Pakistan's growing arsenal NYT editorial

[Ifteqar Aisan]

So the writer is trying to say that, illegal US wars & continuos killings of Israel in Palestine & Indian killing in Kashmir is all ok, but Pakistan advancing in nukes is not ok?

What does Israel and Kashmir have to do with our nuclear weapons? Can we put an end to this auto-reaction mode nonsense?

 

[ito]

Any deal is which "each side would get something it wants" is the best practical way forward. It all depends on whether such common grounds can be found.

Unless, US get some sort of control over Pakistan nukes that include limits to new nuclear bomb production, I don't see any nuclear deal between US and Pakistan.

 

[Areesh]

Pakistan is going the right way and doing the right thing if the guys(Amreekis) who screwed whole world considers it as a danger to the whole world. Keep it up Pakistan.

 

[Ifteqar Aisan]

I have a better suggestion. Why doesn't Pakistan increase it's conventional military strength so that it's 1:1.

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?

 

[Husnainshah]

Kashmir issue will cease to exist, the minute Pakistan stop supporting insurgencies in Kashmir.

There's enough mistrust on both sides to dismiss such a condition straightaway. Say Pakistan stops supporting pro-Pakistan elements in Kashmir, who is to say Indian establishment wouldn't go after them there and then?
Not many pro-Pakistan elements in Kashmir would trust Pakistan should Pakistan go through with such a condition.
It's lethal for Pakistani interests in Kashmir. Not gonna happen.

As regarding Kashmir, I don't see any sense for India to come to table for Pakistan. In fact, it is in India's interest to keep Kashmir issue alive as it will keep Pakistan in perpetual underdeveloped and as a military state.

Internal Destability has played a greater role in Pakistan underdevelopment than Kashmir- Be it Martial law, conspiracy against Civilian Administrations, Protests, Radicalization etc. That is not to say Afghanistan and Kashmir hasn't effected Pakistan's development though. Pakistan's bound to succeed with or without a peaceful Afghanistan and Kashmir, it's only a matter of time. With successive Civilian Governments, Military loses it's influence over National and Foreign Affairs to Civilian Administrations gradually. I'd agree with your original point though, it's in India's interest to keep Kashmir Issue alive for Destabilizing Pakistan as long as possible.

 

[A.M.]

Let's break down this kindergarten level article:

"With as many as 120 warheads, Pakistan could in a decade become the world’s third-ranked nuclear power, behind the United States and Russia, but ahead of China, France and Britain."

A lot of things could happen but the truth is that Pakistan likely wants to reach a certain threshold of nukes and keep it consistent afterwards. I'm certain that SPD has the total number of nukes finalized and i'm certain that the CIA has a fairly good idea of what that number might be.

"Its arsenal is growing faster than any other country’s, and it has become even more lethal in recent years with the addition of small tactical nuclear weapons that can hit India and longer-range nuclear missiles that can reach farther."

How do nukes become more lethal? More effective and tactical, yes.

"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."

Interesting statement considering we have fought several wars with India and have been close to doing so on a few other occasions. India's foreign policy has been clear towards Pakistan and being the smaller nation, we need to take extreme measures to protect ourselves.

"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."

Why isn't the article labeled "Pakistan and India present danger to the world?" Hypocrisy.

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

Over the past decade, terrorism has been at an all time low in Kashmir.

"Pakistan is a pariah in the nuclear sphere to all but China; it has been punished internationally ever since it followed India’s example and tested a weapon in 1998"

More hypocrisy on the part of the world.

"Pakistan should also sign the treaty banning nuclear weapons tests."

The one that India didn't sign? Hypocrisy.

"Such moves would undoubtedly be in Pakistan’s long-term interest."

And how? This is like the US moving its troops out of South Korea and telling them that it is undoubtedly in your long-term interest.

"Meanwhile, Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister, has done nothing to engage Islamabad on security issues, and he also bears responsibility for current tensions."

Thank you to the author for burying this line all the way at the end of the article where no one will probably read it.

 

[Ifteqar Aisan]

Unless, US get some sort of control over Pakistan nukes that include limits to new nuclear bomb production, I don't see any nuclear deal between US and Pakistan.

The question is, since Pakistani nukes are only meant for the destruction of India, what is India doing about it? Trying to campaign against Pakistani nukes is not enough. India must become a part of the solution by proposing measures that prevent Pakistan from having any further excuse to proceed on this path. Barring Kashmir issue, there is no other issue between the parties that is not resolvable within the next year. At least Indian government should ensure that first?

 

[ito]

There's enough mistrust on both sides to dismiss such a condition straightaway. Say Pakistan stops supporting pro-Pakistan elements in Kashmir, who is to say Indian establishment wouldn't go after them there and then?
Not many pro-Pakistan elements in Kashmir would trust Pakistan should Pakistan go through with such a condition.
It's lethal for Pakistani interests in Kashmir. Not gonna happen.



Internal Destability has played a greater role in Pakistan underdevelopment than Kashmir- Be it Martial law, conspiracy against Civilian Administrations, Protests, Radicalization etc. That is not to say Afghanistan and Kashmir hasn't effected Pakistan's development though. Pakistan's bound to succeed with or without a peaceful Afghanistan and Kashmir, it's only a matter of time. With successive Civilian Governments, Military loses it's influence over National and Foreign Affairs to Civilian Administrations gradually. I'd agree with your original point though, it's in India's interest to keep Kashmir Issue alive for Destabilizing Pakistan as long as possible.

Kashmir is the root cause of all the ills of Pakistan...you have a choice. It is up to you.

 

[Goenitz]

@Neutron
there is a video of Gne Rahil sharif in Madina, and people are urging to resolve occupied kashmir...

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153497413229130

 

[ito]

The question is, since Pakistani nukes are only meant for the destruction of India, what is India doing about it? Trying to campaign against Pakistani nukes is not enough. India must become a part of the solution by proposing measures that prevent Pakistan from having any further excuse to proceed on this path. Barring Kashmir issue, there is no other issue between the parties that is not resolvable within the next year. At least Indian government should ensure that first?

India has China to take care too. Pakistan is not the only concern that India has. You should start with China.

 

[ganesh623]

Kashmir is the Nuclear flash-point between Pakistan and india. Resolve this issue as early as possible considering sufferings of people of Kashmir.
One more suggestion for India is to reduce conventional military strength to 1:1 against Pakistan.
Develop your economy and focus on regional peace through cooperation and peaceful resolution of disputes.

When it comes to resolving, all the issues should be resolved why just kashmir ?
Balochistan, sindhudesh, azad kashmir. Parts ceded by pakistan to china.
Everything will come on table and needs to be resolved.

 

[Paksanity]

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

Pakistani nuclear weapons have successfully averted war and ensured peace in the region on more than one occasion. They have proved beyond doubt that they are weapons of peace due to their deterrence value. Someone likes it or not, we are keeping 'em. And we will continue to develop them in all forms, strategic, tactical, naval or whatever the situation demands. They ensure peace for our people and hence are invaluable and non-negotiable.

P.S. Suddenly there is rise in such articles. Did we piss US off that bad recently when they wanted to offer us nuclear deal?

 

[SipahSalar]

I don't know if Pakistan presents a danger to the world. But I do know that Pakistan can most definitely ruin India.

If India ever tries to harm Pakistan in anyway, inshaAllah we will burn every inch of India. Their children will be born with 3 legs and mishapen eyes for 1000 years. Their childrens children will have no place to call home. And even their children will starve throughout their lives.

 

[south block]

India didn't give up Kashmir when it was bankrupt back in 90s & some people think India will give it now on silver plate after its economy is 8 times bigger & will be 10 times buy the end of this decade if this isn't height of delusion than I don't know what is only loser in the arm race will be Pakistan & is already feeling its effect on the economic front

 

[Ifteqar Aisan]

India has China to take care too. Pakistan is not the only concern that India has. You should start with China.

I acknowledge that India has China to worry about. But please realize one thing - India treats the call by foreign governments to resolve the Kashmir issue bilaterally as some sort of victory. It is not. Unless foreign governments are involved in the dispute resolution process between the two countries, it will not serve anyone's purpose. Take the issues of terrorism and the water dispute. Don't the two governments make conflicting claims on these subjects? India says that it has done all that it can on the water issue, Pakistan disagrees. Pakistan says it is doing all that it requires to do on the terror front, India disagrees. Who will ultimately decide these issues? Leave aside Kashmir for a moment, why can't there be a fast-track on sorting out these other issues atleast? What is the point of pushing Pakistan into a corner whereupon it has nothing to lose and sees virtue in reckless behaviour instead?