What's new

Pakistan's growing arsenal NYT editorial

Status
Not open for further replies.
Urging world powers to persuade Pakistan to rein in its nuclear weapons programme, The New York Times editorial board wrote on Sunday that the country presents a danger to the entire world.

“The fact that Pakistan is also home to a slew of extremist groups, some of which are backed by a paranoid security establishment obsessed with India, only adds to the dangers it presents for South Asia and, indeed, the entire world,” the editorial read.

Pakistan will become fifth largest nuclear power by 2025: report

The paper, recognising Pakistan’s fast growing nuclear arsenal and its status to become the world’s third-ranked nuclear power in a decade, said, “These are unsettling truths.”

“Persuading Pakistan to rein in its nuclear weapons program should be an international priority. The major world powers spent two years negotiating an agreement to restrain the nuclear ambitions of Iran, which doesn’t have a single nuclear weapon. Yet, there has been no comparable investment of effort in Pakistan, which, along with India, has so far refused to consider any limits at all,” it added.

Noting that there was no headway made during Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s recent visit to Washington despite the Obama administration beginning to address the “complicated issue with greater urgency and imagination”, the editorial said, “The odds of success seem small.”

PM to tell US it won’t accept limits on tactical nuclear arms

“Yet it would be wrong not to keep trying, especially at a time of heightened tensions between Pakistan and India over Kashmir and terrorism,” it added.

Regarding US striking a nuclear deal with Pakistan, the editorial board said, “What’s new about the administration’s approach is that instead of treating the situation as essentially hopeless, it is now casting about for the elements of a possible deal in which each side would get something it wants.”

“For the West, that means restraint by Pakistan and greater compliance with international rules for halting the spread of nuclear technology. For Pakistan, that means some acceptance in the family of nuclear powers and access to technology.”

Nuclear war between India and Pakistan not as unlikely as you think

Recalling international sanctions slapped on Pakistan after it tested a nuclear weapon in 1998, the board said Pakistan is a “pariah in the nuclear sphere to all but China.”

“Pakistan has done itself no favours by refusing to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and by giving nuclear know-how to bad actors like North Korea. Yet, it is seeking treatment equal to that given to India by the West,” it noted.

Claiming the US is not offering Pakistan an India-like generous nuclear cooperation deal that allowed New Delhi to buy American nuclear energy technology, the editorial quoted American officials as saying they are discussing what Pakistan needs to do to justify American support for its membership in the 48-nation Nuclear Supplier Group, which governs trade in nuclear fuel and technology.

Tactical nukes to counter India’s cold start doctrine: Aizaz

“As a first step, one American official said, Pakistan would have to stop pursuing tactical nuclear weapons, which are more likely to be used in a conflict with India and could more easily fall into the hands of terrorists, and halt development of long-range missiles. Pakistan should also sign the treaty banning nuclear weapons tests,” the editorial read.

“Such moves would undoubtedly be in Pakistan’s long-term interest. It cannot provide adequate services for its citizens because it spends about 25% of its budget on defense. Pakistan’s army, whose chief of staff is due to visit Washington this month, says it needs still more nuclear weapons to counter India’s conventional arsenal,” it added.

Further, the board advised that Pakistan’s competition with India, which is also adding its own nuclear arsenal, is “a losing game” and the country’s allies such as China “should be pushing Pakistan to accept that.”

No civil nuclear ‘deal’ being discussed with US, says Foreign Office

“Meanwhile, Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister, has done nothing to engage Islamabad on security issues, and he also bears responsibility for current tensions. The nuclear arms race in South Asia, which is growing more intense, demands far greater international attention,” the editorial concluded.

Pakistan presents danger to entire world: NYT editorial - The Express Tribune
Urging world powers to persuade Pakistan to rein in its nuclear weapons programme, The New York Times editorial board wrote on Sunday that the country presents a danger to the entire world.

“The fact that Pakistan is also home to a slew of extremist groups, some of which are backed by a paranoid security establishment obsessed with India, only adds to the dangers it presents for South Asia and, indeed, the entire world,” the editorial read.

Pakistan will become fifth largest nuclear power by 2025: report

The paper, recognising Pakistan’s fast growing nuclear arsenal and its status to become the world’s third-ranked nuclear power in a decade, said, “These are unsettling truths.”

“Persuading Pakistan to rein in its nuclear weapons program should be an international priority. The major world powers spent two years negotiating an agreement to restrain the nuclear ambitions of Iran, which doesn’t have a single nuclear weapon. Yet, there has been no comparable investment of effort in Pakistan, which, along with India, has so far refused to consider any limits at all,” it added.

Noting that there was no headway made during Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s recent visit to Washington despite the Obama administration beginning to address the “complicated issue with greater urgency and imagination”, the editorial said, “The odds of success seem small.”

