After Iran, Pakistan?

[Levina]

well trust me, dont expect much from your current leadership ... because things have changed beyond the expectations

Time will tell...

 

[rockstar08]

Time will tell...

Exactly
Pakistan never had his horse so high like Indians , so we dont really care .. Its mostly Indians who try to scared us from Modi ...

 

[Red Wolf]

Have you read his other comments on other issues? He lives in his own world.

By the way I am not commenting on the issue at hand as I don't know how influential NYT is, But this Op-Ed seem to be a fallout of Gen Kidwai, a Pakistan military general, brazen boasting of Pakistan nuclear capability recently at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

You may be conflating two separate arguments.

Argument #1: Pakistan has, for awhile, argued for NSG membership. Mr. Kidwai was pushing his argument, i.e., nuclear weapons in South Asia have brought peace and stability in the region.

Argument #2: NYT's argument is, "billions of dollars wasted on these (nuclear) systems would be better spent investing in health, education and jobs for Pakistan’s people". Nothing wrong with this line of thought except it ignores the broader question of regional stability which is where Mr. Kidwai's argument begins.

More importantly, NYT raised alarm on nuclear deployments in the Indian Ocean from all three regional powers (China, India, Pakistan). Here's the relevant bit:

Pakistan is hardly alone in its potential to cause regional instability. China, which considers Pakistan a close ally and India a potential threat, is continuing to build up its nuclear arsenal, now estimated at 250 weapons, while all three countries are moving ahead with plans to deploy nuclear weapons at sea in the Indian Ocean.

This is not a situation that can be ignored by the major powers, however preoccupied they may be by the long negotiations with Iran.

Ergo, NYT is pushing for a more broader debate than just the NSG membership of Pakistan. It may happen or it may not. As I mentioned previously that due to proliferation risks it is difficult (impossible?) to completely denuclearize a nation-state once it has crossed a certain threshold which Pakistan has hundreds of times over and is about to with second-strike capability. Hence, if Pakistan agrees to restrict nuclear deployments in the Indian Ocean, it could end up with a NSG membership, i.e., a grand bargain.

The gentleman, former Pakistan ambassador to the UN, who penned this article seems to be against any 'constraints', as he noted:

First, concerns about Pakistan’s programmes will be spread through the media and diplomatic channels. Then, Islamabad would be pressed to give assurances and accept constraints ostensibly to assuage these ‘concerns’.

Next, an effort would be made to translate these restraints and restrictions into binding commitments, including through the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group, the IAEA and the UN Security Council.

If Pakistan then ‘violates’ such restrictions, it would be subjected to multilateral or unilateral sanctions.

In his assessment, arguments of 'constraint' are a slippery slope and should be avoided. Hence he is in the first camp, i.e., regional security is better maintained with nuclear weapons.

@A1Kaid: Your thoughts?

 

[Shamain]

Lolz @ comment suggesting USA has no policy towards denuclearizing pakistan.
Tau woh uncle since last 14 years say afghanistan may betha mong phali bech raha tha. Just go and ask our army they would tell you how they have guarded the arsenals from these lunatics.
And well yes india is much wost than isis.
Its whole 67 years of history is ridden with riot riots riots commmal riots. No less than 70,000 people would have lost their lives if real figures are ever to be published.
70pc of the nations mindset shows in electing a bloody bloody butcher as their prime minister.
Anyhooo, dont go far check out gujrat riots only one victim 'kausar bano'.
Later some gov planted doctor produced a fake autopsy report to cover the true atrocities committed, but what could you expect when their courts had absolved the butcher of more than 3000 muslims murder,but alone Kausar banos case is such a wide big filth laden slap on india's face.
And then the Aps attack.
Isis is a pup before india,nothing brutal really . India has lot of debts to settle with our army, its seething over the loss of its army personnel in kashmir due to militant attacks.
Our army through out knew its india meddling in our soil and one retired army officer had even said in some article he wrote around 4, 5 years back, that india has been trying hard through afghan soil if they ever succeed that will be the worst day ever for Pakistanis .
Jab 65 war hui thee and india had attacked then what their scummy general had claimed ,by tommorrow afternoon we will be enjoying drinks in gymkhanna.
Yes and we gave them hearty dose of their cowcola .

Kausar bano:Even demons have shame: Kausar’s husband - Indian Express

 

[FaujHistorian]

Time to end our obsession with INdian and Iranian situation.

they are totally different from us at many different levels.

