What's new

Pakistan warns of a nuke race on backdrop of Indian Nuke deal

Why was pakistan quiet for so long. The deal was in news for over 2 years.
May be it was silently wishing that deal never goes through, and got surprised by the UPA victory.

Remember, US is more interested in this deal than India.
I am sure there are some strategic reasons behind this.
 
.
A matter of principals, we want parity.
The "nuclear deal" is motivated by economics more so than anything else. India over the past decade and a half has stabilized itself politically and then backed it up with sustained economic growth. It is on its way to becoming a global heavyweight, and it is clear to the industrialized world (the west mostly) that India needs to be given larger access to energy so as to facilitate its contribution on the economic which in turn is critical to the global economy.

Unfortunately Pakistan hasn't done this yet. And I do not see the benefits of offering Pakistan this deal simply because India has it. IMO Pakistan needs to work its way up to becoming an important cog in the wheel before any such offers are made.
 
.
Remember, US is more interested in this deal than India.
I am sure there are some strategic reasons behind this.
I think both parties are equally interested. This will be India's economic lifeline and it couldn't have been accomplished without the USA's support. The USA in turn needs a booming India for the sake of its own economy. Keeping India away from Iranian oil and gas is another incentive; but I do not see this happening as India is still heavily involved in Iranian projects and doesn't seem to have any intentions of letting that go.
 
.
Neo

Pakistan cannot have parity in the present circumstances - a whole host of questions have to be resolved in Pakistan, primarily what kind of state Pakistan is to be.

Pakistan have for reasons we know all too well, allowed itself to be shot in the foot - whereas Indians have been, relatively focused and the improvement in economic performance in India is really nothing short of amazing, just imagine the kind of performance they can achieve if they were to even further reform their economy.

On the other hand, does Pakistan need parity?
 
Last edited:
.
Valid that Paksitan should be worried.

History and her size should energise concerns.

But then we have to await the world reaction!

Bush seems to get his way all the time!
 
.
Neo, I am really curious as to why you would say so.

Turkey, while not a nuclear state is a member of NATO.

The US did intervene in Bosnia right?

UAE and KSA are both allies right?

So where is the "islamic threat"?

All forget good things done to them

The slights are remembered.

That is life.

Milosevic and Karadic is of no concern nor the Islamic faith terrorist cleared by the ICJ. It is what has not gone in the Islamic favour is what concerns.

It is time to leave religion from politics.
 
.
U.S India nuclear deal is a reality, efforts to influence the U.S. were a no starter to begin with - While many Pakistanis see this as moved aimed them, it is really aimed against the Chinese. But what options exist for Pakistan? Appeal for a fair deal, Appeal for restrictions on the supply of fuel and reactors and of course threats.

This is not a strong agreement, much depends on Chinese diplomacy and the nature of the Pakistani State, in particular it's willingness and indeed, it's ability to solve the psychosis of it's political class.


India gets a blank cheque?
Gulfnews: India gets a blank cheque?

07/24/2008 11:37 PM | By Tariq Osman Hyder Special to Gulf News


The US-India agreement for cooperation in civil nuclear energy is the high water mark of the strategic partnership between New Delhi and Washington. Only a few isolated voices in the international arms control community voiced concerns. George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment perceptively inter alia noted that two US objectives were that a more powerful India would balance China's growing power and influence in Asia, and that changing national and international laws on nuclear cooperation would also help bolster India's strategic capabilities, including nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, which will further balance China's strategic power.

India would get access to nuclear fuel, technology and reactors for its ambitious nuclear power development programme which was already facing problems due to limited uranium reserves. The Chairman of India's Atomic Energy Agency, Dr Anil Kakodkar, stated on July 4 that India's long term energy security faces a huge energy gap if India is unable to import nuclear reactors or nuclear fuel under international cooperation, leading in its absence for the necessity to import 1.6 billion tonnes of coal in the year 2050 alone.

The opportunity was missed to introduce a criteria based non-discriminatory system bringing both India and Pakistan fully into the global non-proliferation regime while encouraging strategic restraint in South Asia and furthering global non-proliferation objectives. India should have been asked to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. While India has pledged to work for a Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty, the agreement enhances rather than restrains its fissile production capabilities.

