I, too, have always feared that Pakistan with its tolerance for radical Islamic insurgents like the Taliban would be the most likely source for nuclear weapons to fall into the hands of terrorists. The problem, as noted in many comments, is that Pakistan is engaged in a long-term nuclear Cold War with India and the U.S. has not been an honest broker in its dealings with the two countries. The only viable model to achieve any reduction in Pakistan's nuclear weapons arsenal would require that an arms reduction treaty like SALT and START, successfully negotiated and implemented between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union and now Russia, be negotiated between India and Pakistan. Perhaps this could be accomplished by reconvening the P5+1 that brokered the recent Iran nuclear deal to facilitate the negotiations between these long-time adversaries.
6
Read Joseph Cirincone's "The Most Dangerous Country in the World" in his book NUCLEAR NIGHTMARES. As usual, our incredibly inadequate answer is to agree to ever more "arms deals" involving conventional weaponry in order to persuade Pakistan, India and others to stop maximizing their nuclear arsenals. This faulty strategy will only give us more nightmares along with potential scenarios that may make them a horrible reality.
6
We as Pakistanis do not care what US is thinking about our nuclear program. Pakistan needs all type of nuclear arsenal including battle field tactical devices to fight and keep India out of our territory. US has never done anything to help our country and will never do anything for us. We worked hard to obtain and develop or nuclear capability and will not allow US to compromise it any way. Stop bribing and intimidating us big bully as we as a nation understand your methods of deception. Your objective is to create chaos and anarchy in the Muslim world. You are ones that created terrorism in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and now Syria. ISIL is but another of your invention to send us back to 16th century.
14
Pakistan will be the first country to use nuclear weapons in this century, because the military runs the country and the populace is also full of highly radical Islamists.
20
And who helping pakistan with all these bombs and missiles? China.
8
How about the Israeli Nuclear Nightmare – like Pakistan refusing to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty? How about the American Nuclear Nightmare turned reality on August 6 and 9, 1945 (My Birthday: AUGUST 11, 1945), over Hiroshima* and Nagasaki, the only time it materialized – pointlessly? 70 years of nuclear policy have been based on a lie.
The Truth:
"The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan… Stalin Did"
By Ward Wilson
FOREIGN POLICY: May 30, 2013
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/
* Hiroshima, 150,000 instant deaths, the highest number of people killed anywhere in the shortest time by 'human' action. – THE GREAT BIG BOOK OF HORRIBLE THINGS by Matthew White.
The Truth:
"The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan… Stalin Did"
By Ward Wilson
FOREIGN POLICY: May 30, 2013
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/
* Hiroshima, 150,000 instant deaths, the highest number of people killed anywhere in the shortest time by 'human' action. – THE GREAT BIG BOOK OF HORRIBLE THINGS by Matthew White.
7
Developing nations see what happens to them when they disarm or eschew nuclear weapons--- that's why Iraq, Libya and Syria have been destroyed... yet N. Korea survives.
13
Can we agree that nuclear weapons are more dangerous in the hands of the Islamic State of Pakistan and the Islamic Republic of Iran than the U.K or France?
12
Very good point that in all this Middle East chaos, we have not paid a lot of attention to Pakistan.
An unimaginably grave possibility is that a rogue nation, like North Korea, or any of the metastasizing Islamic groups acquires even a crude nuclear device and manages to detonate it over a heavily populated American city, triggering a catastrophic Electromagnetic Pulse. America would be incapacitated for....years.... (Our government has known about this possible scenario for years, and has done nothing).
Unfortunately, Obama's foreign policy is just so many bits and pieces of this and that, without any integrating coherency whatsoever.
An unimaginably grave possibility is that a rogue nation, like North Korea, or any of the metastasizing Islamic groups acquires even a crude nuclear device and manages to detonate it over a heavily populated American city, triggering a catastrophic Electromagnetic Pulse. America would be incapacitated for....years.... (Our government has known about this possible scenario for years, and has done nothing).
Unfortunately, Obama's foreign policy is just so many bits and pieces of this and that, without any integrating coherency whatsoever.
4
What is going to be done about the US nuclear nightmare? The US has the ability to destroy all life on Earth many times over. Furthermore, the US government has great control over the US nuclear arsenal.
9
Why is anybody still cooperating with Pakistan upon security issues when they are now the perduring source of most of these issues in the region ?
Isn't there any other choice ?
Isn't there any other choice ?
5
Well written and thoughtful. However there's 1 inaccuracy. Pakistan has a way to go to claim the third spot in the world. That belongs to Isreal which, unlike other countries, refuses to admit it has a couple hundred (plus or minus) nukes.
15
Don't you see? Don't world leaders see? It is IMPOSSIBLE to continue with civilian nuclear power plants and keep countries from using those fuel rods for nuclear bombs. Pakistan made its weapons from nuclear power plant technology. India the same. North Korea the same. Iran potentially the same. Mere treaties like the Non Proliferation Treaty have not and can not protect us -- and future generations, who will inherit those nuclear fuel rods from power plants -- from future nuclear weapons. WHY are the world's leaders, and you at the New York Times, blind to this?
4
Not a good idea for Pakistan to nuke India! Unlike conventional weapons, nukes create FALLOUT. Which can drift over to Pakistan.
4
The reason Pakistan stayed under the radar for so long is because they do not have beef with Israel. Reminds me of Wilson's war. Just empower the Talibans against your enemy today and hope they never come against you....hahah we know how that played out.
It is not the Pakistanis that may use this weapons but the others that are very close to Pakistan and have beef with Israel. It is just scary thinking of unstable Pakistan...just imagine Pakistan like Syria or Iraq.
The world is changing and we are not realizing it right under our nose!
It is not the Pakistanis that may use this weapons but the others that are very close to Pakistan and have beef with Israel. It is just scary thinking of unstable Pakistan...just imagine Pakistan like Syria or Iraq.
The world is changing and we are not realizing it right under our nose!
3
Nuke is very necessary for Pakistan ( also other small countries there) to Keep it safe from Indian atrocities in that region.
Look, first it fought with China , Pakistan, tried to disintegrate Srilanka( It was in Civil war for a long time). Thank god China Saved them.
Now it is doing same thing in Nepal. All those creating movements in Nepal India border are Bihari Indians ( Indian Home minister- few month ago).
India wants share of power for those Bihari in Nepalese constitution.
Look, first it fought with China , Pakistan, tried to disintegrate Srilanka( It was in Civil war for a long time). Thank god China Saved them.
Now it is doing same thing in Nepal. All those creating movements in Nepal India border are Bihari Indians ( Indian Home minister- few month ago).
India wants share of power for those Bihari in Nepalese constitution.
2
There is little or nothing the U.S. can do about the country which gave North Korea nuclear weapons with impunity because WE needed Pakistan to help us fight Bush's LOST war in Afghanistan, which Obama has made into Obama's LOST war in Afghanistan.
Wait, according to the SNL skit I saw last night, president Trump can probably make Pakistan surrender all of its nuclear weapons voluntarily by the force of his personality and bravado.
Wait, according to the SNL skit I saw last night, president Trump can probably make Pakistan surrender all of its nuclear weapons voluntarily by the force of his personality and bravado.
3
The article is totally biased misguiding and anti Pakistan.
Pakistan has world"s the best army and No. 1 intelligence agency (ISI) they better know how to protect it and when where and why to use it or not. Pakistan has said many times that their nuclear program is for self defense. Israel and its allies have headache because they they just want dominance over world on any cost.
Pakistan has world"s the best army and No. 1 intelligence agency (ISI) they better know how to protect it and when where and why to use it or not. Pakistan has said many times that their nuclear program is for self defense. Israel and its allies have headache because they they just want dominance over world on any cost.
8
The first sentence says Pakistan will become the third most powerful nuclear power "ahead of China, France and Britain." Why is Israel left off this list?
16
I have the same qualms about Israel and its nuclear pariah status.
14
Our real problem is the incumbent "third nuclear power", Israel, which is estimated to possess over two hundred nuclear weapons and is led by an irredentist right wing regime.
15
Pakistan's nuclear weapons maybe dangerous to India. But, they are a bigger danger to the West.
Pakistan practices terrorism in India, as a staging ground to the attack on the West. 9/11 did not happen out of the blue. It happened because of the willful blindness of the American leaders. As long as Indian lives that Pakistan is targeting, it is OK.
However, the stupidity of the Americans is boundless. OBL was promoted by Pakistanis, OBL was sheltered by Pakistanis. Still, Pakistan is a friend of US. Go on. There is no cure to stupidity.
Pakistan practices terrorism in India, as a staging ground to the attack on the West. 9/11 did not happen out of the blue. It happened because of the willful blindness of the American leaders. As long as Indian lives that Pakistan is targeting, it is OK.
However, the stupidity of the Americans is boundless. OBL was promoted by Pakistanis, OBL was sheltered by Pakistanis. Still, Pakistan is a friend of US. Go on. There is no cure to stupidity.
18
There is a powerful coincidence that delineates our treatment of Pakistan versus Iran. Notice that Iran is an enemy of Saudi Arabia. We have treated Iran's desire for the bomb as a direct threat to the existence of humanity. Notice also that Pakistan is a client state of Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom has pumped billions into Pakistan and used it as a platform to expand its Salafi brand of Islam. Notice also that Pakistan is a safe haven for the Taliban which are directly engaged in active combat against American forces. Osama bin Laden was hold up there for years and the Pakistanis acted like they had no idea. With friends like these, we don't need any enemies.
This writer cannot help but believe that the Saudi connection has been instrumental in our kid glove treatment of Pakistan. I can't prove it, but their fingerprints are all over this mess. In fact, I would go so far as to speculate that the Saudis want a powerfully armed Pakistan as a check against rising Shia power in the region. Pakistan is another one of Saudi Arabia's proxy armies paid for by their oil wealth.
Also notice that we don't see Israel screaming and hollering about a nuclear Pakistan. There are plenty of Sunnis in Pakistan that would love to obliterate Israel. Does Israel want what the Saudis want? It appears so.
Meanwhile, our ally India sits right next door. They are in grave danger from these weapons. We must reevaluate our strategic alliances. Just who are our friends?
This writer cannot help but believe that the Saudi connection has been instrumental in our kid glove treatment of Pakistan. I can't prove it, but their fingerprints are all over this mess. In fact, I would go so far as to speculate that the Saudis want a powerfully armed Pakistan as a check against rising Shia power in the region. Pakistan is another one of Saudi Arabia's proxy armies paid for by their oil wealth.
Also notice that we don't see Israel screaming and hollering about a nuclear Pakistan. There are plenty of Sunnis in Pakistan that would love to obliterate Israel. Does Israel want what the Saudis want? It appears so.
Meanwhile, our ally India sits right next door. They are in grave danger from these weapons. We must reevaluate our strategic alliances. Just who are our friends?
63
it is astonishing that the USA continues to give Pakistan such an easy ride, no serious attempt has ever been made to stop the nuclear weapons program of Pakistan, the country that sheltered Usama bin Laden and that backs Taliban in Afghanistan and Jihadists in Kashmir
..there is also the point that the Pakistan nuclear bomb is to some extent a Sunni Muslim bomb as undisclosed millions of Saudi money have flowed into its development
..there is also the point that the Pakistan nuclear bomb is to some extent a Sunni Muslim bomb as undisclosed millions of Saudi money have flowed into its development
6
Forget about Iran as a perennial source of threat to world peace. Despite 911, it is inexplicable to me why the United States has been turning a blind eye to Pakistan's membership to the club of nuclear-armed nations. If the ISIS death cult is really motivated to acquire nuclear fire in order to further its apocalyptic goals, what better source than an unstable, Islamist failing state probably brimming with ISIS sympathizers at the highest levels? I deeply fear for global peace in our times.
3
India, Pakistan and the nuclear technology is an interesting subject and must be addressed, but the timing is curious. Just when the #3 nuclear power of the world and its extremist leader is in Washington trying to be coy as if nothing happened by insulting our President in the last many years of his leadership of Israel, now seeking an increase of US Military aid to the tune of almost $7 Billion; let’s talk about Pakistan.
Yes Pakistan's nuclear progress is alarming, alarming not to Pakistanis but to Indians as they like Israel has flouted the UN resolutions re Kashmir. Military Industrial Complex is alive and well and thriving in both Pakistan and India.
In order to streamline the nuclear issue with Pakistan, the issue of Kashmir must be addressed and if today India agrees to hold a plebiscite under UN auspices, it would be easier for the Pakistan's politicians to wrest control of the Nukes from the Military. BTW the Nukes are fairly safe as we did provide them guidance for its safety and the recommended protocols are being followed.
Another complication with Pakistani Nukes is the relationship between PM Nawaz Sharif and the Saudi Royals. For some strange reason the Saudis still lay claims to the Nukes.
So just settling the Kashmir issue may still not solve the larger issue of Fundamentalism fermented by the Saudis and their cohorts in Pakistan. The underlying extremist/Wahhabi ideology being pushed by the Saudis is a major issue re any WMD discussion.
Yes Pakistan's nuclear progress is alarming, alarming not to Pakistanis but to Indians as they like Israel has flouted the UN resolutions re Kashmir. Military Industrial Complex is alive and well and thriving in both Pakistan and India.
In order to streamline the nuclear issue with Pakistan, the issue of Kashmir must be addressed and if today India agrees to hold a plebiscite under UN auspices, it would be easier for the Pakistan's politicians to wrest control of the Nukes from the Military. BTW the Nukes are fairly safe as we did provide them guidance for its safety and the recommended protocols are being followed.
Another complication with Pakistani Nukes is the relationship between PM Nawaz Sharif and the Saudi Royals. For some strange reason the Saudis still lay claims to the Nukes.
So just settling the Kashmir issue may still not solve the larger issue of Fundamentalism fermented by the Saudis and their cohorts in Pakistan. The underlying extremist/Wahhabi ideology being pushed by the Saudis is a major issue re any WMD discussion.
2
It'll have to keep until 2017.
Aligning ourselves with Pakistan because India was aligned with the USSR was incredibly "clever." Kissinger, Clausewitz, clever. What ever did happen to Prussia?
6
At last. Americans have spent enormous amount of time on Iran...which, as of yet, does not have a single nuclear weapons...while Pakistan has plenty. And Pakistan is where much of the 9/11 Saudi born or Saudi citizen terrorists trained. Pakistan has a lot of Al Qaeda and Taliban warriors who migrated across the porous border from Afghanistan.
Many educated middle class Pakistanis have begun to say things like, "Wish we were back with India. Maybe we should have never partitioned".
Nobody listened to India when it was quietly, and desperately, communicating its concerns to the international community. Idiot Kissinger, way back in the 70s, called Indians "bas%$#@". Wonder what bee was up his backside for saying something so ridiculous, while handing money and weapons to Pakistan. Look where we are because of it.
No need to meddle, but lets give India more support and power to reign in Pakistan.
One Pakistani journalist admitted, "We Pakistanis have made stupid mistakes. Our partition from India led to theocracy, extremism, military coups, dictatorships, many political assassinations and chronic political violence. If we had had more diversity like India we might be doing as well as India. We need to learn how to work with India for peace and safety, not just for the region, but for the world. We are, after all, owners of many nuclear warheads".
How come the US is coming to this awareness only now?
Many educated middle class Pakistanis have begun to say things like, "Wish we were back with India. Maybe we should have never partitioned".
Nobody listened to India when it was quietly, and desperately, communicating its concerns to the international community. Idiot Kissinger, way back in the 70s, called Indians "bas%$#@". Wonder what bee was up his backside for saying something so ridiculous, while handing money and weapons to Pakistan. Look where we are because of it.
No need to meddle, but lets give India more support and power to reign in Pakistan.
One Pakistani journalist admitted, "We Pakistanis have made stupid mistakes. Our partition from India led to theocracy, extremism, military coups, dictatorships, many political assassinations and chronic political violence. If we had had more diversity like India we might be doing as well as India. We need to learn how to work with India for peace and safety, not just for the region, but for the world. We are, after all, owners of many nuclear warheads".
How come the US is coming to this awareness only now?
16
Except for the last sentence I find the article skewed one side. Like Israel, Pakistan will have to do whatever is necessary to mitigate threats from India and others.
3
>
While the Neo-cons have been hand-wring and exaggerating about Iran, the Titan has commented many times as to the troublesome nuclear arsenal of Pakistan. If a nuke or dirty bomb goes off in the future it will most likely be from Pakistan.
While the Neo-cons have been hand-wring and exaggerating about Iran, the Titan has commented many times as to the troublesome nuclear arsenal of Pakistan. If a nuke or dirty bomb goes off in the future it will most likely be from Pakistan.
8
What is to be done?
1. Recognize that tactical nuclear weapons constitute a far greater threat than strategic ones.
2. Work towards an agreement banning tactical nuclear weapons EVERYWHERE.
3. Impose sanctions -- Iran style -- on countries/regimes that do not sign up.
1. Recognize that tactical nuclear weapons constitute a far greater threat than strategic ones.
2. Work towards an agreement banning tactical nuclear weapons EVERYWHERE.
3. Impose sanctions -- Iran style -- on countries/regimes that do not sign up.
4
Never could figure why all the stress over Iran. The guys running Iran may not be nice. But we know who they are. We can ge them on the phone. While Pakistan is the ultimate failed state Pakistan, the real target of ISIS and real threat to global warming the planet.
5
How long would it take Pakistan to transfer Nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia? All of the noise about Iran and here we have a Sunni state that harbors terrorists, Al Qaeda, Taliban and others and possesses as many nukes as Israel and little attention is paid to this desperate country. Is Iran worried about the Pakistani nuclear arsenal?
7
"The major world powers" INCLUDING INDIA will solve the pakistan problem (PP) by either changing the dominant muslin religion - very difficult OR merging pakistan back into India ( similar to East Germany )
2
The "US" attitude toward India shifted in 2008 because US corporations wanted to do more US business from India. How many telemarketeers? How much IT in Bangalore ?( used to be programming only but now there are business analysts for US IT ssytems that are from and work in India but have never even visited the US
How much of our Health insureres systems are designed, programmed and run in India. IBM (how more American can you get) moved its research to India. What we call the TBTF banks telemarketers and systems people - all in India now. And on and on and on.
So American politicians let India have nukes including giving them our technology while at the same time allowed so-called American companies to move well paid American technology jobs to India.
Way to go Washington!
How much of our Health insureres systems are designed, programmed and run in India. IBM (how more American can you get) moved its research to India. What we call the TBTF banks telemarketers and systems people - all in India now. And on and on and on.
So American politicians let India have nukes including giving them our technology while at the same time allowed so-called American companies to move well paid American technology jobs to India.
Way to go Washington!
8
Mullah Abdul Zaeef who was the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan during 2001
wrote the following in his memoirs titled "My Life With The Taliban".
"Pakistan is so famous for treachery that it is said they can get milk from
a bull. They have two tongues in one mouth, and two faces on one head
… they use everybody and deceive everybody".
Good luck with implementing any agreement that you strike with them.
They will only extract more money and technology from the west and
never live up to their commitment since nuclear weapons are all they
have for the world to take them seriously.
wrote the following in his memoirs titled "My Life With The Taliban".
"Pakistan is so famous for treachery that it is said they can get milk from
a bull. They have two tongues in one mouth, and two faces on one head
… they use everybody and deceive everybody".
Good luck with implementing any agreement that you strike with them.
They will only extract more money and technology from the west and
never live up to their commitment since nuclear weapons are all they
have for the world to take them seriously.
7
Your editorial wisely encourages persuading “Pakistan to rein in its nuclear weapons program” as “an international priority.” It warns that “Pakistan could in a decade become the world’s third ranked nuclear power, behind the United States and Russia.”
However, you do not mention another volatile part of the world, the Middle East, where the estimates of objective nuclear observers are that Israel is already the world’s third-ranked nuclear power.
Nuclear weapons could easily fall into the hands of terrorists, not only in South Asia, but also, and perhaps more dangerously, in the Middle East.
Therefore, not only Pakistan and India should be persuaded to stop pursuing further and more sophisticated nuclear weapons and sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, but so should Israel be also.
More importantly, under Article VI of the treaty, all its signatories undertook “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control,” in an effort to encourage other nations to sign the treaty.
Unless the major nuclear parties to this treaty are willing to comply with Article VI in earnest and in good faith, their effort at persuading others in South Asia, or in the Middle East or in the Far East are likely to fall on deaf ears.
However, you do not mention another volatile part of the world, the Middle East, where the estimates of objective nuclear observers are that Israel is already the world’s third-ranked nuclear power.
Nuclear weapons could easily fall into the hands of terrorists, not only in South Asia, but also, and perhaps more dangerously, in the Middle East.
Therefore, not only Pakistan and India should be persuaded to stop pursuing further and more sophisticated nuclear weapons and sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, but so should Israel be also.
More importantly, under Article VI of the treaty, all its signatories undertook “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control,” in an effort to encourage other nations to sign the treaty.
Unless the major nuclear parties to this treaty are willing to comply with Article VI in earnest and in good faith, their effort at persuading others in South Asia, or in the Middle East or in the Far East are likely to fall on deaf ears.
36
NYT focuses on Pak's reaction but is silent about the Indian actions!
Nasr has been developed to deter India from pre-emptive limited conventional war doctrine: Cold Start, which is 98% operationalised @ almost US$ 180 billion! Indian peacetime locations have moved their earlier wartime locations close to Pak. Its assumed: an act of terrorism in India would oblige it to wage limited conventional war against Pak san verification. Terrorism was introduced by India in 1971 when Indian low-intensity war broke up Pak - as admitted by Modi et al. Pak has given incontrovertible evidence to the UN & U.S. about India’s use of terrorism & destabilisation as instrument of policy. BBC reported Indian funding mil and lawlessness in Karachi. Its intelligence agencies are strengthening the hands of extremists and criminals in Pak to perpetrate terror. Chuck Hagel had expressed concern about Indian involvement inside Pak. This interference in Pak’s internal affairs is a clear breach of int'l law and affects country’s ability to fight terrorism. Pak is doing what it takes to root out terrorism. This is not visible in India except clearly discernible drift towards extremism. Terrorism cannot be defeated until and unless India stops using it as an instrument of policy against Pak.
Nasr has been developed to deter India from pre-emptive limited conventional war doctrine: Cold Start, which is 98% operationalised @ almost US$ 180 billion! Indian peacetime locations have moved their earlier wartime locations close to Pak. Its assumed: an act of terrorism in India would oblige it to wage limited conventional war against Pak san verification. Terrorism was introduced by India in 1971 when Indian low-intensity war broke up Pak - as admitted by Modi et al. Pak has given incontrovertible evidence to the UN & U.S. about India’s use of terrorism & destabilisation as instrument of policy. BBC reported Indian funding mil and lawlessness in Karachi. Its intelligence agencies are strengthening the hands of extremists and criminals in Pak to perpetrate terror. Chuck Hagel had expressed concern about Indian involvement inside Pak. This interference in Pak’s internal affairs is a clear breach of int'l law and affects country’s ability to fight terrorism. Pak is doing what it takes to root out terrorism. This is not visible in India except clearly discernible drift towards extremism. Terrorism cannot be defeated until and unless India stops using it as an instrument of policy against Pak.
2
DR STRANGELOVE ends with the image of a cowboy whooping and hollering while riding the doomsday machine down to earth--the atomic bomb that will destroy everything.
The music in the background is the song with lyrics that go,
We'll meet again,
Don't know where,
Don't know when.
But I know we'll again
some sunny day.
Pakistan ARE YOU LISTENING? That song is for you.
Meanwhile the countries against nuclear proliferation need to start applying pressure while engaging in covert operations to reign in the nukes.
What worries me is that Pakistan hid Osama bin Laden for years, hiding in the open. Will they have the same skills in hiding their nuclear arsenal?
Let's all hope not!
The music in the background is the song with lyrics that go,
We'll meet again,
Don't know where,
Don't know when.
But I know we'll again
some sunny day.
Pakistan ARE YOU LISTENING? That song is for you.
Meanwhile the countries against nuclear proliferation need to start applying pressure while engaging in covert operations to reign in the nukes.
What worries me is that Pakistan hid Osama bin Laden for years, hiding in the open. Will they have the same skills in hiding their nuclear arsenal?
Let's all hope not!
3
Pakistan is America's baby just as Saudi Arabia is. America has nurtured these two nations, one acquiring more and more nuclear weapons by the year and the other speeading fundamentalist branch of Islam all over the Muslim world.
Putin's recent words at the UN come to mind. "Do you realize what you have done?"
America, in its thirst for global domination, but with NO long term plan has created these pockets of poison, all over our planet.
Putin's recent words at the UN come to mind. "Do you realize what you have done?"
America, in its thirst for global domination, but with NO long term plan has created these pockets of poison, all over our planet.
13
Better they should be in our hands than in another country's.
4
How exceptional.
The two largest recipients of US foreign and military aid, Israel and Pakistan are the #1 and #2 rogue nuclear proliferators on the planet.
The two largest recipients of US foreign and military aid, Israel and Pakistan are the #1 and #2 rogue nuclear proliferators on the planet.
12
Your "unsettling truth" is incomplete. Pakistan, with 120 nukes, would be behind not only the US and Russia, but also Israel. And Israel has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and allows NO inspections of its arsenal of 200+ nukes.
11
Although Pakistan is referred to as a nuclear power it is not clear if its weapons are Atomic bombs with a yield measured in kilotons (KT) equal to 1,000 tons of TNT or Hydrogen bombs with a yield measured in megatons (MT) equal to 1,000,000 tons of TNT. As one can see, there is a considerable difference.
1
India's conventional war fare weapons are enough for Pakistan & China.
What better speaks to the uninformed nature of Republicans than the fact that their base is all whipped up because there MIGHT be a few nukes in development there in the distant future while Pakistan already has over 100 DELIVERABLE nukes and its government is infiltrated with Islamists!!!
Not to mention Dr. Kahn is walking free like Bin Laden was even after he was convicted of selling nuclear secrets to Iran and N. Korea!!!
Not to mention Dr. Kahn is walking free like Bin Laden was even after he was convicted of selling nuclear secrets to Iran and N. Korea!!!
8
Pakistan could not be the world's third-ranked nuclear power; that title already belongs to the unmentioned Israel; and much of the criticism directed at Pakistan could just as well be assigned to Israel too.
14
Why there so much noise on Pakistani Atomic bomb.Why nobody sees thousands of warheads kept by America?Yes we made the Bomb for our protection.We will increase its numbers.Yes we decieve USA in afghan war because she decieved us in 1965 and 1971.Yes we support Taliban as America is supporting Syrian rebel.We have our own interests.We are independent in making choices.Look at the Indian PM.Who the hell is that person?Dont know what he did and what he is doing to minorities and Dalit Hindus in INDIA?A world class terrorist has become PM with fingers on Nuclear arsinals.Who voted for religious and extremist party in election?Pakistani nation or Indian nation?Yes its Indian nation.A so called secular and democratic republic.What a joke.Shame on International media.And at the last,we are not terrorist.We are fighting each other because we all believed USA and she ploted the great game of new era.We will make the bombs.Its our right.
5
When the US Congress and Israel lobby were obsessed with Iran, Pakistan had a free hand! One has to seriously ponder the question - Who is a more serious threat to US? Iran or Pakistan?
9
The difference between Iran and Pakistan is that Pakistan is a US ally and thus like Turkey (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/08/opinion/sunday/turkeys-troubling-isis-...®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region) and like Saudi Arabia (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/08/world/middleeast/as-us-escalates-air-w...®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news) it can basically do what it wants in spite of US policy.
3
The way to reduce the level of nuclear weapons in South Asia is to forge a political solution to the issues that India and Pakistan argue about.
And, duh, why was Israel's huge nuclear arsenal left out of this editorial? Can one trust the NYT to be fair or honest when talking about the Middle East?
And, duh, why was Israel's huge nuclear arsenal left out of this editorial? Can one trust the NYT to be fair or honest when talking about the Middle East?
9
India went nuclear because India was being pushed around by China in the councils of the world. Then, China encouraged Pakistan to go nuclear and create the situation in which Pakistan thinks it has achieved parity with India. Pakistan is not and cannot be India’s equal. NYT needs to re-do its economics. Pakistan spends not 25% but close to 90% of its revenues on things like defence, essential expenses of governance, repayment of international loans and interest thereon. That leaves barely 10% of its revenues for development expenditure. The result is writ large on the face of Pakistan’s society and economy.
USA too has contributed to Pakistan’s obduracy in pursuing its addiction to Kashmir. It has already cost Pakistan half its territory: anti-Indianism as the national ideology of Pakistan has its wages. If Pakistan were foolish enough to let one of its tactical nuclear weapons be ‘stolen’ by one if its terrorist outfits for use against India, the result will assuredly be a response in kind from India. That will ensure that no one will be left in Pakistan to think in terms of a second strike.
Besides, well short of a nuclear exchange, if Pakistan were inclined to attempt something resembling ‘Mumbai 26/11 II’, that will leave India no option but to respond in a manner that Pakistan will have no means of matching.
USA and other world powers, notably China, are doing nothing to restrain Pakistan.
V. C. Bhutani, Delhi, 8 Nov 2015, 1215 IST
USA too has contributed to Pakistan’s obduracy in pursuing its addiction to Kashmir. It has already cost Pakistan half its territory: anti-Indianism as the national ideology of Pakistan has its wages. If Pakistan were foolish enough to let one of its tactical nuclear weapons be ‘stolen’ by one if its terrorist outfits for use against India, the result will assuredly be a response in kind from India. That will ensure that no one will be left in Pakistan to think in terms of a second strike.
Besides, well short of a nuclear exchange, if Pakistan were inclined to attempt something resembling ‘Mumbai 26/11 II’, that will leave India no option but to respond in a manner that Pakistan will have no means of matching.
USA and other world powers, notably China, are doing nothing to restrain Pakistan.
V. C. Bhutani, Delhi, 8 Nov 2015, 1215 IST
14
Pakistan was important to us when Richard Nixon and India’s Indira Gandhi childishly feuded and Gandhi as a result flirted with the U.S.S.R.; and earlier in the 1950s to counter even closer relations between India and the Soviets and China. It became important to us again when the U.S.S.R. invaded Afghanistan, and yet again when WE invaded Afghanistan. But India’s now our friend; and most people think, sooner or later, that we’re finally going to abandon Afghanistan to its own devices. So, as an ally, a paranoid, unstable nation that doesn’t control a big part of its territory and has a bunch of nuclearized missiles … COULD be a mite concerning.
After all, North Korea’s nuclear weapons capacity was seeded by Pakistan, and if Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern Sunni powers become nuclear themselves to counter the perceived inevitability of Shi’a Iran achieving that status, then Pakistan will be the likely supplier of weapons and technology.
But to suggest to Pakistan that competing with India on ANY axis is “hopeless” isn’t a smart tactic, given the cellular enmity they have for one another. Offering to surreptitiously help their government in imposing central control over their tribal areas primarily in the northwest could be a better tactic in at least kicking the can down the road as regards nuclear stability. It wouldn’t hurt if this assistance could be characterized as something that enrages India.
After all, North Korea’s nuclear weapons capacity was seeded by Pakistan, and if Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern Sunni powers become nuclear themselves to counter the perceived inevitability of Shi’a Iran achieving that status, then Pakistan will be the likely supplier of weapons and technology.
But to suggest to Pakistan that competing with India on ANY axis is “hopeless” isn’t a smart tactic, given the cellular enmity they have for one another. Offering to surreptitiously help their government in imposing central control over their tribal areas primarily in the northwest could be a better tactic in at least kicking the can down the road as regards nuclear stability. It wouldn’t hurt if this assistance could be characterized as something that enrages India.
5
Another case of the pot calling the kettle black. The U.S. spends 20% of its budget on defense (as of 2011), the dollar amount having risen from $287 billion in 2001 to $530 billion in 2011 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/07/everything-c....
Meanwhile, there are still 41 million people without health care coverage in the U.S. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/us/number-of-americans-without-health-..., our health as a nation ranks 37th in the world (see WHO statistics), and our K through 12 educational system is a mess (ask anyone).
Now who is it really who can't take care of their people?
Meanwhile, there are still 41 million people without health care coverage in the U.S. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/us/number-of-americans-without-health-..., our health as a nation ranks 37th in the world (see WHO statistics), and our K through 12 educational system is a mess (ask anyone).
Now who is it really who can't take care of their people?
16
Ensuring and policing nuclear non-proliferation is one of the handful of solid reasons why the US must remain a military superpower. As the decades move forward, the world must ensure no more countries obtain nuclear weapons. It was an astounding lapse in vigilance that an unstable country like Pakistan was allowed to develop one during the 90's.
This issue is as vital to the future stability of the world as much as any other pressing current issue. This certainly by all means should not become a politicized issue, such as has happened to global warming. Partisan posturing should stop when it comes to the further spread of these ultra-deadly devices. The world must, multilaterally, stand against any further spread. And Pakistan, who has touted its intentions to aid in spreading the technology and the know-how -- and has already done so to the despicable hell state of North Korea, should be gradually stripped of its stores and denied any further right to development of them.
Pakistan is should be an international pariah state until this is accomplished.
This issue is as vital to the future stability of the world as much as any other pressing current issue. This certainly by all means should not become a politicized issue, such as has happened to global warming. Partisan posturing should stop when it comes to the further spread of these ultra-deadly devices. The world must, multilaterally, stand against any further spread. And Pakistan, who has touted its intentions to aid in spreading the technology and the know-how -- and has already done so to the despicable hell state of North Korea, should be gradually stripped of its stores and denied any further right to development of them.
Pakistan is should be an international pariah state until this is accomplished.
2
The Western American Media has always been biased against Pakistan and other Muslim countries e.g. propaganda of chemical weapons of mass destruction, against saddam hussain. The big powers are themselves the major threats to the existence of the world by having thousands of nuclear arsenals and also providing them to the violators of the human rights like Israel. Now on what grounds US has signed a nuclear deal with India who has not signed any nuclear treaty and also has been involved in the killings of hundreds of people in Kashmir. On the other hand Pakistan has done too much against all the militant groups which were once created and supported by the US. Pakistani's are sacrificing their lives for the peace in the world but how poor response by the world.
3
It is China's huge assistance to the PAK nuclear arsenal that poses a major problem. China invaded Tibet in the late 50s and with its jihadi ally Pakistan in the west, now sits threatening India from two sides.
It is unfortunately only a matter of time before Pakistan or some of its jihadists launch some nukes at India. Internal political and economic problems often persuade teetering governments to launch external conflict.
It is unfortunately only a matter of time before Pakistan or some of its jihadists launch some nukes at India. Internal political and economic problems often persuade teetering governments to launch external conflict.
3
Whatever US and other western countries try they can't control Pakistan directly because Pakistan nuclear game has several factors. 1. Pakistanis are expecting India will attack them, reason Pakistan terrorist will try to do another Mumbai kind of attack against India, so at that point of time India won't have any other option expect to retaliate Pakistan, to avoid the retaliation from India, they need nuclear weapons... That means Pakistan is not going to stop sponsoring terrorism against India but they don't want India to take any kind of action against them. 2. Another important factor is , Chinese want India to be tied with Pakistan permanently, China does not want India compete with them, so they will encourage Pakistan with every possible way against India. Surely China won't ask Pakistan to stop nuclear weapon program. 3. Pakistan is telling if Kashmir issue is solved all the issues with India will be solved but how far it will be true -- NO ONE KNOWS, may be we can try Musharaf solution for Kashmir problem. But we can't be 100% sure whether Pakistan will stop its enmity with India... only solution is making Pakistan come out from its religious mindset if that happens means entire world will be free from terrorism.
4
The American focus on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, not unimportant, is one reason both acting on its own or as the Saudis agents Pakistan has been able to foment terrorism and fool one American President after another.
8
Pakistan had always relied on conventional and diplomatic ways to tackle India in all matters. India first tested nukes in 1974, only to put one in Pakistan if needed. Pakistan's nukes were only to stop that. America started the "War on Terror" and Pakistan was pushed into it when Bush threatened her with war. Pakistan also made mistakes supporting the Afghan Taliban but only to put a friendly regime in a historically hostile country. This war extremely weakened Pakistan. In almost every way Pakistan was isolated and made disposable partially because Pakistan was already half destroyed and partially because India had become more important to counter China. Over time this war consumed Pakistan and made it weak in terms of both economy and security. More than 70,000 dead, irreparable damage to economy and complete isolation, became the fate of Pakistan while India was beefed up with weapons technologies and civil nuclear deals which don't even cap a lid on its nuclear ambitions. This puts Pakistan in a vulnerable position and literally the only quick way of ensuring security is complete annihilation.Whatever the world may think, India can defend itself from China but cannot compete. Beefing up India pushes Pakistan to take more drastic measures and like it or not India is a bully aspiring for dominance and Pakistan is her arch-rival . The world needs to realize that, should the balance tilt further India will not hesitate from going to war and settling issues the ugly way.
19
Pakistanis believe in myths and that's understandable as Pakistan itself is built on the myth of the "two nation theory". The problem is not that India is a threat to Pakistan but that Pakistan has made and wants to continue to make mischief in and around India and fears Indian retaliation. Pakistan was a persistent aggressor long before India had nuclear weapons and the fact is that India does not need nuclear weapons to deal with Pakistan. The only reason Pakistan has gone nuclear is to prevent India from retaliating and for the Pakistani army to blackmail the West. Pakistanis need to understand this and get over their obsession with India. You may now feel that you are the victims of terrorism but remember that, in your case, the wounds are entirely self inflicted.
6
If you had a nuclear armed behemoth like India you will definitely want nukes too. Saying Pakistan has to simply submit to India is not really a practical solution, and with China around there is less need to worry about what the United States think.
16
So Israel has the right to defend itself, but not India? This false equivalence between a rational and democratic India and an irrational military-run Pakistan is a Cold War hack. The NYTimes would be well served to break out of of the standard templates for covering the world, and start actually doing some homework.
7
Nobody seems to want to get involved with Pakistan . This is a problem that will not go away but few understand or wish to know the dangers involved . It is even possible that the Pakistani Government has no control over their own arsenal . Over the years an Army clique of officers in the Pakistani Army have evolved into an independent entity which the Government does dot control. Any negotiations would have to include the Army officers consent and then some ......
3
Pakistan is a global terrorist state run by Jihadi generals. It uses its nuclear weapons as an umbrella under which it can perpetrate terrorism against the world while facing no consequences. Not checking this behavior will lead to something really horrible. Pakistan needs to bear the full price of its proliferation activities to among others N. Korea, Iran & Libya, if we want to keep it from further proliferating of its tactical Nukes to the Jihadi groups.
6
Since its installation, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme has been a target of harsh and subjective criticism. Although this approach has failed to cap the progressive trajectory of the programme, yet it has fashioned negative caveats about the safety and security of the country’s nuclear infrastructure. However, the deliberate maligning propaganda, especially by some western nuclear pessimists, is appalling. The editorial portrays Pakistan’s nuclear weapon capability as an ultra-sensitive concern for the global community and it keeps mum over other nuclear states.
2
Pakistan threatens to become the world's fourth ranked nuclear power, not the third. Israel possesses more than 120 warheads, but apparently we aren't supposed to mention it.
17
Isn't Pakistan our ally? Okay, just thought I'd start off with a joke.
Bottom line, it's a little too late for 'negotiations'. Nuclear weapons give a country stature, power and, if not respect, at least 'fear' in the eyes of the rest of the world.
it's tough for the "grown up countries" to accept that nuclear weapons and the by products have changed everything and "talking" about nuclear weapons won't do a bloody thing about "reducing" nuclear weapons.
The "Nuclear Genie" has been out of the bottle for over 60 years now and nobody can put it back in the bottle. The 20th Century didn't have WW3 mostly because of "dumb luck" and a few responsible military types not believing their radar screens (Yes, we went to DEVCON 3 because a new, super radar detected the "rising moon" as a batch of Soviet ICBMs. Fortunately, the officer in charge didn't follow protocol but waited).
Mr. Obama can talk to the Pakistani government until his face grows tired; the ISS, Pakistan's very secret 'intelligence' agency that behaves very much like Fleming's criminal organization named "SPECTRE" calls the shots and since they have access to nuclear material (Along with 'access' to the Taliban, Al Qaeda, etc.) one doesn't really want to annoy them.
I guess, in my eyes, the only 'solution' is to wait for either the rest of the world to "grow up" or for somebody to use one of their weapons.
The readership can guess which is more likely.
Bottom line, it's a little too late for 'negotiations'. Nuclear weapons give a country stature, power and, if not respect, at least 'fear' in the eyes of the rest of the world.
it's tough for the "grown up countries" to accept that nuclear weapons and the by products have changed everything and "talking" about nuclear weapons won't do a bloody thing about "reducing" nuclear weapons.
The "Nuclear Genie" has been out of the bottle for over 60 years now and nobody can put it back in the bottle. The 20th Century didn't have WW3 mostly because of "dumb luck" and a few responsible military types not believing their radar screens (Yes, we went to DEVCON 3 because a new, super radar detected the "rising moon" as a batch of Soviet ICBMs. Fortunately, the officer in charge didn't follow protocol but waited).
Mr. Obama can talk to the Pakistani government until his face grows tired; the ISS, Pakistan's very secret 'intelligence' agency that behaves very much like Fleming's criminal organization named "SPECTRE" calls the shots and since they have access to nuclear material (Along with 'access' to the Taliban, Al Qaeda, etc.) one doesn't really want to annoy them.
I guess, in my eyes, the only 'solution' is to wait for either the rest of the world to "grow up" or for somebody to use one of their weapons.
The readership can guess which is more likely.
3
The article takes a very shallow and one sided view of the issues. Pakistan is not looking for NSG membership or help to acquire it. Pakistan feels threatened by India. Both countries need to stop interfering in each others affairs through proxies and conclude a peace treaty. That is the real solution. The US government should press India into a peaceful posture towards its neighbors
1
Nuclear Pakistan may be the real reason for continued U.S. presence in Afghanistan.
If that is indeed the case, it would be appropriate for the powers that be to be make that fact transparent to our citizenry. Doing so might help bring this larger problem into a new perspective.
If that is indeed the case, it would be appropriate for the powers that be to be make that fact transparent to our citizenry. Doing so might help bring this larger problem into a new perspective.
3
Being a Pakistani, I vehemently oppose Pakistan's nuclear program. Instead of having bombs, it'd be nice to have electricity round the clock. But the US has the highest number of nuclear warheads - 7,200 and it is the only country in world that has actually put nuclear weapons to use. With this track record, how can anyone in the US - government, media, academia - even begin to think that the US has some kind of moral high ground in this regard? The only issue here is realpolitik and the US government and policymakers, according to C. Christine Fair, don't seem to understand the first thing about how things work in Pakistan. The US doesn't feel secure with 7,200 warheads and accepts Pakistan to feel secure with 120. Well, to put it mildly, that's a bit rich. Pakistan needs more nuclear warheads for the same reason as the US - just for the heck of it. And the way the successive American governments have been handling Pakistan over the years makes one wonder if American officials are career diplomats or just a bunch of amateurs.
38
Pakistan has played its cards smartly by not being a threat to Western and Israeli interests, and by diverting military aid to arm against India. It has not realized that this match was lost long time ago, and its importance in global leveraging has shrunk to nothing. However, like other middle eastern states, military is its main institution and disbanding it could lead to chaos.
3
Pakistan is easily the most dangerous country in the world, bar none. They don't even control the tribal areas between it and Afghanistan. A large portion of the Pakistan intelligence service help out the Muslim extremists in the Haqqani network there. And these intelligence people play both sides of the fence between the West and these extremists. I'm guessing at some point, a group of Muslim radicals will get a hold of one, or more Pakistani nuclear warheads. At that point, who knows what will happen to it.
6
These people are immeasurably dangerous. It is a miracle there has been no nuclear exchange as yet. It is a miracle some small inclination to rational thought has prevented these people from doing even more damage than the US did with Bush, Cheyney etc. Anyone who believes in nuclear weapons should be the first selected to colonize another planet.
1
It's an arms race and a quest for security that fuels it. Pure and simple. It is rather naiive to expect to pressure one of the two adversaries without addressing the underlying causes.
3
"It [Pakistan] cannot provide adequate services for its citizens because it spends about 25 percent of its budget on defense."
Sounds familiar. Where could I have heard something so strikingly familiar?
Sounds familiar. Where could I have heard something so strikingly familiar?
2
False equivalency at play gain. Why blame India or Modi?
It is not a paranoia of India by Pqk security establishment, it is an excuse to centralize power and money.
It's that simple.
It is not a paranoia of India by Pqk security establishment, it is an excuse to centralize power and money.
It's that simple.
2
Concurrently, the Government of Pakistan had constituted and implemented both short and long term policies to develop the country’s nuclear deterrence capability, particularly after India’s nuclear explosion in Rajasthan on May 18, 1974.
Moreover, it has been intelligently addressing the security challenges to its nuclear infrastructure. Therefore, there has been no recorded incident of sabotage or theft of the Pakistani nuclear material to date.
Needles to say, Pakistan has institutionalised highly-secured systems, which has been improved gradually to thwart internal and external security challenges to its nuclear infrastructure and arsenals, since the very beginning of the nuclear weapons programme. Stil lobal propaganda goes on against Pakistan.
Moreover, it has been intelligently addressing the security challenges to its nuclear infrastructure. Therefore, there has been no recorded incident of sabotage or theft of the Pakistani nuclear material to date.
Needles to say, Pakistan has institutionalised highly-secured systems, which has been improved gradually to thwart internal and external security challenges to its nuclear infrastructure and arsenals, since the very beginning of the nuclear weapons programme. Stil lobal propaganda goes on against Pakistan.
1
Sensible article to a larger extent. First and foremost, Pakistan is a rogue state, which America blindly overlooked and overlooks because of its vested interests. Pakistan started terrorism in India long long back i.e in March 1993 and then went on committing a series of major terrorist attacks till 2011.
It's a namesake democracy. As such Nawaz Shariff more or less has no voice. It's not Narendra Modi, who is not interested in peace talks but in fact Pakistan's military and ISI are least interested in peace talks with India. Unless and until Pakistan's military is shown its proper place, which is not possible, nothing positive is going to happen in this direction.
Nuclear attack between Pakistan and India will never take place since Pakistani military knows very well that in the event of such an attack, entire Pakistan will be wiped out in no time even though some part of India also gets wiped out. Further Pakistan has dug it's own grave since its terrorists have caused more human losses and harm in that country when compared with the human loss and harm in India over a period of time. The religious fanaticism has brought their own peril.
It's a namesake democracy. As such Nawaz Shariff more or less has no voice. It's not Narendra Modi, who is not interested in peace talks but in fact Pakistan's military and ISI are least interested in peace talks with India. Unless and until Pakistan's military is shown its proper place, which is not possible, nothing positive is going to happen in this direction.
Nuclear attack between Pakistan and India will never take place since Pakistani military knows very well that in the event of such an attack, entire Pakistan will be wiped out in no time even though some part of India also gets wiped out. Further Pakistan has dug it's own grave since its terrorists have caused more human losses and harm in that country when compared with the human loss and harm in India over a period of time. The religious fanaticism has brought their own peril.
3
I have always thought that Pakistan was a threat to the US. I can't imagine why this hasn't been a major issue in the past. We should be looking at India, as well, since Modi appears to be using religion as a weapon, not that this is a new tactic. Extremists can't be our allies. Simple as that.
1
Articles like this have been playing up parity between Pakistan and India for the past six decades; it took India five decades to stop worrying about Pakistan. It may take Pakistan five more decades to realize its place in the World. At some point, all countries in the World will forgo nuclear weapons and Pakistan will do so too; only then, will Pakistan realize that its military adventure was all a folly and its leaders, like elsewhere in the Middle East, built mountains out of vague statements and support emanating from the West.
2
Biggest nightmare what Pakistan will be facing is economy. Every month Pakistan is taking loans from international banks. Instead of using this money for reviving the economy Politicians are using the money for themselves. And the worst Pakistan increasing taxes of comman people to repay the loans. Pakistanis are depending alot on China Pakistan Economic Corridor to revive the economy. Instead of using their own people to build this mega project, all work is done by Chinese workers and contracts too given to Chinese companies without bidding. It seems major economic collapse is coming to Pakistan and again terrorism will rise in Pakistan.
2
At this juncture, Pakistan is going through the most critical phase. The best that America and India can do is help strengthen the democracy.
I feel sad for the people of Pakistan who were deprived of the right to self-rule for close to six decades.
Military dictatorships are scary. Democracy, no matter how ill-efficient, always work. At least Democracies don't go on wars because of ego.
The U.S. is too weak to force Pakistan to abandon nukes – And so is India.
Ego has killed hundreds of millions of hunger, and would probably continue to do so. if you press Sharif hard, then we would end up dealing with Another General.
I feel sad for the people of Pakistan who were deprived of the right to self-rule for close to six decades.
Military dictatorships are scary. Democracy, no matter how ill-efficient, always work. At least Democracies don't go on wars because of ego.
The U.S. is too weak to force Pakistan to abandon nukes – And so is India.
Ego has killed hundreds of millions of hunger, and would probably continue to do so. if you press Sharif hard, then we would end up dealing with Another General.
1
There is a widespread misconception that with the end of cold war the threat of nuclear war also ended. A variant of the misconception qualifies that notion with the stipulation that there is no threat as long as we prevent countries like Iran and Iraq from acquiring nuclear weapons. The truth is that the nations currently with nuclear weapons, very much including the United States, are quite enough to make the threat very palpable. It's not a question of IF a nuclear conflagration will erupt; it's only a question of WHEN a nuclear conflagration will erupt. Sooner or later is WILL occur. The only way to avoid that fate is for all nations currently possessing nuclear weapons to dismantle them permanently.
28
I agree. Because of the nature of nuclear weapons and nuclear war, nuclear weapons have no military utility. Their existence is a universal threat to our species and our planet. The "deterrence" they offer against their own use is built upon a fabricated and outdated notion that they will ever be used offensively by any nation. It is irrational to maintain a weapon that can never be used.
Nuclear weapons are, by their nature, unsafe, and at some point as Jake points out, there will be an accidental detonation or employment of nuclear weapons. With so many nuclear-armed nations, that all-but guarantees a calamity.
The only rational solution to this irrational weapon is to eliminate them from the planet. None of us is safe as long as they exist.
Nuclear weapons are, by their nature, unsafe, and at some point as Jake points out, there will be an accidental detonation or employment of nuclear weapons. With so many nuclear-armed nations, that all-but guarantees a calamity.
The only rational solution to this irrational weapon is to eliminate them from the planet. None of us is safe as long as they exist.
2
Msny of the previous comments fault the editionial for bias toward India. I would argue it is the opposite for failing to understand the role and motives of the Pakistan military. Let us begin by acknowledging the reality that Pakistan is a state owned by its military rather than the other way around. This explains why Pakistan's nuclear capability is so much more dangerous. Its large and rapidly growing nuclear arsenal is controlled entirely by the military whlle India's is controlled by its elected civilian leaders. The Pakistani military views that arsenal as actual weapons of war rather than of deterrence, as evidenced by its decision to develop and deploy tactical weapons. Thus, Pakistan refuses to adopt a no-first use policy, while India does, making Pakistan the greater threat to nuclear stability in the Subcontinent. Finally, the claim that India is a threat to Pakistan's national integrity and survival used to justify unstable Pakistan having one of the world's largest nuclear stocks, is patently absurd. Why would India with its own huge developmental challenges want to take on Pakistan's nearly broke economy and conflict-ridden society. Rather, bringing us full-cirlce, the threat from India is the narrative used and hyped by the Pakistani military for seven decades to legitimize its ultimate control of Pakistan's national decision-making and its actual control of what is conservatively estimated to be a third of its economy.
33
I dont agree with a lot that Modi is doing India, but I would not fault him for "not engaging with Pakistan on security issues". The fact is that Pakistan's dispute with India, wether on Kashmir or otherwise, is not about its security. Pakistan's dispute with India, in line with its raison d'être, is ideological, now heavily imbued with Islamic overtones. No matter how ridiculous it sounds, Pakistan views itself as India's equal and therefore seeks parity in all respects, culturally, militarily and economically. This is why it insists that any visit to India by a US president must be "balanced" by a visit to Pakistan. Of course, the reality is very different and so, as it finds itself trailing India in almost all respects, it seeks parity by seeking to retard India's growth and development by making itself a constant nuisance and threat through terrorist activity and by stoking an arms race with India that. The real problem is that the US continues to view Pakistan's actions in terms of security and keeps trying to address that through economic and military aid and pressure on India to engage and address Pakistan's "security concerns". It is this futile diplomacy to which Modi has now put a stop and this is what the West needs to do as well, i.e. stop rewarding Pakistan's bad behaviour and nuclear blackmail, otherwise things will only get worse for all of us.
140
No sane person in Pakistan considers Pakistan equal to India. It is understood that India is a bigger neighbor which itself has around 172 million muslims. Problem is with indian mentality which never accepted Pakistan's existence. India waged three wars against Pakistan in 1948, 1965 and 1971 and crossed the LOC. 700,000 Indian troops are in Kashmir to control the people of Kashmir against their will. Muslims are getting killed in India be it Gujrat riots or the recent stoning of a muslim on suspicion of eating cow's meat. Indian hindu mentality is to become the greatest power in the world and when the right time will come, India will surely go against the US. Indian military developed hypersonic cruise missile, Inter-continental Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Submarines. Any logical American has ever questioned why India needs all these weapons and against which country? Indian does not need an IRBM to fight against China. India also does not need any IRBM against Pakistan. Which country is India really targeting? Indian Raw is responsible for all the terrorist activities in Pakistan and all peace initiatives taken by Pakistan are never welcomed by India. India does not even want to play cricket with its neighbor. American President's visit shouldn't be a gauge to measure anything. After all American Presidents are like salesmen of Corporates. They sell their products and the recent trip of Mr. Obama to India is an example of such salesmanship.
What baloney. Anyone who knows anything at all about conflict knows that it was pakistan that started these wars, pakistan which sponsors terrorist attacks in India and that it is pakistan which does not accept the other party (not to mention the genocide it commited in Bangladesh). I think its pretty clear that pakistan is the most rogue nation on earth and has been since its birth, the only reason anyone ever pretended otherwise was because of cold war politics.
4
Summary of your comment and my counter:
1) Modi not engaging Pakistan on security issues is right. (Not talking solves nothing).