Pakistan will be in good books of the West as long as we play our part to stabilize FATA and perhaps Yemen.

 

[Winchester]

Time to end our obsession with INdian and Iranian situation.

they are totally different from us at many different levels.

Pakistan will be in good books of the West as long as we play our part to stabilize FATA and perhaps Yemen.

You are proposing sending our troops to Yemen ???

 

[FaujHistorian]

You are proposing sending our troops to Yemen ???

you got it Sir.

 

[Winchester]

you got it Sir.

Obviously the Houthis if not countered now will soon land in Karachi in their amphibious assault ships

you got it Sir.

Obviously the Houthis if not countered now will soon land in Karachi in their amphibious assault ships

 

[FaujHistorian]

Obviously the Houthis if not countered now will soon land in Karachi in their amphibious assault ships



Obviously the Houthis if not countered now will soon land in Karachi in their amphibious assault ships

Narrow view. Here is a bit more detail.

Yemen: Pakistan's right policy vs. wrong direction

Let's discuss it over there.

 

[Red Wolf]

Obviously the Houthis if not countered now will soon land in Karachi in their amphibious assault ships

Pretty sure Houthis have flying carpets and their evil plans have been leaked on the interwebs. For your eyes only:

 

[Bombermanx1]

The author was beating around the bush with rhetoric in the whole article and finally came to the main point, to make Pakistan peaceful, help us get Kashmir from India.
He could have said that in the beginning, instead of this long explanation which has no connection.
All he wants is International powers to intervene(Since nobody nowadays wants to talk about Kashmir in UNO,uk,USA,GCC) and somehow make India give up Kashmir to Pakistan.
Which is not happening and will never happen in future.Therefore the authors long frustrated article.Stressing the need for peace and blackmailing the rest of the world with Nukes.

 

[SBD-3]

Western Media has a habbit of overplaying Pakistan's nuclear program. Comparing Iranian program with that of Pakistan is quite incorrect. Iran's denuclearization (Though in my view their program is a hoax) isnt conditional. Pakistan's denuclearization is attached to a long chain of conditions
1-Pakistan wont consider a denuclearization unless India does
2-India's will depend on both Pakistan and China.
3-China's would depend upon US,Russia and India.
This excuse is not availabke with Iran. They cant condition theirs to Pakistan. They cant do so for Israel because of their undeclated nature.

Obviously the Houthis if not countered now will soon land in Karachi in their amphibious assault ships

Khotiyon ki itni auqat ho he na jai.

 

[ito]

You may be conflating two separate arguments.

Argument #1: Pakistan has, for awhile, argued for NSG membership. Mr. Kidwai was pushing his argument, i.e., nuclear weapons in South Asia have brought peace and stability in the region.

Argument #2: NYT's argument is, "billions of dollars wasted on these (nuclear) systems would be better spent investing in health, education and jobs for Pakistan’s people". Nothing wrong with this line of thought except it ignores the broader question of regional stability which is where Mr. Kidwai's argument begins.

More importantly, NYT raised alarm on nuclear deployments in the Indian Ocean from all three regional powers (China, India, Pakistan). Here's the relevant bit:




Ergo, NYT is pushing for a more broader debate than just the NSG membership of Pakistan. It may happen or it may not. As I mentioned previously that due to proliferation risks it is difficult (impossible?) to completely denuclearize a nation-state once it has crossed a certain threshold which Pakistan has hundreds of times over and is about to with second-strike capability. Hence, if Pakistan agrees to restrict nuclear deployments in the Indian Ocean, it could end up with a NSG membership, i.e., a grand bargain.

The gentleman, former Pakistan ambassador to the UN, who penned this article seems to be against any 'constraints', as he noted:




In his assessment, arguments of 'constraint' are a slippery slope and should be avoided. Hence he is in the first camp, i.e., regional security is better maintained with nuclear weapons.

@A1Kaid: Your thoughts?

I have different take on the whole issue.

Nuclear weapons are a threat to world not to a region. The key is with US. China, North Korea and Russia have nukes because US has. India has because China has and Pakistan has because India has. So sub regional agreements won’t work (such as among India, China and Pakistan)

As on Kidwai,

First, Kidwai should have remembered that he was taking at a peace conference.