PM to tell US it won’t accept limits on tactical nuclear arms

“Yet it would be wrong not to keep trying, especially at a time of heightened tensions between Pakistan and India over Kashmir and terrorism,” it added.

Regarding US striking a nuclear deal with Pakistan, the editorial board said, “What’s new about the administration’s approach is that instead of treating the situation as essentially hopeless, it is now casting about for the elements of a possible deal in which each side would get something it wants.”

“For the West, that means restraint by Pakistan and greater compliance with international rules for halting the spread of nuclear technology. For Pakistan, that means some acceptance in the family of nuclear powers and access to technology.”

Nuclear war between India and Pakistan not as unlikely as you think

Recalling international sanctions slapped on Pakistan after it tested a nuclear weapon in 1998, the board said Pakistan is a “pariah in the nuclear sphere to all but China.”

“Pakistan has done itself no favours by refusing to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and by giving nuclear know-how to bad actors like North Korea. Yet, it is seeking treatment equal to that given to India by the West,” it noted.

Claiming the US is not offering Pakistan an India-like generous nuclear cooperation deal that allowed New Delhi to buy American nuclear energy technology, the editorial quoted American officials as saying they are discussing what Pakistan needs to do to justify American support for its membership in the 48-nation Nuclear Supplier Group, which governs trade in nuclear fuel and technology.

Tactical nukes to counter India’s cold start doctrine: Aizaz

“As a first step, one American official said, Pakistan would have to stop pursuing tactical nuclear weapons, which are more likely to be used in a conflict with India and could more easily fall into the hands of terrorists, and halt development of long-range missiles. Pakistan should also sign the treaty banning nuclear weapons tests,” the editorial read.

“Such moves would undoubtedly be in Pakistan’s long-term interest. It cannot provide adequate services for its citizens because it spends about 25% of its budget on defense. Pakistan’s army, whose chief of staff is due to visit Washington this month, says it needs still more nuclear weapons to counter India’s conventional arsenal,” it added.

Further, the board advised that Pakistan’s competition with India, which is also adding its own nuclear arsenal, is “a losing game” and the country’s allies such as China “should be pushing Pakistan to accept that.”

No civil nuclear ‘deal’ being discussed with US, says Foreign Office

“Meanwhile, Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister, has done nothing to engage Islamabad on security issues, and he also bears responsibility for current tensions. The nuclear arms race in South Asia, which is growing more intense, demands far greater international attention,” the editorial concluded.

Pakistan presents danger to entire world: NYT editorial - The Express Tribune


They for got t
Urging world powers to persuade Pakistan to rein in its nuclear weapons programme, The New York Times editorial board wrote on Sunday that the country presents a danger to the entire world.

“The fact that Pakistan is also home to a slew of extremist groups, some of which are backed by a paranoid security establishment obsessed with India, only adds to the dangers it presents for South Asia and, indeed, the entire world,” the editorial read.

Pakistan will become fifth largest nuclear power by 2025: report

The paper, recognising Pakistan’s fast growing nuclear arsenal and its status to become the world’s third-ranked nuclear power in a decade, said, “These are unsettling truths.”

“Persuading Pakistan to rein in its nuclear weapons program should be an international priority. The major world powers spent two years negotiating an agreement to restrain the nuclear ambitions of Iran, which doesn’t have a single nuclear weapon. Yet, there has been no comparable investment of effort in Pakistan, which, along with India, has so far refused to consider any limits at all,” it added.

Noting that there was no headway made during Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s recent visit to Washington despite the Obama administration beginning to address the “complicated issue with greater urgency and imagination”, the editorial said, “The odds of success seem small.”

PM to tell US it won’t accept limits on tactical nuclear arms

“Yet it would be wrong not to keep trying, especially at a time of heightened tensions between Pakistan and India over Kashmir and terrorism,” it added.

Regarding US striking a nuclear deal with Pakistan, the editorial board said, “What’s new about the administration’s approach is that instead of treating the situation as essentially hopeless, it is now casting about for the elements of a possible deal in which each side would get something it wants.”

“For the West, that means restraint by Pakistan and greater compliance with international rules for halting the spread of nuclear technology. For Pakistan, that means some acceptance in the family of nuclear powers and access to technology.”

Nuclear war between India and Pakistan not as unlikely as you think

Recalling international sanctions slapped on Pakistan after it tested a nuclear weapon in 1998, the board said Pakistan is a “pariah in the nuclear sphere to all but China.”

“Pakistan has done itself no favours by refusing to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and by giving nuclear know-how to bad actors like North Korea. Yet, it is seeking treatment equal to that given to India by the West,” it noted.

Claiming the US is not offering Pakistan an India-like generous nuclear cooperation deal that allowed New Delhi to buy American nuclear energy technology, the editorial quoted American officials as saying they are discussing what Pakistan needs to do to justify American support for its membership in the 48-nation Nuclear Supplier Group, which governs trade in nuclear fuel and technology.

Tactical nukes to counter India’s cold start doctrine: Aizaz

“As a first step, one American official said, Pakistan would have to stop pursuing tactical nuclear weapons, which are more likely to be used in a conflict with India and could more easily fall into the hands of terrorists, and halt development of long-range missiles. Pakistan should also sign the treaty banning nuclear weapons tests,” the editorial read.

“Such moves would undoubtedly be in Pakistan’s long-term interest. It cannot provide adequate services for its citizens because it spends about 25% of its budget on defense. Pakistan’s army, whose chief of staff is due to visit Washington this month, says it needs still more nuclear weapons to counter India’s conventional arsenal,” it added.

Further, the board advised that Pakistan’s competition with India, which is also adding its own nuclear arsenal, is “a losing game” and the country’s allies such as China “should be pushing Pakistan to accept that.”

No civil nuclear ‘deal’ being discussed with US, says Foreign Office

“Meanwhile, Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister, has done nothing to engage Islamabad on security issues, and he also bears responsibility for current tensions. The nuclear arms race in South Asia, which is growing more intense, demands far greater international attention,” the editorial concluded.

Pakistan presents danger to entire world: NYT editorial - The Express Tribune


The article forgot to mention that Pakistani food stall owners selling biryani in Lahore are also a threat to the world.
 
They disarmed themselves to please the West. Saddam Hussein saw the white man as his god. The result of that tragedy will be there for many 1000s of years to come. I don't want the same fate for the Pakistani race. These people want every Muslim country to be militarily impotent.

Do you have a problem with the disbanding of Iraqi Army or a problem with Saddam Hussein? On one hand you seem to be suggesting that the current situation in Iraq is due to the fact that they disbanded the army after operation Iraqi Freedom, and on the other you seem to be saying that Saddam Hussein was a Western puppet (which he was at one point of time). Saddam's military was once armed and funded by America. The larger problem was, and will remain, the chronic hatred and distrust of everyone else that is the hallmark of middle-eastern society. Unless they change that, nothing will be better.
 
Can you even afford it ? Do you have any idea where your economy is going ? IMF grudgingly agreed for yet another round of loan, with the suggestion of devaluation of Pakistani currency by a figure as high as 20%. Do you know what that means ?

It means eating grass, this
Can you even afford it ? Do you have any idea where your economy is going ? IMF grudgingly agreed for yet another round of loan, with the suggestion of devaluation of Pakistani currency by a figure as high as 20%. Do you know what that means ?

It means eating grass, this time, literally.


Eating grass is far better than having 40% of the world's most severely malnourished and most impoverished people living in your nation
Do you have a problem with the disbanding of Iraqi Army or a problem with Saddam Hussein? On one hand you seem to be suggesting that the current situation in Iraq is due to the fact that they disbanded the army after operation Iraqi Freedom, and on the other you seem to be saying that Saddam Hussein was a Western puppet (which he was at one point of time). Saddam's military was once armed and funded by America. The larger problem was, and will remain, the chronic hatred and distrust of everyone else that is the hallmark of middle-eastern society. Unless they change that, nothing will be better.


Point is the Iraqis didn't have any nukes or strategic weapons. As a result they have been destroyed. The americans and indians want to do the same to us.
 
Eating grass is far better than having 40% of the world's most severely malnourished and most impoverished people living in your nation
Trying to make sweeping statements ehh ? Why don't you read again what you just wrote there ?
 
Do you have a problem with the disbanding of Iraqi Army or a problem with Saddam Hussein? On one hand you seem to be suggesting that the current situation in Iraq is due to the fact that they disbanded the army after operation Iraqi Freedom, and on the other you seem to be saying that Saddam Hussein was a Western puppet (which he was at one point of time). Saddam's military was once armed and funded by America. The larger problem was, and will remain, the chronic hatred and distrust of everyone else that is the hallmark of middle-eastern society. Unless they change that, nothing will be better.

Everyone seems to forget that Saddam invaded kuwait and was a threat to every oil state in ME.
 
Thats the way mates good going Pakistan and the tone of this article is more conciliatory than offensive like they are currently willing to negotiate a nuke deal in return for Pakistan not sharing its nuke expertise especially regarding state of the art smart nukes . We should keep investing in more sophisticated and smaller nukes and bring world on a point where they realize Kashmir resolve is inevitable .

Our nukes will make sure our voice is recognized and heard .

Indians here should understand clearly we have no issue with India or hindus except kashmir and possessing worlds fastest growing nuke program with advanced delivery mechanisms both from air and ground shows how much serious we are about Kashmir.

Had we ever had any intention of letting Kashmir go we wouldnt have tested our nukes in 98 and would have accepted bilions and many other beneifits.

