What's new

$100 billion for Pakistan to abolish nuclear weapons

hehe we should do it for nothing less than a trillion ! plus on top of that they should atleast give us a nuclear umbrella and heavily arm our convential military with the latest tech and throw in a couple of hundred f-22s ! so atleast a powerful military will act as a deterrant to make up for the lack of nukes and give us civillian nuclear power deal like india.
 
If I were the PM of pakistan, I would have taken that 100bn, destroy all the NUKES except couple of them which I would hide under my bed (In case). Spent that 100 bn and ask mr khan to build those again.. Once you know how.. you can do it anyways... Like paly a real good cat and mouse.. :sniper:

i like this idea :enjoy:
 
The article was written by an Indian or an Isreali Jew i believe.
 
100 billion, implementation of the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir and a guarantee and a 'nuclear umbrella' against any Indian aggression.

Without that it's just a plan to grease the skids for Indian and possibly US military intervention in Pakistan.

They'll agree to everything now. After the job will be done they'll find ways to dishonour their promises. So, giving up nukes will be the end of not only Pakistan but the entire Muslim world, take my word for it. Perhaps Muslims should prepare themselves to change their names as the Indian Muslims often do, just to survive in the society. For people like Mr. Ten Percent it does not mean anything because in the end, they believe there's nothing after death. They go to mosques and observe the rituals of Islam for social benefits, they believe just like the westerners that there are so many things in Islam that should be reformed which is an admission that even Allah made many mistakes which needs to be corrected by His creation, now you cannot call that a sign of good faith, can you ? The last part of my statement may appear to be irrelevent to the thread but it all comes down to that.
 
Are we really going to trust our corrupt leader's who fail to be honest with us with $100 billion dollars. Also I would reject this deal, don't be fooled their is a under lying motive here, Pakistan must remain Nuclear or else it will be at the mercy of other Nations and other Nuclear aggressors.

We must realize How dare we even think about relinquishing the Greatest Military Arsenal ever created in the History of the Universe, the Power of the Sun, The Nuclear Weapons!

F-35 Jets, M1 Tanks, and Apache helicopters are nice and a great addition to any Armed Forces throughout the world, but we must never relinquish our Nuclear Weapons, they are the Guardians of Pakistan.

By the way I always have said about Pakistan and the people of Pakistan. That I know of NO other population on EARTH more happy and more proud of it's Nuclear Weapon's capability than Pakistan!!!
 
Hence the earlier comment by Kharian Beast that the 'tank's in the West seem to have stopped 'thinking' a long time ago.

The implication behind articles like these, and other 'garbage' analysis (like Ralph Peters, Selig Harrisson etc.), continues to feed the paranoia of some Pakistanis that the US in interested in pushing Pakistan towards collapse instead of engaging with it on all levels.

Completely unhelpful.

I don't see the situation anywhere close to being 'unavoidable', nothing on the ground lends to that conclusion, let alone trying to 'plan for a collapse'. The premise behind the authors suggestion is entirely flawed.

While not casting any aspersions on your understanding and analysis of the situation, the fact is that in some cases being a little away from the ground zero gives a better perspective of the realities.

If you look at the 2008 failed stated index report of the Foreign Policy, Pakistan is pretty high on the list, the only nuclear power that is uncomfortably high. I think some of the parameters of the report are pretty objective, enough to scare many, whose job it is to monitor such happenings.

Those who are concerned may be overly so but not without reason.

Foreign Policy: The Failed States Index 2008

da630e3d2f6d908338557340efa8cb89.jpg
 
Very interesting image Vinod, thanks for sharing...

However Western sources have always been pessimistic about Pakistan, have misunderstood Pakistan, and have throughout history have casts bad judgment and information on Pakistan.

It is true Pakistan is struggling to develop, but let me tell you plain and clear Pakistan is NO Failed State.

The only things that would begin to convince me of Pakistan becoming a failed state is if virtually economic development stops for a 5-10 year period, and our Military is no longer capable of defending the nation, our exports have halted, and standard of life continues to decline in a decade...

Now referring to the image, simply telling me about domestic pressure and the other indicators are not conclusive, because it does not MEASURE PAKISTAN'S RESILIENCE in Dangerous times. It is Pakistan's Resilience that is KEY and that has proven Pakistan to be a true contender, your report does not include that Pakistan is an N-11 Country and so on...
 
^^ I agree with the resilience part and noted it in my earlier post.

It will be good to be not overly complacent and avoid these misconceptions in the first place. They may take a life of their own, you know.
 
^^ I agree with the resilience part and noted it in my earlier post.

It will be good to be not overly complacent and avoid these misconceptions in the first place. They may take a life of their own, you know.


Point taken. We should now get back to the topic ($100 dollars for Pakistan to abolish it's Nukes)

coffee anyone??? :coffee:
 
Last edited:
Vinod,

The scores on a lot of indicators and the report seem way off.

I mean, looking at the proximity of the Pakistani scores to those of Somalia, one has to wonder if the compilers of that report limited their "Pakistan analysis" to one of FATA/NWFP.
It will be good to be not overly complacent and avoid these misconceptions in the first place. They may take a life of their own, you know.

This brings us back to our earlier point, Pakistanis may be slightly paranoid about the West conspiring against Pakistan, but a lot of that paranoia is fueled by stuff like this. The West needs to focus more on solutions instead of labels and fanciful plans on how to neuter nations to protect itself.
 
Pakistan would be daft exchanging nukes for even a trillion in paper money. They'll never see it. It's all cheques and stuff that aren't worth anything.
 
A thread Munshi sahib started:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/curren...es-cfr-analyst-makes-case-recolonisation.html

It's time to get serious about bringing order to places like Somalia and Pakistan's tribal areas.

By MAX BOOT

Ever since the end of the Cold War, there has been much chatter about the problem of failed states. Now we are seeing some of the terrible consequences of state failure on the periphery of the broader Middle East.

In Pakistan, terrorist groups such as the Taliban, al Qaeda, and Lashkar-e-Taiba have established themselves as a state within a state. They have virtual free reign in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and a lesser but still substantial amount of leeway in the Northwest Frontier and other provinces. That makes it all too easy for them to launch attacks such as those that killed more than 170 people in Mumbai. Or other attacks that kill NATO soldiers in Afghanistan.

Across the Indian Ocean, pirates are terrorizing passing ships. The International Maritime Bureau reports that 92 ships have been attacked and 36 hijacked this year off the coast of Somalia and Yemen. At least 14 ships and 260 crew members are being held hostage. A passenger liner with more than 1,000 people aboard barely avoided being the pirates' latest prize. Vessels that were not so lucky include a Saudi oil tanker carrying two million barrels of crude oil and a Ukrainian freighter loaded with tanks and other weapons.

The predations of pirates and terrorists -- two species of international outlaws -- have caused much handwringing and a so-far unsuccessful search for solutions. The United Nations has authorized warships to enter Somalia's territorial waters and use "all necessary force" against the pirates. A number of states, including the U.S., have sent their own naval vessels to help, but their numbers are grossly inadequate to safeguard thousands of miles of water. The increasingly bold desperados are venturing farther and farther from shore in search of ever more lucrative prizes.

The response in Pakistan has been just as limited and just as ineffective. India, the U.S., Afghanistan and other concerned states have spent years begging Islamabad to crack down on terrorists. These pleas have been backed up by offers of aid and threats if inaction continues. Neither has done much good. The Pakistani army appears either unwilling or unable -- maybe both -- to take effective action against powerful jihadist groups that have longstanding links with its own Inter-Services Intelligence agency. In desperation, the U.S. has resorted to picking off individual terrorists with unmanned aerial vehicles. This tactic works and should be continued, but it is no more than a band-aid on a gaping wound.

The essential problem in both Somalia and Pakistan is a failure of governance. The question is: What if anything can outside powers do to bring the rule of law to these troubled lands? In the 19th century, the answer was simple: European imperialists would plant their flag and impose their laws at gunpoint. The territory that now comprises Pakistan was not entirely peaceful when it was under British rule. Nor was Somalia under Italian and British sovereignty. But they were considerably better off than they are today -- not only from the standpoint of Western countries but also from the standpoint of their own citizens.

You might think that such imperialism is simply unacceptable today. But you would be only partially right. There have been a number of instances in recent years of imperialism-in-all-but-name. Bosnia and Kosovo -- still wards of NATO and the European Union -- are prominent examples of how successful such interventions can be in the right circumstances.

The real difficulty with emulating these examples is not a lack of legitimacy. That can always be conferred by the United Nations or some other multilateral organization. Harder to overcome is a lack of will. Ragtag guerrillas have proven dismayingly successful in driving out or neutering international peacekeeping forces. Think of American and French troops blown up in Beirut in 1983, or the "Black Hawk Down" incident in Somalia in 1993.

Too often, when outside states do agree to send troops, they are so fearful of casualties that they impose rules of engagement that preclude meaningful action. Think of the ineffectiveness of African Union peacekeepers dealing with genocide in Darfur today or of U.N. peacekeepers dealing with genocide in Rwanda in 1994. Even the world's mightiest military alliance is not immune from these problems. Witness the problems NATO has encountered in trying to get member states to live up to their commitments in Afghanistan.

If NATO won't do enough to win the war in Afghanistan, its highest priority, there is scant chance that it will commit troops to police Pakistan's tribal areas or Somalia's coast. And if NATO members won't act, who will? That difficulty renders moot ideas such as the one just put forward by foreign-policy theorist Robert Kagan: "Have the international community declare that parts of Pakistan have become ungovernable and a menace to international security. Establish an international force to work with the Pakistanis to root out terrorist camps in Kashmir as well as in the tribal areas."

It is a tragedy that such proposals have no chance of being acted upon until some truly great tragedy occurs. If we suffer another 9/11 or worse and the culprits can be traced to Pakistan, then the U.S. and its allies would summon the wherewithal to act. But not until then.

Given that dismal reality, it makes sense to think of second-best alternatives. In the case of the Somali pirates, creative solutions can include using air and naval power to hit the bases from which they operate, and employing Blackwater and other mercenaries to add their protective efforts to those of the world's navies. In Pakistan that means continuing air strikes and providing assistance to tribal militias which have their own grievances against jihadist interlopers. In both places, the U.S. should be doing what it can, in cooperation with allies and multilateral organizations, to bolster central authority.

But we should not fool ourselves into thinking that any of these measures has much chance of success. Until we are willing to place more ungoverned spaces under international administration, evils such as piracy and terrorism will continue to flourish.

Mr. Boot is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author, most recently, of "War Made New: Technology, Warfare, and the Course of History, 1500 to Today"(Gotham, 2006).
 
Just couldnt help noticing..the most 'creative' ideas usa has to anything are either $$$ or the most popular 'hit' bases..
ofcourse they truly believe they are the only state that will survive till the end of the world along wth little bro israel...everyone else is on the list of 'failed state'at one level or another!The comparison of somalia and Pak is simply preposterous!
With that level of insight they may be the first state to fail on this level:crazy:
 
Back
Top Bottom