Second, as regarding your arguments

First: By making India specific threats he made Pakistan came across as a state that is threat to peace in this region (the title of the NYT Op-Ed also reflects the same). That was the reason why the questions that followed his interview were more to do with Pakistan proliferation record, pace of its weapon development program etc…

Argument 2: Nuclear weapon never bring stability, they will certainly prevent small wars from happening. But again it depends on who is handling the nuclear weapons. (God forbid, if it is handled by a deranged general)

As regarding the NSG membership, I doubt Pakistan will get it even if it gives a guarantee that it will not develop second strike capability. All nukes states have some sort of second strike capability.

 

[Red Wolf]

Nuclear weapons are a threat to world not to a region.

This usually leads to, "Everyone should give up their nuclear weapons" which is all nice and dandy but its a hard sell, e.g, despite heavy sanctions and sabotage, U.S. couldn't convince Iran to give its nuclear ambitions. If you can't convince oil-rich Iran to give up on nuclear energy, forget about convincing, U.K., Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, Turkey, Belgium, Netherlands, and Italy on nuclear disarmament.

The key is with US. China, North Korea and Russia have nukes because US has. India has because China has and Pakistan has because India has. So sub regional agreements won’t work (such as among India, China and Pakistan)

On the contrary, none of the nation-states you mentioned have obliterated the other so it all seems to be working fine.

As on Kidwai,

First, Kidwai should have remembered that he was taking at a peace conference.

And Mr. Kidwai's argument was that nuclear weapons have brought peace to South Asia's borders which is a great sign for regional stablity.

First: By making India specific threats he made Pakistan came across as a state that is threat to peace in this region (the title of the NYT Op-Ed also reflects the same). That was the reason why the questions that followed his interview were more to do with Pakistan proliferation record, pace of its weapon development program etc…

1. Q&A is just Q&A, it's not part of Mr. Kidwai's argument. This should be obvious.
   
2. If you want to base your argument on a click-bate title, be my guest.

Argument 2: Nuclear weapon never bring stability, they will certainly prevent small wars from happening.

Its the opposite, i.e., nuclear weapons bring peace and regional stability, forcing adversaries to avoid big wars and butt heads in small (proxy?) conflicts which is always better.

As regarding the NSG membership, I doubt Pakistan will get it even if it gives a guarantee that it will not develop second strike capability. All nukes states have some sort of second strike capability.

1. I didn't suggest that any self-restraint on Pakistan's nuclear program will win it NSG membership. It was just an example. In fact, I'm not sure what will and in any case this article seems to be against any 'constraints' so that seems to be a non-starter for Pakistanis.
   
2. I agree with you on the second-strike capability. Its a natural evolution of any nuclear program (which means Indian Oceans is F#%!$D).

 

[ito]

This usually leads to, "Everyone should give up their nuclear weapons" which is all nice and dandy but its a hard sell, e.g, despite heavy sanctions and sabotage, U.S. couldn't convince Iran to give its nuclear ambitions. If you can't convince oil-rich Iran to give up on nuclear energy, forget about convincing, U.K., Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, Turkey, Belgium, Netherlands, and Italy on nuclear disarmament.




On the contrary, none of the nation-states you mentioned have obliterated the other so it all seems to be working fine.





And Mr. Kidwai's argument was that nuclear weapons have brought peace to South Asia's borders which is a great sign for regional stablity.

1. Q&A is just Q&A, it's not part of Mr. Kidwai's argument. This should be obvious.
   
2. If you want to base your argument on a click-bate title, be my guest.

Its the opposite, i.e., nuclear weapons bring peace and regional stability, forcing adversaries to avoid big wars and butt heads in small (proxy?) conflicts which is always better.

1. I didn't suggest that any self-restraint on Pakistan's nuclear program will win it NSG membership. It was just an example. In fact, I'm not sure what will and in any case this article seems to be against any 'constraints' so that seems to be a non-starter for Pakistanis.
   
2. I agree with you on the second-strike capability. Its a natural evolution of any nuclear program (which means Indian Oceans is F#%!$D).

I don't know what we are arguing about?

If I understand it is on Kidwai, I can say that nuclear arms never bring peace, eradicating them will. I living in India has a better experience in this regard than you who is living in Germany. If nukes would have brought peace, US and Russia would have never brought down their nuke arsenal substantially from 1990 levels

Nukes may bring a long hiatus but not peace and then there is constant tension and uncertainty regarding their use in case of a war, which may lead to wrong decision. Cuban missile crisis is an example. All countries have pledged for a nuclear free world, and I am sure in next 20 years we may have a nuke free or near nuke free world. After all we owe this world to the future generations