2) Pakistan's dispute with India is ideological and not security. (actually both).
3) Pakistan views itself equal to India. (especially in terms of culture).
4) Pakistan is seeking parity by threatening growth of India and by making weapons deals. (India is guilty of financing terror in Pakistan and also the world's biggest arms importer).
5) Problem is US keeps giving Pakistan aid. (US can never repay that which Pakistan lost. What little aid we get is a small portion of our needs. OP Zarb-e-Azb was almost entirely financed by Pakistan).
6) West must completely isolate Pakistan. (Of course so India can deliver the kill blow. After all its part of India's policy. Nuclear deterrence is only to keep India at bay long enough for Pakistan to recover from its current situation and become conventionally strong enough enough to tackle the likes of India).
1) Modi not engaging Pakistan on security issues is right. (Not talking solves nothing).
2) Pakistan's dispute with India is ideological and not security. (actually both).
3) Pakistan views itself equal to India. (especially in terms of culture).
4) Pakistan is seeking parity by threatening growth of India and by making weapons deals. (India is guilty of financing terror in Pakistan and also the world's biggest arms importer).
5) Problem is US keeps giving Pakistan aid. (US can never repay that which Pakistan lost. What little aid we get is a small portion of our needs. OP Zarb-e-Azb was almost entirely financed by Pakistan).
6) West must completely isolate Pakistan. (Of course so India can deliver the kill blow. After all its part of India's policy. Nuclear deterrence is only to keep India at bay long enough for Pakistan to recover from its current situation and become conventionally strong enough enough to tackle the likes of India).
Pakistan is an use and throw away paper towel for USA. Entire Pakistani Army, administration and Paki intelligentsia/media has thrived under the US support and backing since Pakistan became independent. Entire Pakistan was deformed, it's mild Islam was turned into rabid Wahhabism at the behest of USA just to create religious fanatic cadre supply base for Taliban to fight Russia in the neighbouring Afghanistan. Why, all of a sudden USA finds it difficult to control Pakistan?
11
Don't forget that Pakistan is ready, willing, and able to supply Iran with nuclear warheads within a few days of Iran's asking.
15
The article is extremely biased and am sorry to say that the Editorial Board has no understanding of the situation. Why is Pakistani nuclear arsenal an easy target for the islamic militants and why Indian nuclear arsenal is not an easy target for hindu radicals like Shiv Sena and RSS? Pakistani society is more tolerant when it comes to the use of nuclear arsenal and dealing with its neighbors unlike India where a muslim is stoned to death by Hindus on suspicion of eating cow's meat. Needless to say that the detailed examination showed that the meat was off a sheep and not a cow which the poor muslim kept saying while being stoned to death.
The Editorial Board should also first get its history right. India started the nuclear arms race in the region, Pakistan followed. Pakistan was a key US ally and was a member of SEATO and CENTO when India was in the bed with the USSR. What Pakistan got in return from US? Sanctions and more sanctions because US interest changed after Soviet collapse and the US favored India more as it is a very "Big Market". No one questioned Indian development of the hypersonic cruise missile "Barahmos", an IRBM "Agni-III" while Pakistani nuclear program is a threat to the world? How any rational and sane person can agree to it?
Pakistan always mentioned that it will keep minimal deterrence for self-defence. India must be forced to curtail its defence spending and weapon accumulation. India is a threat to world's peace and an axis of evil not Pakistan.
The Editorial Board should also first get its history right. India started the nuclear arms race in the region, Pakistan followed. Pakistan was a key US ally and was a member of SEATO and CENTO when India was in the bed with the USSR. What Pakistan got in return from US? Sanctions and more sanctions because US interest changed after Soviet collapse and the US favored India more as it is a very "Big Market". No one questioned Indian development of the hypersonic cruise missile "Barahmos", an IRBM "Agni-III" while Pakistani nuclear program is a threat to the world? How any rational and sane person can agree to it?
Pakistan always mentioned that it will keep minimal deterrence for self-defence. India must be forced to curtail its defence spending and weapon accumulation. India is a threat to world's peace and an axis of evil not Pakistan.
11
History is in fact quite important! A couple of thoughts:
One, Pakistan is still, we regularly are told a "key ally." So what if it takes our billions, supports groups that kill and dismember our soldiers and destroy our objectives for Afghanistan, or hides the man responsible for killing over 3,000 in the US? Hey it's "our" ally!
Second, you're quite right to point out the horrifying single instance of someone being brutally killed in India for supposedly eating cow meat. It's of course much harder to identify any single instance in Pakistan, since daily, any number of minorities (including minority Muslim sects) are slaughtered, pushed out of job and home or otherwise persecuted.
One, Pakistan is still, we regularly are told a "key ally." So what if it takes our billions, supports groups that kill and dismember our soldiers and destroy our objectives for Afghanistan, or hides the man responsible for killing over 3,000 in the US? Hey it's "our" ally!
Second, you're quite right to point out the horrifying single instance of someone being brutally killed in India for supposedly eating cow meat. It's of course much harder to identify any single instance in Pakistan, since daily, any number of minorities (including minority Muslim sects) are slaughtered, pushed out of job and home or otherwise persecuted.
2
But it is Pakistan that has far more nuclear weapons than India. It is Pakistan that has territorial ambitions against India - the most egregious being Kashmir. And why is Pakistan working with North Korea?
2
The basic flaw in your analysis is that you believe India has any interest in Pakistan, other than a defensive one. India has no reason to attack Pakistan. It does not seek any Pakistani territory and if it helped split the country in 1971, Pakistan has only itself to blame. If Pakistan feels threatened by India, it is only because it fears Indian retaliation for Pakistani mischief, through all manner of proxy, which Pakistan has engaged in since 1947, and feels entitled to continue in the future. To put it bluntly, India has moved on from Pakistan a long time ago and this is what Pakistan can't accept, i.e. that it is a dusty backyard in India's shadow, a bankrupt state fighting for its life, that desperately wants feel relevant in the modern world; and that's the reason that Pakistanis want a nuclear arsenal.
6
It's a big big problem.
4
As your editorial suggests, here is a great motif for the Obama Administration and its many acolytes regarding the Pakistani nukes - urgent and imaginative. But alas, ultimately, not successful.
When the republicans were throwing their hissy fit, hair on fire, outrageous proclamations about Iran's nuclear ambitions, I often wondered if any of them understood that the primary nuclear threat in a very unstable Middle East (thanks to the Shock & Awe crowd) was sitting there in plain sight. Saddam had no WMD's, as was also evident to anyone paying attention to history. So we unleash holy hell, giving birth to ISIS, and inexplicably turn a blind eye to Pakistan.
While not giving a pass to President O., along with democrats in general, republicans remind me of the three stooges, playing with matches next to a fireworks factory (hat tip Gemli). If it doesn't get worse before it gets better, color me flabbergasted, hopefully not in a glow in the dark sort of way.
While not giving a pass to President O., along with democrats in general, republicans remind me of the three stooges, playing with matches next to a fireworks factory (hat tip Gemli). If it doesn't get worse before it gets better, color me flabbergasted, hopefully not in a glow in the dark sort of way.
9
Why doesn't the United States lead by example, offerring to reduce our own nuclear arsenal of 4,760 warheads (with plans to spend over $1 trillion overhauling them) in some ratio if Pakistan, India, and Israel (gasp!) will reduce theirs?
36
Because the US may well need to use some of these nuclear weapons in the coming WW III with either China or a militant Islamic Caliphate.
Pakistan is a global danger. Pakistan doesn't need hundreds of nuclear arm to attack India. Tomorrow Pakistan will challenge the world with Nuclear arm and will attack with nuclear missile , they going to say Terrorist groups stole the nuclear missile from Pakistan and fired. No international community foresee the threat. International community believe Pakistan only attack India, but the attack will from other countries.
12
We need to think big on this. Still 'hopeless', because it's too little, too late. Vested interests control this dialogue.
1
Pakistan's army and thus ISI, runs the country. ISI is run like a private conglomerate which uses "terrorism" as rallying cry to ask for more aid from US. Pakistan's army/ISI have their grubby hands on the red button and they itch to go to war with India or Afghanistan so that their military private-Industrial complex/business may thrive. India is a deeply democratic country where the army has no say on policy making and is eons away from the politicians greed and vice. There is a world of difference in the mindset of the leaders and bureaucrats who run each nation. Pakistan has and will not hesitate for second in biting the hand that feeds it. While I hope to be wrong, I truly believe that the next 9/11 terrorists will emerge from Pakistan.
54
The big problem is that Pakistan—or at least key empowered elements in Pakistsn—doesn't realize what's in its national interest, so paranoid and neurotic is its fixation upon India.
Leaders in Pakistan continue to demonstrate a near suicidal willingness to burn down the region just to ensure undue influence over affairs in Afghanistan to provide themselves with the illusion of strategic depth.
Nukes have changed anything. Should a real war come, there will be no fall back, no regrouping across the border, just thorough annihilation hastened by the myth of survivability of war with India.
So stupid. So sad. So tragic.
The author is right...if you think Iran's nuclear program was a threat to the world, take a look at Pakistan.
Pakistan makes Iran look like the UK.
Leaders in Pakistan continue to demonstrate a near suicidal willingness to burn down the region just to ensure undue influence over affairs in Afghanistan to provide themselves with the illusion of strategic depth.
Nukes have changed anything. Should a real war come, there will be no fall back, no regrouping across the border, just thorough annihilation hastened by the myth of survivability of war with India.
So stupid. So sad. So tragic.
The author is right...if you think Iran's nuclear program was a threat to the world, take a look at Pakistan.
Pakistan makes Iran look like the UK.
66
So we gave India a free pass and for money, and then wonder why Pakistan refuses to behave.
6
What Pakistan can do other than that to keep it safe from Indian intervention?
Nepal does not have those tools, So it can not make its own constitution.
When it did Modi's government imposed blockade of fuel supply and medicine.
( Those creating movements on Tarai are Bihari Indians ( Indian home minister's statement- Indian home minister few month ago ). India wants to replace Nepal government bringing those Bihari into power)
Indian politician and leaders utters Budha and Gandhi if they see Nuclear bomb behind Otherwise they think themselves as superking of that region.
Nepal does not have those tools, So it can not make its own constitution.
When it did Modi's government imposed blockade of fuel supply and medicine.
( Those creating movements on Tarai are Bihari Indians ( Indian home minister's statement- Indian home minister few month ago ). India wants to replace Nepal government bringing those Bihari into power)
Indian politician and leaders utters Budha and Gandhi if they see Nuclear bomb behind Otherwise they think themselves as superking of that region.
4
The hypocrisy and ignorance in this piece is mind blowing. Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is a deterrence to India. May I ask you, who the only country to use nuclear weapons in history is? And may I also as you what the justification for Hiroshima and Nagasaki were? Truman said that if he had not made the decision, 500,00 Americans could've been killed. Pakistan isn't using them, and is simply, like I said earlier, keeping the stockpile as a deterrence to an Indian attack and/or invasion. Are we children of a lesser god? I think not. This editorial board is stinking of partisanship.
6
The 500k estimate is way off. If a ground invasion of Japan had been undertaken the loss of life would have been in the millions to the allies and millions of civilians. Droping the bomb saved those lifes.
2
Umer - "May I ask you, who the only country to use nuclear weapons in history is? And may I also as you what the justification for Hiroshima and Nagasaki were?"
What exactly has the answers to those two questions to do with this article? Are India and Pakistan now engaged in a "world war" where the use of a nuclear weapon would save hundreds of thousands of lives?
What exactly has the answers to those two questions to do with this article? Are India and Pakistan now engaged in a "world war" where the use of a nuclear weapon would save hundreds of thousands of lives?
2
"May I ask you, who the only country to use nuclear weapons in history is? And may I also as you what the justification for Hiroshima and Nagasaki were"?
You don't need to ask, you've already got all your answers. Luckily, America was there to save Australia. But you wouldn't know that since you probably weren't born yet.
You don't need to ask, you've already got all your answers. Luckily, America was there to save Australia. But you wouldn't know that since you probably weren't born yet.
1
Thank you for putting a spotlight on the continuing (and escalating) threats to the region, if not the community of all nations, coming from traditions that imported Western notions of the secular State within historical cultures of faith, as embodied in Muslim Pakistan and Hindi India. This is what we mean when we say 'human technology has outpaced the human capacity to justify violence'.
The nature of governance that is in control of nuclear weapons is of paramount importance to the maintenance of human civilization, and should be a guiding principle of managing foreign policy--as important as human rights. Because it IS a human right to not live in constant fear of instant annihilation. The White House is right to focus on a conversation with these nations on this issue. (And listening to the navel-gazing, mercenary GOP these days, I think they could care less about SE Asia other than providing cheap labor for their donors, or tough guy talk with China)
The nature of governance that is in control of nuclear weapons is of paramount importance to the maintenance of human civilization, and should be a guiding principle of managing foreign policy--as important as human rights. Because it IS a human right to not live in constant fear of instant annihilation. The White House is right to focus on a conversation with these nations on this issue. (And listening to the navel-gazing, mercenary GOP these days, I think they could care less about SE Asia other than providing cheap labor for their donors, or tough guy talk with China)
29
When Pres. Bush declared Iraq, Syria and North Korea, etc. as Axis of Evil, I felt that that Pakistan was the fulcrum of this axis, having given the nuclear know-how to Libya, Iraq, North Korea and Iran! With an intelligence network that does not see eye to eye with a civilian government, a powerful military mostly controlling the economy, with cross-border terrorism as a basis for their foreign policy principle against it's neighbors, it is necessary that urgent global attention is needed to address this issue.
