Fareed Zakaria’s poor journalism misguided allegations on Pakistan's Nuke Program

[Desertfalcon]

Very conveniently my point over Iran was glossed over, would you say Israel having nukes gives Iran the justification for possessing them ? As for my experience you are correct, I have none.

From the Iranian point of view, sure. That doesn't mean I wouldn't oppose it as it is contrary to my country's interest. I didn't glass over anything but was just amused at your idea that Germany needed to arm itself against France.

Franco-German Brigade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You should rethink this statement,Russia is not the Soviet Union and Putin has absolute power(its not the US or a EU country).
If Putin wants,he can.

But it is exactly my point that the UK and France do not base their nuclear arsenals on who is in charge in Moscow but solely on what forces are necessary to deter Russia based on her strategic capabilities in any given year. Those French and UK forces existed before Putin and they will exist after Putin.

 

[Spectre]

From the Iranian point of view, sure. That doesn't mean I wouldn't oppose it as it is contrary to my country's interest. I didn't glass over anything but was just amused at your idea that Germany needed to arm itself against France.
.

At last we come to the heart of matter - there is no moral ground or doctrinal necessity. It is all about interests and what you can enforce beneficial to your interests. So as an Indian I would hold the same view about Pakistan as you do about Iran.

As for Germany and France, give it time - it has just been half a century give or take a decade depending on if you consider unified or divided germany.

 

[Desertfalcon]

At last we come to the heart of matter - there is no moral ground or doctrinal necessity. It is all about interests and what you can enforce beneficial to your interests. So as an Indian I would hold the same view about Pakistan as you do about Iran.

Well, it is a heart of a matter that is a somewhat different topic then the one I was discussing, i,e, one of "interests". But to make it germane, if Pakistan formally declared that it would never launch it's nuclear weapons first, then would I advocate that India give up her nuclear arsenal? No, that would be foolish as no country should base it's defences on what their enemy or likely enemy says they will do, but only on what that enemy is capable of doing. Just as Pakistan should only base it's nuclear arsenal on Indian capability.

If that is the heart of the matter than there is no, "at last", as that was the specific point of my very first post here.

 

[Zibago]

Bhai CNN ka hua to kiya hay to Indian na un mein say majority to Pakistan kay khilaf bolay baghair neend nahe ati

 

[Hyperion]

One thing is for sure, Indian born Moosliz are as Hindu as they get, and Fareed Zakaria is no exception, a dic* indeed.

 

[saiyan0321]

Rubbish from a rubbish C grade journalist trying to gain fame by pointing to the fav bogeyman. Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is safe and secure. International organizations have said so but apparently those don't hold any value bcz they are contrary to his thinking. After all why wouldn't the enemy of Pakistan want Pakistan to be a weak pathetic nation.

The thing is we have bigger things to do, economy and energy, than yo answer each and every C grade journalist who thinks he will get a little higher ratings by doing a Pakistani show.

He is an Indian. Enough said.

 

[Pulsar]

Pakistan is combating terrorism, unlike India, which is using terrorism as an instrument of its policy to destabilise Pakistan.

Source: Fareed Zakaria’s poor journalism misguided allegations on Pakistan's Nuke Program

Really? And how about the proxy war that Pakistan has been waging against India for the past three decades with their cohorts like the LeT and JeM in order to try and 'bleed India with a thousand cuts'? That was Zia's grand strategy which continues till today.

The fact is, and the whole wide world knows that Pakistan has been using terrorism as an instrument of state policy to try and destabilize India and Afghanistan. Needless to say, they have failed miserably in India.

And this fellow Muhammad Umar, conveniently avoids mentioning this fact! This leads one to conclude that his response is total one sided nonsense that he has written.

 

[That Guy]

Really? And how about the proxy war that Pakistan has been waging against India for the past three decades with their cohorts like the LeT and JeM in order to try and 'bleed India with a thousand cuts'? That was Zia's grand strategy which continues till today.

The fact is, and the whole wide world knows that Pakistan has been using terrorism as an instrument of state policy to try and destabilize India and Afghanistan. Needless to say, they have failed miserably in India.

And this fellow Muhammad Umar, conveniently avoids mentioning this fact! This leads one to conclude that his response is total one sided nonsense that he has written.

Funny you say "Zia's grand strategy", the truth is that Zia ul Haq actually wanted to decrease military spending, and reduce tensions with India, as he considered the communist threat + poverty to be Pakistan's greatest threats.

He believed that he could politically contain the USSR in Afghanistan, which is why we saw him increase international political support for Pakistan, and keep Pakistan's involvement in Afghanistan strictly covert. It's also the reason why he didn't just kick out the USSR embassy staff from Pakistan, despite multiple engagements with Russian backed (and even a few Russian piloted) incursions into Pakistani airspace.

Despite being a military general, he doesn't get the credit he rightfully deserves for trying to elevate Pakistan's international position through diplomacy, even going so far as to indirectly cooperating with Israel.

The proxy war in Kashmir really only intensified after Zia's death.

 

[Spectre]

Well, it is a heart of a matter that is a somewhat different topic then the one I was discussing, i,e, one of "interests". But to make it germane, if Pakistan formally declared that it would never launch it's nuclear weapons first, then would I advocate that India give up her nuclear arsenal? No, that would be foolish as no country should base it's defences on what their enemy or likely enemy says they will do, but only on what that enemy is capable of doing. Just as Pakistan should only base it's nuclear arsenal on Indian capability.

If that is the heart of the matter than there is no, "at last", as that was the specific point of my very first post here.

And when did I advocate that Pakistan should give up it's bag full of nukes? My point was if Pakistan is justified in keeping it's nuke then so are other countries based on whether their enemies possess nukes or not. In such a case there is no locus standi for objection to possession of nukes by Iran, N. Korea, Syria or any of the other rogues. There is no such thing as responsible or irresponsible country. Once the pandoras box was opened - it's free for all.

US of course does not subscribe to the above view and as a policy measure works actively to prevent any new countries from possessing nukes or increasing their arsenal irrespective of their capability.

Further US is quite express in sanctioning countries based on what their intent is rather than their capabilities, other wise there would have been lot more contenders.

This leads to me the conclusion either the whole complete non proliferation agenda is based on intent i.e. that is controlling those who inimical to our interest rather than actual capability or in case it it was capability based then the enforcing agencies are incompetent.

 

[PaklovesTurkiye]

Funny you say "Zia's grand strategy", the truth is that Zia ul Haq actually wanted to decrease military spending, and reduce tensions with India, as he considered the communist threat + poverty to be Pakistan's greatest threats.

He believed that he could politically contain the USSR in Afghanistan, which is why we saw him increase international political support for Pakistan, and keep Pakistan's involvement in Afghanistan strictly covert. It's also the reason why he didn't just kick out the USSR embassy staff from Pakistan, despite multiple engagements with Russian backed (and even a few Russian piloted) incursions into Pakistani airspace.

Despite being a military general, he doesn't get the credit he rightfully deserves for trying to elevate Pakistan's international position through diplomacy, even going so far as to indirectly cooperating with Israel.

The proxy war in Kashmir really only intensified after Zia's death.

Aren't Indians involved in nuclear proliferation? Well, wikileaks says, they are....so who to believe? @Desertfalcon

Cable: 09BAKU179_a

 

[PakGuns]

And when did I advocate that Pakistan should give up it's bag full of nukes? My point was if Pakistan is justified in keeping it's nuke then so are other countries based on whether their enemies possess nukes or not. In such a case there is no locus standi for objection to possession of nukes by Iran, N. Korea, Syria or any of the other rogues. There is no such thing as responsible or irresponsible country. Once the pandoras box was opened - it's free for all.

US of course does not subscribe to the above view and as a policy measure works actively to prevent any new countries from possessing nukes or increasing their arsenal irrespective of their capability.

Further US is quite express in sanctioning countries based on what their intent is rather than their capabilities, other wise there would have been lot more contenders.

This leads to me the conclusion either the whole complete non proliferation agenda is based on intent i.e. that is controlling those who inimical to our interest rather than actual capability or in case it it was capability based then the enforcing agencies are incompetent.

Ukraine gave up nuclear bombs they lost Crimea... That's a prime example of why to keep nuclear bombs...

No UN resolution worked, no new bans on trade worked, no US umbrella reached out to help... Nobody even talks about Crimea...

 

[Spectre]

Ukraine gave up nuclear bombs they lost Crimea... That's a prime example of why to keep nuclear bombs...

No UN resolution worked, no new bans on trade worked, no US umbrella reached out to help... Nobody even talks about Crimea...

Exactly my point. I dont have any objections to Pakistan having nukes. If one can get nukes then other nations have no right to stop them by citing moral high grounds

 

[Pulsar]

Funny you say "Zia's grand strategy", the truth is that Zia ul Haq actually wanted to decrease military spending, and reduce tensions with India, as he considered the communist threat + poverty to be Pakistan's greatest threats.

He believed that he could politically contain the USSR in Afghanistan, which is why we saw him increase international political support for Pakistan, and keep Pakistan's involvement in Afghanistan strictly covert. It's also the reason why he didn't just kick out the USSR embassy staff from Pakistan, despite multiple engagements with Russian backed (and even a few Russian piloted) incursions into Pakistani airspace.

Despite being a military general, he doesn't get the credit he rightfully deserves for trying to elevate Pakistan's international position through diplomacy, even going so far as to indirectly cooperating with Israel.

The proxy war in Kashmir really only intensified after Zia's death.

At some point in time, when the military ruling Pakistan, wanted to soften the democratic aspirations in that country, it encouraged the mullahs to tighten their leash on the people, by narrowing the purpose of Pakistan to just this: Destroying a ‘Hindu India’ and this country’s ageless pluralistic value system. The strongest step in this direction was that of military dictator Zia-ul-Haq who nailed the Constitution of Pakistan to sustaining and promoting a single version of Islam. This came in handy for the mullahs who wanted to get the better of the military.

The consequences are there for all to see. An example is the TTP which has morphed into a multi headed hydra with the twin aims to introduce Sharia in Pakistan and destroy/take over the Pak army. Though these aims seem a trifle farfetched, it reflects the zia doctrine which is alive and kicking.

The chickens have finally come home to roost.

 

[Desertfalcon]

And when did I advocate that Pakistan should give up it's bag full of nukes?

When did I ever say you did?

My point was if Pakistan is justified in keeping it's nuke then so are other countries based on whether their enemies possess nukes or not. In such a case there is no locus standi for objection to possession of nukes by Iran, N. Korea, Syria or any of the other rogues. There is no such thing as responsible or irresponsible country. Once the pandoras box was opened - it's free for all.

As you point out, where there is no law or court to argue one with, you may be right, but you commit a fallacy to think that my position somehow, negates a country from acting in her own interest. One does not follow the other. Pakistan may posses a nuclear arsenal but it doesn't mean India must like it or not work against it.

US of course does not subscribe to the above view and as a policy measure works actively to prevent any new countries from possessing nukes or increasing their arsenal irrespective of their capability.

No, we work actively to prevent countries that we feel would use them or their possession, against our interests. Some of them may even be allies, but their possession would still be against our interest. Others, we've actually given nuclear weapons, technology, or assistance to.

Further US is quite express in sanctioning countries based on what their intent is rather than their capabilities, other wise there would have been lot more contenders.

I agree which is why the US was so opposed to Pakistan and India possessing nuclear weapons but that has nothing to do with what I have been arguing.

This leads to me the conclusion either the whole complete non proliferation agenda is based on intent, i.e. that is controlling those who inimical to our interest rather than actual capability

Oh, it absolutely is which is why you should not confuse it with military thinking. Which is why I’m at a loss what it has to do with me or what I have said. Pakistan and India already posses nuclear arsenals so proliferation is not even the issue at hand. What size/type of nuclear arsenal Pakistan should have, is. I'm arguing from a military strategic perspective, not a diplomatic one.

 

[Spectre]

When did I ever say you did?



As you point out, where there is no law or court to argue one with, you may be right, but you commit a fallacy to think that my position somehow, negates a country from acting in her own interest. One does not follow the other. Pakistan may posses a nuclear arsenal but it doesn't mean India must like it or not work against it.



No, we work actively to prevent countries that we feel would use them or their possession, against our interests. Some of them may even be allies, but their possession would still be against our interest. Others, we've actually given nuclear weapons, technology, or assistance to.



I agree which is why the US was so opposed to Pakistan and India possessing nuclear weapons but that has nothing to do with what I have been arguing.



Oh, it absolutely is which is why you should not confuse it with military thinking. Which is why I’m at a loss what it has to do with me or what I have said. Pakistan and India already posses nuclear arsenals so proliferation is not even the issue at hand. What size/type of nuclear arsenal Pakistan should have, is. I'm arguing from a military strategic perspective, not a diplomatic one.

Fair enough. I concede