Unfortunately Indian populace in general and their policy makers in particular are unable to read writing on the wall and chose to stay blind to the fact that Kashmir dispute has to be resolved as per kashmiries wishes and Pakistan will make sure it happens otherwise we dont need to spend billions on defence and nukes.

If likes of Modi remains in office the time of mass hindu cremation is not far.
 
1. What's the point of assuming? When it's crystal clear that this government doesn't run the foreign policy..wouldn't you agree that its a waste of exercise in engaging the civilian setup if you were in India's position?.

2. There are clear beacons or landmarks of performance available when it comes to terrorism - Dawood, Hafiz Sayeed, Lakhvi, Tiger memon, Bhatkal brothers of IM, Mohd azar of JUM, Salauddin of HUM..A few khalistani leaders etc. Action against them will count as action against anti India terrorism and will have a declining effect against terrorism.

The first step of course would be to accept that pakistani soil is being used for terrorism against India ..and these individuals are to be tried for cross border terrorism.

As for your point about assuming - a moment might present itself any time. We should always be ready to seize it. Those who wish for peace should be as agile as those wishing for strife. About action against Dawood, etc, I don't say I disagree with you. But then the Indian government should also have a return gift ready. An "offer to talk" is not much of a gift, is it? Maybe declaring Balochistan to be an internal Pakistani issue, along with military support against TTP? Something inventive and out of the box might help.
 
Eating grass is far better than having 40% of the world's most severely malnourished and most impoverished people living in your

Poor and malnourished on whose parameters?

A family of four earning 5 dollars or 280 rs a day or 8400 rs a month isn't exactly starving or isn't well off too..malnourished by western standards when the majority does not consume red meat or fish would not be an ideal parameter...though no Indian will disagree that we do not have poverty.

What's wrong if the west or Americans of Indians think of disbanding pakistan of its nukes..especially when pakistan is proved to be reckless country that has gone to war numerous times..or proliferated it's nukes to reckless states like Libya or North korea..or unleashed terrorist attacks on neighbors and has enough terrorists and terrorist groups to be a real danger or threatens now and again to nuke a democratic growing country that is far more important to the world than pakistan?...its just a hypothetical question.
 
if they are worried then we are on the right track
 
Ohh I disagree with Saddam's action on lot many counts but not that one.

I was appealing to the Pakistani sentiments towards kuwait and the other princely states of the ME...Saddam was danger to their friends.
 
Everyone seems to forget that Saddam invaded kuwait and was a threat to every oil state in ME.

Look, for the longest of times I was anti-Saddam and anti-Gaddafi. What is there not to despise in despotic scumbags who murder their own people? But around the time of the Arab Spring, a bitter truth began to sink in - the Islamists are going to hijack the process and the whole region will burn. That is precisely what happened. Trying to create modern nations out of tribes and clans that hate each other is easier said than done. Saddam would have done okay, if not for two major miscalculations - invading Kuwait and killing Kurds. He made these miscalculations as the West had given him a free hand during the entire time that he was fighting a murderous war against the Iranians. The Americans like to believe that the Iranians are zealots who just hate America. If your country is subject to a ten-year war by a murderous dictator backed by America, then anyone would be anti-American.
 
Look, for the longest of times I was anti-Saddam and anti-Gaddafi. What is there not to despise in despotic scumbags who murder their own people? But around the time of the Arab Spring, a bitter truth began to sink in - the Islamists are going to hijack the process and the whole region will burn. That is precisely what happened. Trying to create modern nations out of tribes and clans that hate each other is easier said than done. Saddam would have done okay, if not for two major miscalculations - invading Kuwait and killing Kurds. He made these miscalculations as the West had given him a free hand during the entire time that he was fighting a murderous war against the Iranians. The Americans like to believe that the Iranians are zealots who just hate America. If your country is subject to a ten-year war by a murderous dictator backed by America, then anyone would be anti-American.

The americans were upset with the Iranians for the embassy attack..just like the 9/11 turned the Muslim world upside down..of course the americans are the biggest bigots around. ..but when one possesses trillions and runs the world's economy and the world's banks and heads multiple countries and has thousands of nukes and trillions worth of weapons and machinery..One expects them to wreck havoc for killing 3000 of their citizens in such a dramatic manner..

P.S. I am in no way justifying theit killings or their actions, I would expect the same kind or rage from Russia or China at the present moment.
 
I am afraid snide remarks do not help. Setting aside Kashmir issue for a second, has the Indian government been able to make a realistic case before the international community that it has done all it can/should do to ensure that there is no military threat from India to Pakistan? If you think that Pakistan's nuclear policy is reckless, give a thought to the fact that the Indian government's reaction to it has been to pretend it does not exist. Is that any less reckless?
It is an effective counter, don't you think? :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom