with terror attack on Mumbai but recently one by one they are set free by the judiciary since they had nothing to with boat or Mumbai attack. However, Narendra Modi has made it clear that Pakistan can expect retaliation if “Islamic militants” carry out a terrorist attack in India, as happened with the 2008 bombing in Mumbai. Compared to China’s expansionist tendencies today, the role of the Soviet Navy was primarily to defend coastline, and Moscow did not rely on the seas so much for trade as the United States did. But the focus has shifted, with nuclear strategy and conventional deterrence becoming much more important in the Asia-Pacific.

3. Nuclear arms vs. conventional weapons Nuclear path is very costly and dangerous. Increasing number of nukes is said to be a rationale that denies common people their



legitimate share in terms of welfare measures and also allows the generals to maintain maximum power over the government and demand maximum national resources. Military intelligences maintain their control over policies so much that governments have to divert maximum money for military. No questions are asked in parliaments on the military expenditures, making military the super power of governments. Nuclear reductions and disarmament are not necessarily smart ideas especially no nuclear power wants to rid of its nuke arsenals. Dependence on WMD made the conventional arms look primitive and their role unimportant. Even with the successful elimination of nuclear weapons, the tasks of strategy – deterrence, extended deterrence, and arms control – do not go away. Instead, they become even more difficult to manage. That is disturbing, given that Asia is now the center of global strategic gravity. Given escalating tensions between the USA and Russia and China, nuclear disarmament will not happen any time soon. US President Barack Obama’s initial goals of further reducing the U.S. nuclear stockpile should force us to think very carefully about the desirability of relying on conventional military balances for deterrence, because a world with significantly fewer nuclear weapons would graphically expose conventional imbalances between states, which in many instances have remained partially hidden in the current nuclear age. It is upon these imbalances that any remaining system of deterrence would increasingly rely.

Historically, the South and East Asian regions, rather the wider Asia-Pacific, has been much less interested in arms control than Europe. Indeed, most arms control and disarmament policies (both conventional and nuclear) have been conceived and adopted by non-Asian countries. Arms control is desirable, and could help alleviate regional tensions, achieving agreement on limitations is fraught with difficulties linked to geography, defense spending, cross-cutting geopolitical interests, alliance dynamics, re-armament capabilities and the dual nature of evolving military technology. The British did not like submarines, pointing to the indiscriminate destruction they had wrought in previous naval battles. Syria repeatedly stated that it would not agree to a Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone (WMDFZ) unless Israel renounced its air superiority. For Iran to agree, the U.S. would need to significantly reduce its presence in the region, and Israel would need to limit its offensive capabilities and its aggressive rhetoric. Indeed, Syria’s build-up of Scud-B and Scud-C missiles since 1974 was a direct response to Israel’s conventional superiority and Syria’s growing regional isolation. It was believed that, mated to chemical and biological warheads, some of these could provide a deterrent also to Israel’s use of nuclear weapons against Syrian territory.

Do the nuclear weapon states focus on reducing their nuclear arsenals as a precondition for conventional disarmament? It would be a good idea to reduce nuclear weapons before reducing conventional forces. However, the discourse by all the nuclear weapons states except the United States indicates that nuclear weapons are seen as but one component of the overall military balance between states. Even the Cold War saw significant attempts at non-nuclear arms control, the most important of which was the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty. These initiatives were influenced by the nuclear forces of both the U.S. and USSR. Russia recently withdrew from the Treaty and threatened nuclear weapons against Denmark if it decided to host U.S. missile defenses. For Russia, NATO expansion was a means of bypassing the provisions of the Treaty.

Consider questions about the relationship between nuclear and conventional military power for arms control. Could the United States still continue to “extend” deterrence with conventional forces only? Any buildup of U.S. conventional forces in the Asia-Pacific region



would surely be provocative for challengers (say China or Russia) to the current regional order. Alliances were a major factor in the ultimate failure of the League of Nations that led to its exit and replacement by UN. In all its history up until the Second World War, the United States was a more or less isolationist power. It is also easy to take for granted just how impressive a feat it was for the United States to establish alliances with countries in Asia, for instance, half a world away. U.S. nuclear capabilities, and their long-range delivery systems, played an important part in that enterprise. Without the bomb, Washington might have had neither the appetite nor the audacity to undertake such vast and significant security commitments.The efforts for total disarmament and denuclearization have failed owing to disconnect between USA and Russia , the nations with largest nuke arsenals, over issue while all nuclear powers have continued to manufacture more nukes even as readying with nuke enabled high precision intercontinental missiles. The challenges of strategy, both on the road to nuclear “zero” and in a “disarmed” world, are significant. If one advocates for nuclear disarmament, then the responsible corollary task is to advocate for formal arms control agreements that benefit the greatest possible number of states in the international system; to create an alternative system of strategic stability. However, as my research on the historical record shows, international politics has thus far been incapable of yielding any enduring limitation on conventional military forces. Issues of conventional military power will re-emerge with new prominence and increase in danger, especially in the Asia-Pacific where the Asian tigers have not yet figured out how to share a mountain.

The issues of non-nuclear arms control might, in fact, make it even more difficult to assess and navigate the relative balance of power in international politics. Indeed, one of the biggest issues in the realm of conventional arms control is finding any agreed concept of equilibrium. Would the condition for the Chinese giving up their nuclear weapons be the complete withdrawal of US power projection capabilities from the region? Importantly, many issues illustrate the fact that proponents of arms control agreements (especially the NPT, the INF, and CFE Treaties) commit the mistake of assuming that the world can remain static, both geopolitically and militarily.

In January, Pope Francis touted nuclear disarmament as a major goal alongside climate change in his speech to the Vatican’s diplomatic corps and last year the Vatican submitted a paper calling for total nuclear disarmament to the Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons. However, unless the nuclear powers decide to dismantle their own arsenals first emerging nuclear nations won’t be assured of any nuke free world. Pope could not lend his high office to repeat what Israel or USA says Iran and would do well by asking Israel to dismantle its WMD at the earliest so that world has at last some hopes for peace. Maybe, he should press the White House, responsible for Israel obtaining nukes illegally, to positively influence Tel Aviv to destroy its deadly nukes.

One more word: Arms control should be able to contribute to reduce the probability of war, and to minimize death and destruction if war comes. But world has not yet begun debating conventional arms control agreements so that credible talks could take place on denuclearization. Many Indians, who are worried about increasing nuke arsenals in India and Asia at large, however, sincerely want more nukes in Indian arsenal until USA and Russia disown their nuke arsenals first, paving way for credible disarmament and denuclearization. On the way to formal arms control, great powers should be willing to drastically reduce their conventional forces so that denuclearization process becomes credible and serious. World



leaders should now ensure that. There is no alternative to disarmament and denuclearization in a step by step manner!


Al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri The Coordinator 2015 Part 5-9-WMD

Documents

Transcript of Al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri The Coordinator 2015 Part 5-9-WMD