Reactors

Indian power reactors will remain outside safeguards with the capacity to produce 1,400 kg of weapons grade plutonium a year, sufficient for around 280 nuclear weapons. India's ambitious breeder reactor programme, which has also been kept outside safeguards, will have the eventual capacity to produce some 500-800 kg of weapons grade plutonium a year. This compares with the estimated 33 kg annual production of India's existing military reactors.

The Indian separation plan states that India would include in the civilian list of facilities for safeguards only those determined not to be relevant to its strategic programme. The agreement, while fulfilling India's energy requirements, frees its limited 60,000 tonnes of uranium reserves for its strategic programme and objectives, an outcome lauded by India's leading strategist K. Subrahmanyam. India is moving fast towards a nuclear submarine based second strike capability, as well as an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) capability which will require plutonium for missile warheads. The United States' justification that the agreement is placing additional Indian reactors under safeguards is scraping the bottom of the non-proliferation barrel
.

As a condition of this bilateral agreement, a draft umbrella safeguards agreement between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and India is being examined at the end of this month by the Board of Governors of the IAEA. It becomes a concern of the international community as to how far it accords with global non-proliferation objectives. This is also true for subsequent discussions in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). Now is the time for the Board of Governors and the NSG to use their leverage to get it right. If the Board of Governors succumbs to pressure, as is likely, even more responsibility devolves on the NSG, which was set up to prevent or at least to restrict proliferation, if it is to retain any credibility.

All IAEA safeguards agreements are facility specific agreements, with safeguards in perpetuity, without any conditionalties, with the exception of the P5 Voluntary Offer agreements, placing certain facilities under safeguards, which they can withdraw at any time for reasons of national security.

The draft India-IAEA agreement is a hybrid between the two models. India retains the right to take unspecified corrective measures to ensure uninterrupted operation of its civilian nuclear reactors in the event of disruption of foreign fuel supplies
. A high level Indian team briefing the IAEA Board Members in Vienna last Friday was unable to clarify what this meant. The agreement subsumes existing and stricter safeguards agreements on Indian reactors. By mentioning its military nuclear facilities and programmes, India seeks legitimisation to grow its military programme.

India's concurrence of safeguards is dependent on continuous access to fuel supplies as well as for an Indian strategic reserve of fuel over the life time of India's reactors. There is no mention of moving towards an additional protocol with the IAEA which is another requirement of the agreement with the United States. No list of facilities has been listed, although the separation plan is a public document. There is no safeguard against transfer or replication of imported nuclear technology to the military side. In effect the draft agreement is a blank cheque. It should be brought in line with the unconditional permanent safeguards standard model, with no room for interpretive ambiguity.

The objective of the international community should be to link supporting India's legitimate energy needs with extending safeguards to all its power generation and breeder reactors, leaving a limited military capacity, and to use it as a model for other non-NPT states. To do otherwise would be a grave disservice to nonproliferation objectives, and to regional and international peace and security.

Tariq Osman Hyder, a former Pakistani diplomat headed Pakistan delegations in nuclear CBMs talks with India from 2004-2007.
 
.
Neo, I am really curious as to why you would say so.

Turkey, while not a nuclear state is a member of NATO.

The US did intervene in Bosnia right?

UAE and KSA are both allies right?

So where is the "islamic threat"?

None of these states possess nuclear weapons or it will be a different picture.
 
.
Why was pakistan quiet for so long. The deal was in news for over 2 years.
May be it was silently wishing that deal never goes through, and got surprised by the UPA victory.
On the contrary, we want this deal to go ahead to pave way for a similar Sino-pak agreement.

Remember, US is more interested in this deal than India.
I am sure there are some strategic reasons behind this.
But India will gain more than USA so whats the point?
 
.
On the contrary, we want this deal to go ahead to pave way for a similar Sino-pak agreement.

I do not understand what Sino-pak agreement has to do with the Nuclear deal ?

But India will gain more than USA so whats the point?

Actually the details are not very well known only Manmoghan Seems to be convinced.
US has dowmestic laws ( like Hyde act) which could be used for arm twisting hence the opposition to the deal by BJP. US know if it gets contrlling Power over India then Nuclear develpment can be controlled. I tend to assume they already have got control over pakistan.
 
.
Pakistan is already working on similar deal with China and France. Just a matter of time but we'll get it done....we always do!

For starters you neeed the NSG approval and also once the Indian market is opened. Also AQ Khan has done more damage to your cause than we in India can do to you, whether it was right or wrong is a seperate debate. I think American pressure is needed to get France to supply you with tech.

France would be one of the largest players and the hands of companies like Areva will be full with work in India. Is is a hundred billion dollar industry and I suspect whether France would piss India or if not time to fullfill Pakistani order books. Just a matter of production capacity and increased demand.

As far as China is concerned, is'nt China importing uranium in the first place from NSG also did'nt China herself depend upon Westinghouse technology to develop her industry?
 
.
Who cares whether it is discriminatory or not? Uncle Sam, We, France, China, Russia? No. Only you do, and for very obvious reasons.

The policy is discriminatory according to you and not according to most in the world.
Most of the world doesn't even know where Pakistan is situated, only a few understand geo-political importance of this region which nullifies what ever perception they have. They'll follow western media whithout hesitation.

You are right; nobody has a clean record; but, who is as much into dirt as Pakistan?
Dirt? Rather a smoke curtain, most of the accusations are assumptions, never proven nor do we feel the urge to dig into the past. Whats done is done, its a close chapter.

There's more misery in this world due US' pro-Israel policy then few centrifuges which we sold to Iran.

We didn't drop a nuke on Hiroshima or Tel Aviv did we?

And who's bending over Neo, Uncle came to us. You guys went hanky-panky when that happenned.
Your parity rhetoric is just a poke; deal is done any which ways.

Your government goes hanky-panky by every single bullit delivered to Pakistan...this is something else.
 
.
Most of the world doesn't even know where Pakistan is situated, only a few understand geo-political importance of this region which nullifies what ever perception they have. They'll follow western media whithout hesitation.


Dirt? Rather a smoke curtain, most of the accusations are assumptions, never proven nor do we feel the urge to dig into the past. Whats done is done, its a close chapter.

There's more misery in this world due US' pro-Israel policy then few centrifuges which we sold to Iran.

We didn't drop a nuke on Hiroshima or Tel Aviv did we?



Your government goes hanky-panky by every single bullit delivered to Pakistan...this is something else.
We are discussing about this deal so much that we have missed a basic point that the deal has to first pass the IAEA board the NSG members has to pass and then the US congress has to pass without which the deal is not operational. So there are hurdles that are supposed to be crossed.
 
.
Most of the world doesn't even know where Pakistan is situated, only a few understand geo-political importance of this region which nullifies what ever perception they have. They'll follow western media whithout hesitation.

Do they know where India is situated; yes.

Now you have your answer.

Dirt? Rather a smoke curtain, most of the accusations are assumptions, never proven nor do we feel the urge to dig into the past. Whats done is done, its a close chapter.

AQ Khan was a Pakistani nuclear scientist; the world won't forget that easily.

Allegations have been made and some have been prooved and some not.

It won't be a closed deal as long as you demand for parity and claim that our deal is discriminatory.

There's more misery in this world due US' pro-Israel policy then few centrifuges which we sold to Iran.

Few centrifuges? You guys sold him a whole lot of stuff more than that. Not to forget Syria and North Korea.

We didn't drop a nuke on Hiroshima or Tel Aviv did we?

Do not bring Hiroshima in between; nobody completely knew the effects of nuclear weapons then.

You guys armed the country that threatens Isreal, by far the most powerful state of the USA.

Your government goes hanky-panky by every single bullit delivered to Pakistan...this is something else.

Thoroughly agreed on my government's behaviour.

But, what are you guys doing now?
 
.
We are discussing about this deal so much that we have missed a basic point that the deal has to first pass the IAEA board the NSG members has to pass and then the US congress has to pass without which the deal is not operational. So there are hurdles that are supposed to be crossed.

These are a done deal... except for NSG to a certain extent.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom