Hacker News Reader

Comment by yingw787 | Hacker News Reader

Older article, but apparently Pakistan carts its nuclear weapons around in regular delivery vans: https://www.wired.com/2011/11/pakistan-nukes-delivery-vans/

I personally think this is a bad idea.

View on HN

It's not a completely illogical approach. An armored convoy stands out like a sore thumb in Rawalpindi. An ordinary slightly beat up, 6-8 year old Suzuki Bolan does not. Maybe send out a few decoy high security vehicles with uniformed crews going in a few different directions, and then send out the Bolan going elsewhere.

Bolan: https://www.google.com/search?q=suzuki+bolan&client=ubuntu&h...

If an armored convoy is not enough to protect your nuclear weapons, then you have an entirely different problem that needs solving first.

The history of Pakistan in a nutshell

I think its an intelligence thing, protecting nuclear weapon movement from foreign satellites/drones etc.

Might be true, but that won't stop Pakistan from developing nuclear weapons.

They've already had them for a few decades.

> If an armored convoy is not enough to protect your nuclear weapons...

The concern appears to be, at least partially, "the Americans will watch the convoys via satellite and know where we've got them all stored".

Considering the article it looks like they know either way.

The idea is not perfect secrecy, but plausible "we might have one more than you think you know about" that matters.

Pakistan has several armies, foreign and domestic, operating in its territory.

You're right Pakistan's problems are many and epic.

But saying "Hey, I have a great idea, you should solve your problems!" is not brilliant advice. They've already thought of that.

Your argument makes sense, but if you have the resources to hijack a heavily armed convoy, you can probably more easily hijack a number of delivery fans separately.

In software circles, this is called "security by obscurity" and is frowned upon. And if it's a bad idea with software, I'd argue it's also a bad idea with nuclear weapons.

Pakistani nuclear command and security forces are operated as cells isolated from the civilian government and regular army for a good reason.

Executing a process covertly doesn't imply "security by obscurity".

People constantly misuse that quote to claim that "obscurity" should never be used. This is false; denying your opponent information is a critical component of a well-designed security process.

It should not be the only mechanism employed.

(I have no clue what, if any, other measures Pakistan employed.)

Yep, I should have clarified that's what I meant. Agreed that obscurity should not be the only strategy employed.

As an end user I use obscurity as my means to deny information - for instance at ATM when asked for a pin I would purposely touch a few more keys to break the sequence on the ATM machine.

You are absolutely correct. Having worked in the field I can tell you that Security Research into iPhones is a lot harder than Android.

You have the full source of major important components of Android (like the OS Kernel), and you have very little of that for iOS. They've both got great, constantly advancing security models, but the iPhone's extra layer of security will continue to give it the edge (in my opinion at least).

Unless you are opposed by an all-knowing god, security through obscurity can be a useful part of a defense-in-depth system.

The United States also transports nuclear weapons in ways that are not obviously a transportation of nuclear weapons, including in seemingly unarmed semi-trucks for thousands of miles.

Its a pretty effective way of moving things that need high secrecy and present logistical challenges in required protection. In the past highly valuable items have been moved using mundane methods with little fanfare.

Except if you have a spy in the group that transport the bombs, they just tip off some people with guns to grab it. And given the number of Islamist extremists in Pakistan and how much they would love to have a bomb, it seems rather likely that sooner or later they would get a spy installed.

There may be substantial non-visible security assets nearby. The USSS has minigun-equipped SUVs, for example; you wouldn't necessarily know they're there until the six barrel gun pops out of the sunroof and opens fire.

There's something to be said for subtlety. The US President travels around in a giant motorcade; the UK PM travels in an unmarked Jag with a couple motorcycle escorts.

> The USSS has minigun-equipped SUVs, for example; you wouldn't necessarily know they're there until the six barrel gun pops out of the sunroof and opens fire.

So that scene with Nick Fury in Winter Soldier isn't far removed from reality?

Correct. There's very 90s video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIu4wVBfT30

Not sure if you intended to link to some QAnon propaganda account, but there are other sources of that same info.

Here's a video showing the vehicle in action:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j0eJ0xB7LU

Vendor's product page:

https://dillonaero.com/product/convoy-escort-vehicle-cev-2/

Sorry about that, just the first one to come up in my search. I just watched a few seconds to confirm it was the vehicle I was thinking of. (Too old to edit/delete. Argh.)

Maybe dang can help you remove it.

I apologize. I should not have assumed it was associated with the other Q. I feel like I'm part of the problem for assuming it was. I didn't do my homework, and I accordingly deserve to admit my mistake.

Please, don't be sorry. You didn't mean anything wrong, and I was actually wrong.

I also noticed the "Q" in the video opening, but youtube appears to indicate the video was uploaded 10 years ago (Sept 4, 2009). Wikipedia's page on QAnon [1] indicates it began in October 2017. It appears the video is a promotional from the Dillon Aero company, and the "Q" graphic appears to be something they included (again, based on upload data, 10 years ago). It seems plausible the "Q" in the video is meant to refer to something different.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAnon

Edit: also see the same video from 2007 from another uploader:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AowpYoYhzEI

It appears "Q" might refer to the product here. Or perhaps it is a James Bond reference.

You're correct. I don't know what the Q refers to, but probably not what I thought. I apologized to OP. I also am sorry to you, for making you do the homework I should have done instead of rushing to condemn. I didn't intend to make this worse by my actions, but I can only admit my mistake and do better in the future. Thanks for your info.

Back in the 90s, a friend publishing an edition of a letter of Columbus needed to take the original document to a photoengraver in South Central Los Angeles to get plates made for the book. He was instructed to carry the document in a plain paper bag to make it unremarkable.

It helps if the escorts pay attention, though: https://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKBN23O27W.

Meanwhile the Finnish President heads outside for a beer after the massive Trump and Putin motorcades have driven off (shutting down half the city in the process).

https://www.hs.fi/politiikka/art-2000005762136.html

That is more of a lack of power than anything else. Trump and Putin have the ability to end modern civilization in a matter of hours. The Finnish President has nowhere near that kind of power.

Didn't want to add politics to this, but i hope they get more funding for safety. Sadly, most of the funding they get from US and other Western countries is gobbled up by the Army which is the most powerful institution in the country. Their economic situation is a little worse now and it is likely they will become a vassal state of China in the future as well. China will take the role of USA in the country if it goes the other way.

So you want to give them more money even if you know that money is systematically misused? Pakistan will become a vessel state of China, its totally inevitable. Pakistan is 1000x more valuable to China then it could ever by for the US.

The US should stop the idiotic believe that Pakistan is an ally. They simply are not, and have not been for a long time. It is well known that the support the Taliban. It is well known they are one of the main pushers of radical Islam. The only real value they ever had was to help against the Soviets when they invaded Afghanistan.

And to do that the US ignored the warnings that they were developing nuclear weapons and basically created anti-western radical Islam.

The problem is that the general public is very fond of conspiracy theory for every problem under the sun. Every issue will be attributed to malicious intent of India, USA or Israel (somehow that comes into the mix). If the general public does not evolve, how would the army or govt.

> The US should stop the idiotic believe that Pakistan is an ally.

Do they actually believe it, or do they just pay lip service to that idea for realpolitik reasons? The US has repeatedly accused China of assisting Pakistan with their nuclear weapons program. It's hard for any of us to say what the truth is in that matter, but either way I don't think the potential relationship between Pakistan and China has been ignored.

I don't know about the nuclear weapons program.

But I defiantly believe they are a bad ally. I don't know what exactly they have done to get such a high status as an ally in the US. I think it never made sense really and the US has not benefit from the alliance.

I know some of the history of how it came about but even if you read those, the strategic calculus behind it was flawed.

> But I defiantly believe they are a bad ally. I don't know what exactly they have done to get such a high status as an ally in the US.

They opposed India, which was opposed by China, and the US spent the post-Vietnam period cozying up to China, because it opposed the USSR.

So, to answer your question, they haven't done anything other than be the enemy of an enemy of an enemy of an enemy.

Yes and they would have done so in any situation anyway. I not saying absolutely no support or cooperation with Pakistan on anything ever. But the level of ally the became made no sense.

>but i hope they get more funding for safety

Here’s a wild idea: don’t try and fill the hole with money; if you can’t afford to safely move your nukes, you can’t afford your nukes, ergo you shouldn’t have nukes.

>Here’s a wild idea: don’t try and fill the hole with money; if you can’t afford to safely move your nukes, you can’t afford your nukes, ergo you shouldn’t have nukes.

Pakistan is playing in a geopolitical game that also involves the US, China, India and other nations much stronger than it. Large countries have a track record of being willing to throw small regional powers under the bus for their own gain. Pakistan, rightfully in my opinion sees having nukes as their only way to be dangerous enough that nobody will try to screw them out of their sovereignty. It's no surprise that they'd rather have nukes unsafely than not have them at all.

Ukraine is an excellent example of this. They voluntarily relinquished their nuclear weapons, and now Russian troops have invaded the eastern part of the country.

I’m not so sure that nuclear weapons would help in these kinds of regional conflicts against Russia. It’s not that Russia officially invaded Ukraine (although in practice it did), but it stirred up local population (of largely Russian ethnicity) and then gave them logistical support and protection. So, if Ukraine had nuclear weapons, what would it do with it? Strike Russia, who has many more nuclear warheads, and stronger anti-nuclear protection? Nuclear weapons are for USA, China, Russia, and maybe France/Europe, because they are not going to use it. Maybe Israel, whic is so tiny and surrounded by rrivals, that it has no choice but to have something to scare the neighbors with. Maybe India, because it’s big enough. For everyone else, nuclear weapons are a liability, because if they ever use it, they are going to be wiped out by the big boys for not obeying...

Good points. It maybe would have deterred Russia from invading at all, but that's debatable.

On the opposite note, Russia (USSR) was "invaded" (sort of, from the point of view of many Russians) by the "West" 30 years ago, and USSR was butchered out, despite USSR having thousands of warheads. Which were completely useless...

That's a funny way of saying the Soviet Union could no longer imprison have of Europe, and their subjects were set free.

I agree with your statement, but I am not sure official Russia shares that view.

I agree that Ukraine couldn't have usefully threatened Russia over Crimea. Likewise nukes are no use for minor conflict in Kashmir.

But the game the Pakistanis imagine is different. Their concern (as I understand it) has always been that an existential war for them could be a small, regional, thing for India. Nuclear weapons are a way to change that.

I believe the same fear explains a lot of their meddling in Afghanistan. Having some chaos on their border is one thing, but having a serious independent country which could one day choose to ally with India is regarded as a mortal risk.

> Strike Russia, who has many more nuclear warheads, and stronger anti-nuclear protection?

Yes, what's use of a superweapon if you can't make use of it?

From my childhood experience, some times you need to commit without reservations to completely hopeless, no chance fights, as the only hope for a way out. Strong adversaries often don't expect the weak to even attempt to fight back.

There is a whole major plot in one of the Three-Body Problem books about this issue. It arises in maybe a kind of contrived way, but then it's explicitly posed in more or less the way you said.

The point is that the results of using it would be:

- would the weapons be neutralized in most or all cases by Russia before it reaches the targets? Perhaps yes? I don't know much about that sort of thing.

- it would give a carte blanche to Russia to wipe out Ukraine, which it has the means to do if it comes to total war.

That's why I'm skeptical that nuclear weapons bring more benefits than trouble for smaller players.

> it would give a carte blanche to Russia to wipe out Ukraine

But the final result would be the same as Russia deliberately bombing themselves and amputating a big chunk of their own country forever. The radioactivity would not stop in the Ukranian frontier. All nuclear weapons are boomerangs

Owning nuclear weapons may deter foreign threats, but it may also empower domestic threats if those nukes aren't controlled properly. If a general announces one day that he's the king because men loyal to him have control of the nukes [or even just one], what could the government of Pakistan do but surrender?

The politics is complicated. They do not call it a nuclear bomb only for Pakistan, but they call it one for the entire Islamic Ummah (it would be better for you to Google it). Primary target has always been India though, although the point is that constant state of disarray is what the army wants.

Well, sure, you can believe that, but you can't make it happen. If you try to, they're more likely to molon labe you than anything else.

The foreign aid is being used to purchase political support (largely in the army), as is typical. The issue is political economy, not shortage of money.

Why should foreign countries be funding them at all?

I mean their own Pakistani government is known for harboring terrorists and it is also where Bin Laden was found.

It's not the best of countries.

Osama was CIA friend in past. Kindly don't stirr useless debate.

lol, don't let your own bias or own Pakistani government cloud your vision with lies ;)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_state-sponsored_t...

- https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/01/05/w...

- https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/double-gam...

The Brits moved the plutonium or HEU (don’t remember which) for their first bomb around in quite ordinary lorries:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk_zpjK3cTo

I’m not saying it’s a good idea, but there’s certainly precedent.

The plutonium pit for the Trinity test was carried from Los Alamos to the test site in a 1942 Plymouth Special Deluxe: http://nuclearsciencemuseum.blogspot.com/2008/08/first-plane...

The British still use trucks to transport their nuclear weapons. Search online for "TCHD Convoy" for some pictures. America also continues to use trucks, in some contexts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Nuclear_Material_Trans...

US nuke transports don't look that impressive either: https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-nuclear-couriers-201703... (of course it is entirely possible that Pakistan doesn't have much in the way of hidden security around those, but flying under the radar seems to be a common theme for this business)

"The axles are designed to explode to prevent a trailer from being towed away."

Smart. Reminds me of how in movies or TV shows if the person being kidnapped would just go limp instead of following the kidnapper, 99% of the problem could be solved right there. Don't aid the enemy.

This might not be as bad as it seems.

At least in the US, the inherent security of nuclear weapons is kind of incredible.

I can't be bothered to find a reference, but it's expected that an agency with nation-state level resources in possession of a weapon _and_ its blueprints still would not be able to detonate it.

The term to google here is permissive action link

How do you think toxic waste is carried over the US/Canadian border?

Hint: it's trucks and trailers.

There's a significant difference between toxic waste and fully functional nuclear warheads, though.

This can not be true. I don't want to believe.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com