28
The civilian leaders of India and Pakistan as well as other countries of South Asia need to get together to scrap nuclear and other excess weaponry altogether and use all that resource for the real needs of the Sub Continent like raising the standard of living, healthcare,education and other needed social issues. The subcontinent needs to look at itself as one region and not Pakistanis or Benladeshis or Indians. There is no boogie man waiting to attack the continent. It is all in the heads of the leaders and the military.
6
Nawaz Sharif has zero control over Pakistan's nukes which are jealously guarded by the army so negotiating with either him or any other civilian entity is an exercise in futility. And it boggles the mind that the U.S. keeps trusting Pakistan when the latter has time and again let it down by, among other instances, harboring the Taliban while ostensibly supporting the West's fight against them, with the last instance being harboring bin Laden almost certainly with the knowledge of it's military. India has a measure of Pakistan's shennanigans so it knows how to deal with it. The question is whether the West which has also been a victim of it's terror tactics does?
9
It's stunning that this paper can blithely say, "Pakistan has done itself no favors ... by giving nuclear know-how to bad actors like North Korea." Then, proceed to propose how we should offer the nation carrots so that it please not continue to build a stockpile of terrorist-ready nukes that must have it's home grown Islamic fanatics sure they'll have a nuke one day.
Meanwhile in this paper; Russians supporting Russian Ukrainians seeking autonomy against quasi-fascists deserve their crippling sanctions and an endless negative propaganda tirade, as endless op-ed space was lent to the most right-wing opponents of promoting safer relations with Iran, almost causing it to fail.
In this country fear and loathing of N. Korea, based on it's prospective nuke capability, costs us billions of dollars a year supporting S. Korea, including putting tens of thousands of our servicemen at risk of their lives.
"Pakistan has done itself no favors ..."! I can't believe I just read that incredible, irresponsible, understatement.
Meanwhile in this paper; Russians supporting Russian Ukrainians seeking autonomy against quasi-fascists deserve their crippling sanctions and an endless negative propaganda tirade, as endless op-ed space was lent to the most right-wing opponents of promoting safer relations with Iran, almost causing it to fail.
In this country fear and loathing of N. Korea, based on it's prospective nuke capability, costs us billions of dollars a year supporting S. Korea, including putting tens of thousands of our servicemen at risk of their lives.
"Pakistan has done itself no favors ..."! I can't believe I just read that incredible, irresponsible, understatement.
Pakistan nukes are a nightmare, but like a gun in a household of the emotionally unstable, Pakistan nukes may be the greatest threat to Pakistan itself. Terrorists elated to have stolen one might not be able to restrain the urge to use it before it is recovered. Perhaps blowing away a Pakistan military base or police academy, or a city neighborhood comprised of a minority Muslim ethnic group. Of course, it will take out a lot more, but would they care? It would huge status boost for the terror group behind it.
7
Absent effective non-proliferation diplomacy wherever nuclear threats appear it is only a matter of time before a terrorist group acquires a nuke and uses one. This puts in sharp relief the importance of the West's conclusion of a nuclear agreement with Iran. The effort must not stop there regardless of what Donald Trump declares.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
www.endthemadnessnow.org
1
Let Pakistan buy the Muslim parts of Kashmir from India, piece by piece over the next 20 years or so, while keeping anti-Indian terrorism down or the process stops. That should defuse the Kashmir issue, reaching by fair means a stable position both India and Pakistan can live with. It should also vastly reduce terrorism. That will leave lesser issues, and the general nervousness of a small nuke-armed country next to a big nuke-armed one it doesn't really trust (cf Ukraine/Russia). For the second reason, Pakistan may reasonably want a reasonably strong nuclear force. India and Pakistan might be able to negotiate some mutual limits, with the West interested in keeping nukes, especially Pakistan's, securely out of the hands of terrorists and suicide bombers and in the hands of people who understand the costs and risks of a nuclear war. (And since the Prince of peace is Jesus Christ, mistreating Christians will do neither country any good on the Day of Judgment or before.)
Pakistan already have half part of kashmir. Only Solution is accept LOC as international border.
2
Pakistan spends about 25 percent of its budget on defense, including nuclear weapons. Yet, the US gives Pakistan billions of American taxpayers dollars for its military, for social services for Pakastanis that their government won't pay for, and for bribes to Pakastani politicians. Pakistan is a refuge for Al Qada and other extremist groups, and was no help at all in trying to find Osama Bin Laden. In addition, most Pakastanis are clearly anti American. Why is the American government giving any American taxpayer money to Pakistan?
10
Some call it fear mongering, but it's not far fetched to imagine militant groups or even the armed forces overthrowing the government yet again, and getting control of their weapons.
People have short memories, and how many remember that the Taliban backed groups took control of territories within a 100km of their capital Islamabad in 2013? What's to prevent a more militant group from grabbing more and unleashing their weapons?
It's not just wild imagination that such an event could happen. Pakistan has never been a bastion of democracy, their institutions are weak, their spy agencies and the army funnel billions in money, weapons and training to militant groups, and their history of nuclear proliferation to states like North Korea, Libya and Syria are well documented.
Pakistan has shown themselves to be extremely untrustworthy at keeping their word (whatever that is) and the nuclear nightmare is something one should consider seriously, and not just as fear mongering tabloid talk.
People have short memories, and how many remember that the Taliban backed groups took control of territories within a 100km of their capital Islamabad in 2013? What's to prevent a more militant group from grabbing more and unleashing their weapons?
It's not just wild imagination that such an event could happen. Pakistan has never been a bastion of democracy, their institutions are weak, their spy agencies and the army funnel billions in money, weapons and training to militant groups, and their history of nuclear proliferation to states like North Korea, Libya and Syria are well documented.
Pakistan has shown themselves to be extremely untrustworthy at keeping their word (whatever that is) and the nuclear nightmare is something one should consider seriously, and not just as fear mongering tabloid talk.
5
"Obsessed with India": as long as the west is willing to ignore the reality on the ground, which is that the entire Indian nuclear and conventional military buildup is against Pakistan, the threat will continue to exists for Pakistan, and hence their response. If New York Times memory has stopped working, then they should reread events and statements of Indian Leaders in particular LK Advani post Indian nuclear test. To counter China(which, I don't know why), propping up India at the cost of Pakistan will not be acceptable to Pakistan and for that matter any nation in Pakistani shoes.
2
So to quote Captain Renault, you are shocked, shocked, that Pakistan is a major producer and exporter of nuclear technology. In fact, this was done with US complicity even as A Q Khan stole and sold nuclear technology to N. Korea and other similar regimes. Pakistan is a rogue state, one that the US government has sponsored, and lied to its people about. All so that the US could continue with the ludicrous idea that Pakistan will be some sort of ally or buffer. It all started with the US thinking that Pakistan was their ally in the Cold War and against India.
21
We could probably get their attention if we stopped giving them billions every year. For all the money we have given them they hid Bin Laden in plain sight and maintained with a straight face that they didn't know.
42
The West should work to solve the Kashmir dispute which is the root cause of hatred between these two countries.
9
When dealing with a country named "Land of Pure" - in Islamic sense - whose history books spout hatred and intolerance to Indic religions, it would be a relief of sorts if the "root cause" of hatred - and it is largely one-sided - would be as simple as the "Kashmir dispute." Such single-factor root-causes are tendentious at best and delusional at worst !
2
Would recommend you to read "Magnificent Delusions" written by former Pakistani ambassador to America now in exile.
His view just echoes what Indian establishment knew that solving Kashmir wouldn't stop Pakistani sponsoring terror against India. DNA of Pakistani intelligence and Army is built upon the foundation of hatred against India.
Tea party faction endorsing Obama has a better odds ratio than peace flowering between 2 nations even if Kashmir is resolved.
His view just echoes what Indian establishment knew that solving Kashmir wouldn't stop Pakistani sponsoring terror against India. DNA of Pakistani intelligence and Army is built upon the foundation of hatred against India.
Tea party faction endorsing Obama has a better odds ratio than peace flowering between 2 nations even if Kashmir is resolved.
2
Dear NYT Editorial Board,
It's encouraging that you finally are beginning to see Pakistan as a "Problem and not a Solution" to anything. Pakistan not Iran or even North Korea is where the President should have been spending most of his time and effort to limit nuclear weapons!
Please note that the President has not said a word about this growing problem. Please also note that when and not if Pakistan develops tactical nukes they will issue them to their field commanders so they are available for use in an "emergency", there is no other justification for developing tactical nukes in the first place.
Allowing such a deployment will make "sanatizing" Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in a time of need impossible, it will also make the temptation to try and steal one of these weapons irrestable to an impossibly large number of terrorist groups.
It's encouraging that you finally are beginning to see Pakistan as a "Problem and not a Solution" to anything. Pakistan not Iran or even North Korea is where the President should have been spending most of his time and effort to limit nuclear weapons!
Please note that the President has not said a word about this growing problem. Please also note that when and not if Pakistan develops tactical nukes they will issue them to their field commanders so they are available for use in an "emergency", there is no other justification for developing tactical nukes in the first place.
Allowing such a deployment will make "sanatizing" Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in a time of need impossible, it will also make the temptation to try and steal one of these weapons irrestable to an impossibly large number of terrorist groups.
10
There are well published dirty deal of the Afghan war that Pakistan dictator Zia had extracted a concession early on from Reagan that Pakistan would work with the CIA against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and in return the United States would provide massive aid and would agree to look the other way on the question of the bomb.
Pakistan was considered to have great strategic importance. It provided Washington with a springboard into neighboring Afghanistan - a route for passing US weapons and cash to the mujahideen, who were battling to oust the Soviet army that had invaded in 1979.
Starting point for many of the catastrophes confronting the United States today can be traced to Reagan's presidency and the great harm he manage to inflict on America like sustaining Mujahideen and turning blind eye when Pakistan was developing Nuclear weapon. History will no doubt rate Reagan near the bottom of US presidential list.
They sow the wind, and so they will reap the whirlwind!
Pakistan was considered to have great strategic importance. It provided Washington with a springboard into neighboring Afghanistan - a route for passing US weapons and cash to the mujahideen, who were battling to oust the Soviet army that had invaded in 1979.
Starting point for many of the catastrophes confronting the United States today can be traced to Reagan's presidency and the great harm he manage to inflict on America like sustaining Mujahideen and turning blind eye when Pakistan was developing Nuclear weapon. History will no doubt rate Reagan near the bottom of US presidential list.
They sow the wind, and so they will reap the whirlwind!
49
The problem with Pakistan is that it has zero coherency. Even the name "Pakistan" is an acronym for four regions with completely different cultures and languages. The only thing holding Pakistan together is islamic fundamentalism, which is why any attempt to moderate islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan is struck down with extreme harshness.
The civilian government has little power, the real power in the country is held by the army and the secret service -- and any politician who gets ideas above his station has a tendency to either accidentally get assigned taliban bodyguards, or have his travel plans leaked to the taliban.
Ah yes, the taliban. The central strategy of Pakistan, formulated by a former chief of the secret service, is called "strategic depth". It holds that in order for Pakistan to be safe from Indian encirclement, Aghanistan has to be either ruled by islamists, or destabilized. To this end Pakistan created, trained and equipped a force which would later become known as the taliban. Pakistan also prohibited the USA from supporting the moderate, west-friendly, Northern Alliance in their fight against the soviets.
Pakistan never stopped supporting and, at least partly, controlling the taliban. The US and Afghan war against the taliban was really a war against a pakistani-supported, -funded, -equipped, -trained, and -controlled proxy force.
The civilian government has little power, the real power in the country is held by the army and the secret service -- and any politician who gets ideas above his station has a tendency to either accidentally get assigned taliban bodyguards, or have his travel plans leaked to the taliban.
Ah yes, the taliban. The central strategy of Pakistan, formulated by a former chief of the secret service, is called "strategic depth". It holds that in order for Pakistan to be safe from Indian encirclement, Aghanistan has to be either ruled by islamists, or destabilized. To this end Pakistan created, trained and equipped a force which would later become known as the taliban. Pakistan also prohibited the USA from supporting the moderate, west-friendly, Northern Alliance in their fight against the soviets.
Pakistan never stopped supporting and, at least partly, controlling the taliban. The US and Afghan war against the taliban was really a war against a pakistani-supported, -funded, -equipped, -trained, and -controlled proxy force.
56
USA is responsible for terrorism in the Asia. Talbans are your products you used Pakistan for your own interests. Shame on your thinking Pakistan has lost 50000 army soldiers and 37000 civilians in protecting USA. Shame
Isn’t it ironic that while Pakistan is dubbed as the fastest nation to develop its nuclear weapons, most western media organisations keep mum over who controls the worldwide stock of fissile material (highly enriched uranium and plutonium) needed to create nuclear weaponry? According to many reports, the P5 states as well as India have an upper hand when it comes to fissile material stockpiles. So how can Pakistan be the fastest developer of nuclear energy, when it has so little control over nuclear raw material? This just doesn’t add up.
Ever since Pakistan tested its nuclear weapon in 1998, it has become an epicentre of criticism and this debate has seldom gone off the radar in contemporary global affairs. Many international security experts have expressed unnecessary and unjustifiable anxiety on the country’s nuclear program and this editorial is a testimony of that.
Ever since Pakistan tested its nuclear weapon in 1998, it has become an epicentre of criticism and this debate has seldom gone off the radar in contemporary global affairs. Many international security experts have expressed unnecessary and unjustifiable anxiety on the country’s nuclear program and this editorial is a testimony of that.
2
Try to tell Pakistan that it can't win an arms race with India misses the point . Nuclear weapons are used to deter your adversaries from attacking. That deterrence can only be maintained if you adversary doesn't have the ability in a first strike to destroy your nuclear weapons. Therefore, telling Pakistan that it can't win an arms race may strike some as asking that nation to limit the effectiveness of its deterrence. And asking China to tell Pakistan to limit its nuclear weapons is somewhat funny, given China's sponsorship of N.Korea.
2
Pakistan has nuclear weapons because it has no other deterrence against the United States, India, Russia, or, for that matter, China and the the former colonial powers Britain and France----all of which are major nuclear armed powers. So what are the incentives for Pakistan to disarm its nuclear weapons? It would face a much larger conventionally armed future adversary in each case. And the non-Muslim foe would have the capacity to impose its political and economic will on Pakistan, which would be defenseless. Worse, allies such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arab countries would lose the only nuclear armed defender that is Muslim and non-white. Pakistan's nuclear nightmare in that view would be not to have a nuclear deterrent.
29
The net result of this administration's foreign policy seems to be transforming the US from the arsenal of democracy to the arsenal of theocracy. I don't see how this does anything to make us or the world safer. I didn't see it with Iran, and I don't see it with Pakistan.
Opening the path for more countries to buy more and better weapons technology hardly seems like a recipe for peace.
Opening the path for more countries to buy more and better weapons technology hardly seems like a recipe for peace.
3
Pakistan nuclear is one of the most serious dangers in the world. Its technology contributed to the development of North Korea’s nuclear weapons. If the knowhow would leak to terrorists’ groups, the damage of the world peace is beyond imagination. It is the most important challenge not only for Obama but also for all other world leaders to abolish or reduce nuclear weapons of Pakistan. World leaders should persuade Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan to reduce nuclear weapons gradually. They need to sometimes use political pressure and economical supports. And for persuading Pakistan president, it is the most effective that other nuclear powers promise to reduce or abolish nuclear weapon in the future.
10
it is incorrect to state that India has not done enough to ease tensions with Pakistan. As far as I recall, several attempts to reach across the border with the civilian governments in Pakistan, got scuttled one way or the other by the defense and security apparatus that exists in Pakistan (e.g. ISI). After all the India bogey is their very reason for existence/justification for spending 25% of their budget. Several think tanks studies point this out over numerous years, independent of each other.
3
Russia recently attempted to fire a long-range missile into Syria and ended up scaring some farm animals in Iran. We, in the US, have had our own share of disasters in launching rockets. Japan struggled to contain the leak at Fukushima Daiichi.
If countries with advanced expertise in nuclear and rocket technology cannot get it right, how can we trust China, or India or Pakistan with their nuclear arsenal?
Restraining Pakistan's nuclear stockpile is a good start. But it would be ineffective if it does not include other Asian countries, and meaningless if it does not lead to a global elimination of nuclear weapons.
If countries with advanced expertise in nuclear and rocket technology cannot get it right, how can we trust China, or India or Pakistan with their nuclear arsenal?
Restraining Pakistan's nuclear stockpile is a good start. But it would be ineffective if it does not include other Asian countries, and meaningless if it does not lead to a global elimination of nuclear weapons.
5
It's more a problem with India. India is a historical aggressor and is much larger than Pakistan. Pakistani military leaders aren't paranoid. They're responding to a legitimate existential threat. India, on the other hand, has no justification for having nukes or a large army on its northern border. If India gave up nukes and demilitarized the border, it would be much easier for Pakistan to follow suit. The international effort should focus on India first.
5
Are you kidding? In the three wars, and one "conflict", that the two countries have fought till date Pakistan has always been the first to fire.
1947-48: Pakistan sent militias across the border to newly independent Jammu & Kashmir, forcing the king to accede with India.
1965: Pakistan tried to precipitate an insurgency against India in Kashmir.
1971: West Pakistan tried to suppress the legitimately elected government in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), and launched airstrikes against India for voicing support to East Pakistan.
1999: Pakistan infiltrated the Kargil district in Kashmir.
Given the actual history of the region, it is extremely disingenuous to claim that India is a historical aggressor.
1947-48: Pakistan sent militias across the border to newly independent Jammu & Kashmir, forcing the king to accede with India.
1965: Pakistan tried to precipitate an insurgency against India in Kashmir.
1971: West Pakistan tried to suppress the legitimately elected government in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), and launched airstrikes against India for voicing support to East Pakistan.
1999: Pakistan infiltrated the Kargil district in Kashmir.
Given the actual history of the region, it is extremely disingenuous to claim that India is a historical aggressor.
3
The core of the problem is the same that led to partition in the first place: the pathological death-wish enmity between India and Pakistan, tragically exacerbated by the shameful cynicism of political leaders on both sides who have brazenly exploited nationalist hot-buttons to distract and manipulate their citizens and keep themselves in power. The dilemma is profound and the rest of the world has little leverage other than to bribe various factions on both sides with billions in military assistance, a feeble exercise that acknowledges the political instability and vulnerability of two essentially failed states that are too big to fail. Economic sanctions that brought an end to Apartheid, Iran to the negotiating table, and kept Putin from indulging his worst instincts in Crimea, aren't feasible given the nightmarish scenario of political upheaval, particularly in Pakistan, a viper pit of competing clans, tribes as well as agent provocateurs from neighboring states. If there is any twisted, morbid comfort, at least their missiles are pointed at each other, and any nuclear exchange would significantly reduce global population and as likely shock some sense into the world and maybe a different path than we're on now.
Economic sanctions were central to ending apartheid, getting Iran to the negotiating table, and penalizing Putin for his spasm of belligerence in Crimea. Pakistan is economically vulnerable and politically volatile.
Economic sanctions were central to ending apartheid, getting Iran to the negotiating table, and penalizing Putin for his spasm of belligerence in Crimea. Pakistan is economically vulnerable and politically volatile.
2
Thank the Dutch for this wonderful situation!
The Dutch company Urenco let them walk out the front door with all the plans, and no-one was ever held responsible for this lapse in security.
They are directly responsible for this state of affairs, and it is high time some reporters - from another country, because the Dutch will never clean up their house on this history - go back in the archives and research the background of deception that may likely lead to a nightmare as described here.
The Dutch company Urenco let them walk out the front door with all the plans, and no-one was ever held responsible for this lapse in security.
They are directly responsible for this state of affairs, and it is high time some reporters - from another country, because the Dutch will never clean up their house on this history - go back in the archives and research the background of deception that may likely lead to a nightmare as described here.
2
India can't talk to Pakistan because its power is distributed and does not have a center like most proper countries. It is ambiguously shared between the politicians, the military and the mullahs - two of which are hostile to India, to the point of this hostility forming a key part of their identity. The Economist once said that most countries have a military, but in Pakistan, the military has a country. The 25% military budget does not likely even include the generous pensions, land and other civil benefits that the military gives itself, while the country has among the highest non-enrollment rates in the world, in schooling (second largest out of school population). The military actually runs industries in Pakistan. Pakistan only listens to those who fund its military. It used to US; now it is increasingly China. China, which would not even lean in on North Korea, is unlikely to do so on Pakistan.
So what can be done to make the situation better? I don't have a solution. However, there is increasing chatter in their media that the economic differences between India and itself are increasingly amplifying. Unless Pakistan sees that the real power in today's global community comes not from the military and its nukes, but from education and development, which in-turn have liberal and de-radicalizing effects, there isn't much hope. Pakistan's exiled US ambassador Husain Haqqani has written a comprehensive book on its problems - "Magnificent Delusions".
So what can be done to make the situation better? I don't have a solution. However, there is increasing chatter in their media that the economic differences between India and itself are increasingly amplifying. Unless Pakistan sees that the real power in today's global community comes not from the military and its nukes, but from education and development, which in-turn have liberal and de-radicalizing effects, there isn't much hope. Pakistan's exiled US ambassador Husain Haqqani has written a comprehensive book on its problems - "Magnificent Delusions".
3
Not much chance of success trying to persuade Pakistan. Smarting with a hurt national psyche, thanks to its ill thought wars against India that it lost, Pakistan is looking for the flimsiest of excuses to even the score. The entire Pakistan problem needs a whole lot of reimagining and it won't be coming from within Pakistan.
9
It would be helpful for readers to understand what Pakistan's main concern with India is. Is it Kashmir? If so, why does not the World's concern and efforts focus on that issue. If that issue is tackled honestly (referendum on both sides of border as to whether to be independent or cede to Pak or India), then it would be easier to convince the Pakistani Military (which calls the shots) to embark on the nuclear disarmament path. It should be clear to all that India intervened in East Pakistan militarily and Bangladesh was created. They exploded the bomb in 1974, and have been actively trying to destabilize Pakistan since -whether it is in Baluchistan or Afghanistan (just to remind folks that the Indian Gov't supported the Najibulllah Gov't that was backed by the Soviets). This is not paranoia, this is not an obsession. These are facts.
2
Core of the problem is the profound enmity between two ungovernable nations led by duplicitous politicians on each side who cynically exploit nationalist and religious hot-buttons to distract and manipulate their populations and sustain their grip on power and privilege. Both are failing states too big to fail. Economic sanctions ended Apartheid, brought Iran to the negotiating table, kept Putin from his worst instincts in Crimea. But with political instability and weak governance, particularly in Pakistan, sanctions threaten political upheaval and consequences too catastrophic to risk. Instead we bribe both sides with billions in aid and pray the competing tribes, clans, social castes, religious sects, privileged classes don't combust. Optimists who think the next generation in both countries might find a better path to the future discount the powerful gravity of tradition and primitive cultures that dates back thousands of years. The only twisted comfort available is that the missiles are pointed at each other and when the fragile restraint on either side breaks, global population will noticeably decline as millions of Indians and Pakistanis vaporize. If or when that happens the shock and awe of unprecedented death and destruction may be the tipping point that compels the rest of the world to come to its senses and move in a different direction. Yet another viper pit that defines the legacy of Rule Britannia and mad dogs and Englishmen.
4
Curbing proliferation of nuclear weapons should be a global goal. But real conflicts give rise to the perceived need for deterrence. The case of India and Pakistan, traceable to some incredibly bad decisions made by the British, is essentially a territorial dispute. The very real danger stems from the fact that while India has been devoting immense efforts to growing its economy, Pakistan has remained under the control of an increasingly paranoid security and intelligence establishment. And its wobbly economy is mated to the defense establishment. The United States and erstwhile USSR did not help by continuously meddling in the local affairs of the region. As a result, Pakistan, which cultivates terror groups as a tactical strategy against India, has managed to get away with calling itself an ally of the west. Are we forgetting the horrific Mumbai attacks or the fact that Bin Laden was living among the wealthy and powerful of Pakistan? Countries like China could also do s great deal less damage by not providing advanced defence technology to Pakistan.
7
With so much unrelieved poverty in Pakistan (as in India), with so little invested in education and health, it is irresponsible to pursue evermore sophisticated weapons (nuclear included) to deter aggression from invented enemies (and India, contrary to reality, ought not be one of them). As Einstein once said, 'there is no limit to stupidity'.
1
Pakistan and India have for decades been the likeliest place for nuclear war to break out. Unlike in the West -- and in this I include Russia -- I think it likely India and Pakistan consider nukes as quantitatively different weapons, not qualitatively different. I expect that both countries have calculated the usage of nukes in an initiated war that they could "win", with the "winner" losing a couple million to nukes.
In addition, Pakistan's command and control of its own nuclear weapons is suspect, to say the least.
In addition, Pakistan's command and control of its own nuclear weapons is suspect, to say the least.
1
Tactical nuclear weapons are the only way to cleanse large Indian army. On the other hand the reason to give the waiver to India is only to counter china which do not considers our concerns. Militancy in our country has been controlled by 90 to 98% and Americans themselves admit it yet there is no reason to cry on this issue. I hope after a year or half we would be able to claim that we have cleared Pakistan from terrorists in 2 years which America and its Allies could not do in Afghanistan in last 15 years.
3
Bilal, A lot of this tactical, strategic nuclear nonsense is arm-chair generalship. India may be wounded in a nuclear exchange but Pakistan would cease to exist were it to use even one nuke against India. That is why it's leaders turned tail and ran to Uncle Sam for a diplomatic solution when India signaled that, nukes or no nukes, it was willing to cross the border during the Kargil war if the Pakistani army did not remove it's soldiers from the Indian side of the border. So give it up.
2
What demands attention is Global Zero and more; the total eradication of all nuclear weapons, nuclear power plants and any presence of nuclear energy and/or its processing on our earth.
The existence of nuclear power on our planet portends the most dangerous threat to the survival of our species and all of life. Beyond global warming, pestilence, plague and all else under the sun.
The existence of nuclear power on our planet portends the most dangerous threat to the survival of our species and all of life. Beyond global warming, pestilence, plague and all else under the sun.
2
Using the nuclear option has somehow become more palatable to these arrogant nations that have embarked on their own atomic weapons programs. And our non-proliferaiton efforts have done nothing to curtail the explosive growth in these weapons worldwide. We may as well face up to the ugly, inescapable fact that scientists in the USA have predicted since our own Civl War over 150 years ago: that science wiould someday devise the means to blow up the world. America was the first nation to use the nuclear option, and we may very well perish thereby, with so few real friends among the other countries of the world, and so many that believe in a religion that will transport them to a sensuous paradise replete with dozens of nubile virgins and creature comforts...meantime our statesmen play diplomatic Twister, hands on Iran, foot on Israel, other hand on Pakistan....
1
We need to eliminate, ban, disarm all nuclear weapons on the planet with reciprocal treaties, verification, U.N. oversight, including ours. Including ours. All of our intercontinental ballistic craziness- all those multi megatons- sitting around in those western cow pastures, designed to do nothing more than paralyze us and them with the absolute fear- that somehow we forget about. And all those subs sitting on the bottom of whatever waterway ready to launch a super suicidal, end-of-world surprise for all of us. It's like the 357 mag pistol in the top drawer of the dresser, awaiting the hand of whoever for a tragic accidental discharge or another desperate attempt to resolve it all with nothing. We are stupid beasts.
6
Pakistan and India are pursuing the nuclear policy pioneered by the U.S. and USSR. The latter two countries conceived of the arms race as a function of the number and sophistication of nuclear weapons each possessed. Since each power sought to match the size of its adversary's arsenal, neither could ever possess enough bombs. The refusal of either country to define its military needs in terms of an ability to obliterate the enemy created an insane dynamic that eventually helped to destroy the Soviet Union and badly distorted the American economy.
Now Pakistan and India have trapped themselves in the same potentially fatal game of competitive arsenal buildup. Since each country already possesses the capacity to destroy the other, the continued buildup amounts to a struggle for status. The economic well-being of the people of Pakistan and India takes a back seat to the military's need to match the adversary's arsenal.
Given the deep mutual hostility of these two nations, the danger of this rivalry may exceed that of the Cold War era. The apparently permanent instability of the Pakistani political system sharply increases the possibility of a miscalculation that could unleash a nuclear exchange. While the U.S. obsessed over Iraq and Afghanistan, we ignored the far more dangerous conflict on the Indian subcontinent. Reducing tensions must be a high priority of the next president.
Now Pakistan and India have trapped themselves in the same potentially fatal game of competitive arsenal buildup. Since each country already possesses the capacity to destroy the other, the continued buildup amounts to a struggle for status. The economic well-being of the people of Pakistan and India takes a back seat to the military's need to match the adversary's arsenal.
Given the deep mutual hostility of these two nations, the danger of this rivalry may exceed that of the Cold War era. The apparently permanent instability of the Pakistani political system sharply increases the possibility of a miscalculation that could unleash a nuclear exchange. While the U.S. obsessed over Iraq and Afghanistan, we ignored the far more dangerous conflict on the Indian subcontinent. Reducing tensions must be a high priority of the next president.
47
The US props up Pakistan, like China props up North Korea. The difference is that China does not expect the world to yield to NoKo's demands.
35
I wouldn't put it like that. The US is *bribing* Pakistan to start giving nuclear weapons or technology to terrorists again, and to at least pretend to be a well-behaved member of the world community.
Pakistan is an _enemy_ of the USA, it is really Pakistan the US has been fighting in Afghanistan, and which the Afghan government still fights, when they fight the taliban. Pakistan is so hostile to the US that it's constantly moving its nukes around in ordinary trucks, without escort, to prevent the US satellites from finding out where they are and US swooping in to take them. And considering Pakistan's long history of aiding terrorism and giving out nuclear weapons technology to anyone opposed to the US, Pakistan's paranoia may be well founded.
Pakistan is an _enemy_ of the USA, it is really Pakistan the US has been fighting in Afghanistan, and which the Afghan government still fights, when they fight the taliban. Pakistan is so hostile to the US that it's constantly moving its nukes around in ordinary trucks, without escort, to prevent the US satellites from finding out where they are and US swooping in to take them. And considering Pakistan's long history of aiding terrorism and giving out nuclear weapons technology to anyone opposed to the US, Pakistan's paranoia may be well founded.
5
Feh. "bribing to start" in my previous post should of course be "bribing to not start"
1
"He who has committed no sin should cast the first stone"
When India sneezes Pakistan screams. And vice versa. And yet Pakistan is by the far more dangerous of the two, not because its government is less democratic (though it is) but because it's so weak. Its military is in bed with extremist groups like the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba and even al-Qaeda (do we know as yet who was protecting bin Laden in Abbottabad?), and Mr. Sharif sits idly by blaming India for his nation's problems. At some point the Salafists are going to move on from Quetta and Peshawar and mount a real threat to Islamabad. Hopefully, the U.S. and Russia have jointly come up with a plan to move those nukes out of Pakistan before that happens. If not, we may, in fact, end up with a nuclear state controlled by terrorists. If so, the betting line for the continued existence of our planet will be greatly altered.
127
In the scenario of an islamist takeover of Pakistan's nuclear weapons, you can expect a predictable outcome: a massive pre-emptive nuclear strike on the missile sites carried out by Israel, Russia and the USA, followed by a massive cyber-war attack to render any surviving launch systems inoperable.
It will be horrendous, but at least I hope our military have preapared themselves well for this scenario.
It will be horrendous, but at least I hope our military have preapared themselves well for this scenario.
6
Your wisdom has really enlightened most of the people. Before you pass your judgement and predict future, read about the history and understand the fact that Pakistan was never an aggressor. It was India which mounted three wars on Pakistan be it 1948, 1965 or 1971. Pakistan lost its eastern half (Bangladesh) due to Indian intervention. Also, who gave US the right to have nukes? The only country which has ever used Nukes in a war is the US. Even Hitler stopped short of using Nukes because he was more of a sane person than the people who were ruling the US at that time. Don't poke your nose in matters of other countries when you do not know the reaons.
2
@Desert: You certainly have a point about the U.S. being the only nation to have actually launched a nuclear attack (even considering the intransigence of Japan re: less dramatic attempts to put an end to the Second World War). Even so, your defense of Pakistan is risible. Islamabad was essentially committing genocide in its eastern provinces (with passive compliance from the U.S.) before India stepped in to curtail it. They might have had ulterior reasons for doing so but they were indisputably right to have done so. Kashmir remains a huge problem (mostly for the people of that beautiful region) but neither India nor Pakistan seems committed to really solving it. Acts of terror sponsored by the Pakistani military won't do the job and, if anything, makes matters even worse.
1
At least get the numbers right in fear mongering. Israel is number three, and Pakistan can never catch it in numbers or delivery systems. Decades ago the US Air Force estimate given to Congress in open source was over 400 including thermonuclear strategic weapons, not just tactical atomics ("H-bombs" vs A-bombs whether uranium or plutonium).
India and Pakistan did the exact same things to go nuclear, and are aimed at each other.
At least once they were both so near nuclear war that both the US and Soviets sent experts to explain to both just how completely they'd self destruct if they did that. It was said neither one had done the extensive work on nuclear after-effects that had been done by both the US and Soviets.
The nuclear risk with Pakistan regards India, and it is that they will do it to each other.
There is no possible way to reduce Pakistan's nuclear weapons unless we also address India's weapons, and also address India's conventional threat to Pakistan in a Fourth India-Pakistan War.
Of course, India would love to change that subject, and make it all about Muslims with bombs, but it isn't practical, and everyone should know that.
India and Pakistan did the exact same things to go nuclear, and are aimed at each other.
At least once they were both so near nuclear war that both the US and Soviets sent experts to explain to both just how completely they'd self destruct if they did that. It was said neither one had done the extensive work on nuclear after-effects that had been done by both the US and Soviets.
The nuclear risk with Pakistan regards India, and it is that they will do it to each other.
There is no possible way to reduce Pakistan's nuclear weapons unless we also address India's weapons, and also address India's conventional threat to Pakistan in a Fourth India-Pakistan War.
Of course, India would love to change that subject, and make it all about Muslims with bombs, but it isn't practical, and everyone should know that.
122
Contrary to what many believes, Indian nuclear program was never Pakistan specific. In fact, the program started because the Indian army cannot fight two nation/armies in two different fronts, a situation Indian that almost became reality in 1967 and in 71, had Red army got involved. There is also no way Pakistan will reduce its nuclear weapons even if India reduces its or there is some parity in conventional weaponry. In fact, it will not change if Pakistan has better military hardware compared to India, case in point; the war of 67.
The question of Pakistan holding its nuclear weapon and its desire to have parity (or superiority) in conventional weapon is not so simple; it is deep rooted into Pakistani psyche.Just to provide a very rudimentary and quick example, have a look at the names of Pakistani missiles; Ghauri, Ghazni etc. A basic review of Indian history will provide an indicator of Pakistani establishments thought process.
India does not have to change the subject. Pakistani establishment loudly proclaims their bomb to be Islamic bomb and everyone should know that. Mr Modi may or may not have done enough to engage Pakistan, but his predecessors Mr Singh and Mr Vajpeyee tried their best, but all Indians got were Kargil war and Mumbai attack.
The question of Pakistan holding its nuclear weapon and its desire to have parity (or superiority) in conventional weapon is not so simple; it is deep rooted into Pakistani psyche.Just to provide a very rudimentary and quick example, have a look at the names of Pakistani missiles; Ghauri, Ghazni etc. A basic review of Indian history will provide an indicator of Pakistani establishments thought process.
India does not have to change the subject. Pakistani establishment loudly proclaims their bomb to be Islamic bomb and everyone should know that. Mr Modi may or may not have done enough to engage Pakistan, but his predecessors Mr Singh and Mr Vajpeyee tried their best, but all Indians got were Kargil war and Mumbai attack.
7
> and make it all about Muslims with bombs
It isn't about Muslims with bombs. Its the risk of unaccountable non-state actors acquiring the bombs. If Pakistan was a relatively stable state, at least like Bangladesh (once East Pakistan), it would not be a concern. India gets along fine with Bangladesh. Pakistan already demonstrated that it is not a responsible keeper by transferring the technology to North Korea.
> There is no possible way to reduce Pakistan's nuclear weapons unless we also address India's weapons, and also address India's conventional threat
It is impossible for India to reduce its arms for Pakistan, which is 5 times smaller in population. Equating India and Pakistan is false equivalence. India and China are on the same scale; not Pakistan. India can't reduce until China does and China can't reduce until US does; and US just won't.
It isn't about Muslims with bombs. Its the risk of unaccountable non-state actors acquiring the bombs. If Pakistan was a relatively stable state, at least like Bangladesh (once East Pakistan), it would not be a concern. India gets along fine with Bangladesh. Pakistan already demonstrated that it is not a responsible keeper by transferring the technology to North Korea.
> There is no possible way to reduce Pakistan's nuclear weapons unless we also address India's weapons, and also address India's conventional threat
It is impossible for India to reduce its arms for Pakistan, which is 5 times smaller in population. Equating India and Pakistan is false equivalence. India and China are on the same scale; not Pakistan. India can't reduce until China does and China can't reduce until US does; and US just won't.
11
It would help to have some knowledge of South Asia or strategic affairs before commenting on such issues. India did not develop nuclear weapons because of Pakistan - because it already had a conventional weapons superiority over Pakistan. In fact building nuclear weapons would ensure parity between two nuclear weapons states instead of the clear superiority in conventional weapons terms which India enjoyed starting in the 1970's. India developed nuclear weapons because China threatened to intervene in India-Pakistan military dispute and it is a nuclear weapons power. China basically made Pakistan a nuclear weapons power through illegal sale and support. India believed it needed nuclear weapons because China (Pakistan's backer and supporter) had nuclear weapons. Finally, just compare India's proliferation record with Pakistan before expressing a view - India's record is impeccable, Pakistan's a disaster. It is easy to have a view on a certain topic, it is much more difficult to have some knowledge which will make it worthwhile for others to listen to your view.
37
We give India nuclear technology and we give Pakistan bribes - speaks volumes.
38
Check out the hypocrisy of US. The country which oversees the nuclear enrichment across the globe was the one that dropped the A-bomb on Japanese. Hence, following the logic of 'responsible vs irresponsible states'.
Pakistan's Nukes are guarded by world class state of the art system yet everyone doing propaganda especially western media that Pakistan nukes can go into terrorists' hands.....Joke of century.
http://www.dawn.com/news/1209311
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-ranks-below-pakistan-in-nsec...
No one is pressurizing india to solve kashmir issue. No one is forcing india to abandon its cold start doctrine, which is the reason Pakistan made tactical nukes but everyone's leg get broken when it comes to Pakistan. With the passage of time, conventional warfare balance is becoming unaffordable for Pakistan. India is engaged in a major arms build-up which Pakistan just cannot match. India is the world’s largest arms importer today. The Indian defence budget is set to hit a record high of $40bn whereas Pakistan’s budget is just $6 to 8bn.
Reality is that it is India who forced Pakistan to join nuclear club. They turned South Asia into nuclearized continent first. It is not Pakistan's fault. Pakistan never ever considered any pressure on its nukes from the beginning neither it will do so in future. Pakistan have got China and Russia now and US is losing influence over Pakistan. End of Story.
Pakistan's Nukes are guarded by world class state of the art system yet everyone doing propaganda especially western media that Pakistan nukes can go into terrorists' hands.....Joke of century.
http://www.dawn.com/news/1209311
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-ranks-below-pakistan-in-nsec...
No one is pressurizing india to solve kashmir issue. No one is forcing india to abandon its cold start doctrine, which is the reason Pakistan made tactical nukes but everyone's leg get broken when it comes to Pakistan. With the passage of time, conventional warfare balance is becoming unaffordable for Pakistan. India is engaged in a major arms build-up which Pakistan just cannot match. India is the world’s largest arms importer today. The Indian defence budget is set to hit a record high of $40bn whereas Pakistan’s budget is just $6 to 8bn.
Reality is that it is India who forced Pakistan to join nuclear club. They turned South Asia into nuclearized continent first. It is not Pakistan's fault. Pakistan never ever considered any pressure on its nukes from the beginning neither it will do so in future. Pakistan have got China and Russia now and US is losing influence over Pakistan. End of Story.
4
Sadly the system doesn't prevent Pakistani officials from giving nuclear technology to terrorists as part of official policy. Such technology was sold to North Korea and Libya.
Then there is the little problem of the Pakistani military's role in the Taliban. It is Pakistani policy to keep Afghanistan out of Afghani, American and any other hands that might be friendly to India. India so overwhelmingly outnumbers Pakistan who knows what the Machiavellian Pakistani military will do. You can buy a Pakistani general but he wont stay bought.
Then there is the little problem of the Pakistani military's role in the Taliban. It is Pakistani policy to keep Afghanistan out of Afghani, American and any other hands that might be friendly to India. India so overwhelmingly outnumbers Pakistan who knows what the Machiavellian Pakistani military will do. You can buy a Pakistani general but he wont stay bought.
1