Dinner is Served

[SQ8]

Similar to the cloak-and-dagger stunts pulled by the Israelis, what Pakistan did was observed but never stopped actively, which is why the end result was successfully achieved. It created the stability in the region due to MAD.

What is stopping actively? What power could justify active movements then considering the polarized world without consequences?
After all, there were efforts made in the cloak and dagger world to stop the technology from transferring. You make it sound as if Pakistan had the blessing of a godfather whereas you dont provide much proof to that.

 

[third eye]

Nuclear weapons are no assurance for happiness & longevity of a nation.

USSR had more than most yet it snapped read imploded when the last straw was loaded on its back.

What is the last straw is something that will vary from nation to nation. To safeguard itself from snapping there is nothing like a sound economy, international networking and internal institutions.

Pakistan seems to be making a huge mistake by thinking that nukes are the panacea to all ills. They are not. What if an occasion to use them never arises ?

"War is the continuation of Politik by other means" (Politik being variously translated as "policy" or "politics", terms with very different implications), a description that has won wide acceptance. - Clauswitz

Pakistan may have safeguarded itself by the nukes or so it feels but what is glaring evident that by its own doing it has exposed itself to the ' other means' by which adversaries wage war .

The slip is showing.

 

[HRK]

Nuclear weapons are no assurance for happiness & longevity of a nation.

USSR had more than most yet it snapped read imploded when the last straw was loaded on its back.

What is the last straw is something that will vary from nation to nation. To safeguard itself from snapping there is nothing like a sound economy, international networking and internal institutions.

Pakistan seems to be making a huge mistake by thinking that nukes are the panacea to all ills. They are not. What if an occasion to use them never arises ?

"War is the continuation of Politik by other means" (Politik being variously translated as "policy" or "politics", terms with very different implications), a description that has won wide acceptance. - Clauswitz

Pakistan may have safeguarded itself by the nukes or so it feels but what is glaring evident that by its own doing it has exposed itself to the ' other means' by which adversaries wage war .

The slip is showing.

The fall of USSR was due to her expansion approach, but even after the fall of USSR, Russia survived, and Russian defence industry helped them in the revival of Economy and keeping regional space available for future, so in short the outcome of USSR example is not exactly what you suggest.

Pakistani strategic circle never thought nuclear option as the cure for every ill but for a 'specific disease'.

Strategic and Political outlook of every region change with time, some of the previous strategic events of the past in the region have created many fault-lines 'all over the region, which at extension coincides & overlap with fault-lines of other region'.

Now a days our region is passing through the transitional phase, we may observe many manoeuvres by many actors in this region to align themselves accordingly, many of the events are the outcome of this transition & alignment.

'Other means' was not introduced by Pakistan in this region but adopted, current situation of Pakistan is due to the 'abundant availability of firewood in our backyard, but torched from outside'

 

[VCheng]

What is stopping actively? What power could justify active movements then considering the polarized world without consequences?
After all, there were efforts made in the cloak and dagger world to stop the technology from transferring. You make it sound as if Pakistan had the blessing of a godfather whereas you dont provide much proof to that.

This talk about how Pakistan got its nuclear weapons is now obsolete. The reality is that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and everyone will play their geopolitical cards in the region accordingly.

 

[SQ8]

This talk about how Pakistan got its nuclear weapons is now obsolete. The reality is that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and everyone will play their geopolitical cards in the region accordingly.

Why obsolete? you made the claim that it was allowed to happen and not much effort was made to stop it.. Im curious.

 

[VCheng]

Why obsolete? you made the claim that it was allowed to happen and not much effort was made to stop it.. Im curious.

It was realized long ago that a nuclear Pakistan would ensure peace in the sub-continent due to MAD, and therefore no substantive effort was made to stop it from doing so. So far, the realization is correct. The rise of the Taliban is causing serious concerns though.

 

[SQ8]

It was realized long ago that a nuclear Pakistan would ensure peace in the sub-continent due to MAD, and therefore no substantive effort was made to stop it from doing so. So far, the realization is correct. The rise of the Taliban is causing serious concerns though.

Fair enough, then what you qualify efforts otherwise which include but are not confined to stopping shipments, sanctions, subverting personnel within the program etc etc. Why would clinton make all that hooplah on the phone to Sharif and not simply suggest to keep the program silent like Israel and get everyone happy?

 

[VCheng]

Fair enough, then what you qualify efforts otherwise which include but are not confined to stopping shipments, sanctions, subverting personnel within the program etc etc. Why would clinton make all that hooplah on the phone to Sharif and not simply suggest to keep the program silent like Israel and get everyone happy?

All those were token efforts. The bottom line was to try and keep it ambiguous, but Pakistan chose to make it overt, which perhaps was not really necessary.

 

[SQ8]

All those were token efforts. The bottom line was to try and keep it ambiguous, but Pakistan chose to make it overt, which perhaps was not really necessary.

This seems to go against all wikileaks and declassified cables I've ever looked at. Or anything I've ever read. How does one support such new revelations?

 

[VCheng]

This seems to go against all wikileaks and declassified cables I've ever looked at. Or anything I've ever read. How does one support such new revelations?

This is not a revelation. Besides, all regional policies are accepting of the fact the Pakistan is a nuclear armed country.

 

[SQ8]

This is not a revelation. Besides, all regional policies are accepting of the fact the Pakistan is a nuclear armed country.

So where is it stated then?Like I said. ..I missed the memo on this.

 

[VCheng]

So where is it stated then?Like I said. ..I missed the memo on this.

It is good for the national ego to believe that they succeeded in going nuclear against all odds. I have no need to puncture that inflated balloon, just like the opening post here that claims that the entire world is out to denuclearize Pakistan. Both positions are quite far from the truth but it is more peaceful for me to let them be.

 

[SQ8]

It is good for the national ego to believe that they succeeded in going nuclear against all odds. I have no need to puncture that inflated balloon, just like the opening post here that claims that the entire world is out to denuclearize Pakistan. Both positions are quite far from the truth but it is more peaceful for me to let them be.

Why? Can you not be honest about it and simply state it. After all, the anonymous user name affords you that luxury to do so. Backing away seems to put a lot less weight in your position and any further claims you make. After all, it must be morally incorrect to withhold knowledge that would enlighten so many. Especially when such knowledge is requested.

 

[VCheng]

Why? Can you not be honest about it and simply state it. After all, the anonymous user name affords you that luxury to do so. Backing away seems to put a lot less weight in your position and any further claims you make. After all, it must be morally incorrect to withhold knowledge that would enlighten so many. Especially when such knowledge is requested.

My views, knowledge or anonymity (or lack thereof) is not the topic here, is it?

Do you agree with this quote from the OP?

The steps taken to engineer the failure of the Muslim nation have now reached fruition. Soon, the world community, the United Nations shall be tasked to take the final step. Foreseeing an impending failure of the state of Pakistan, the Security Council shall express its serious misgivings about the threat posed to global security by the chaotic and lawless nuclear armed Nation. The United Nations will order the IAEA to move into the country and take charge of the nuclear assets of a collapsing nation before they fall into the wrong hands.

Are all the failures that have contributed to the "impending failure" of a "chaotic and lawless nuclear armed nation" all attributable to the international community? Or are these the attempted rationalizations of a failed internal strategy that backfired?

 

[SQ8]

My views, knowledge or anonymity (or lack thereof) is not the topic here, is it?

Do you agree with this quote from the OP?



Are all the failures that have contributed to the "impending failure" of a "chaotic and lawless nuclear armed nation" all attributable to the international community? Or are these the attempted rationalizations of a failed internal strategy that backfired?

Your views are.. as they reflect on the topic at hand as such on the efforts mentioned in the first post.

I do not agree with the quote nor am I interested in the quote. I am interested in the view that the efforts made to stop Pakistan's nuclear program were piecemeal at best and as such it was allowed. Now if all later declassified documents and accounts by personalities involved during the 73 Yom Kippur conflict testify that yes, both sides were ready to arm the other with nuclear weapons.. why would such personalities or similar ones shy away from mentioning anything regarding "letting Pakistan have the bomb" instead of the complete opposite in their accounts? Truth for the much more sensitive one and lie for the other?