$100 billion for Pakistan to abolish nuclear weapons
- Thread starter was
- Start date
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Wait a second - a US nuclear umbrella, didn't the US run away from 'intervening' during the 1971 war?
The US relationship with India is far better now, so what credibility does such an offer hold for Pakistan anyway?
The US relationship with India is far better now, so what credibility does such an offer hold for Pakistan anyway?
orion
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2008
- Messages
- 91
- Reaction score
- 0
How about they offer it to India and Pakistan simultaneously? Anyways the whole idea is crap,saudis and libyans hardly had anything to start with and as far as the arabs go they wuld rather pay and get their jobs done than work hard for it themselves...too much hassle!
This is a (so to assume) smart move to make Washington the nuclear capital of the world with all subservent to its will.
This is a (so to assume) smart move to make Washington the nuclear capital of the world with all subservent to its will.
Kharian_Beast
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2008
- Messages
- 1,645
- Reaction score
- 0
Agreed, but even the cure for symptoms is not easy to swallow. If they offer the same to India and Israel then it is workable. Israel gets to be under the nuclear umbrella and enjoy all sorts of packages and deals while secretly having nukes, they are a threat to Pakistan as well.
Imran Khan
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 68,815
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
$100 billion?
Wow...its a lot better than 120 A-7's we were offered in 1977 for same deal.
Thanks but no thanks. Nuclear free SA or no deal!
see there think sir if we take this daed horse in 1977 what we do with today?
but today our nukes protect us.may be we take 100bn today but after 20 years we think why we do that.
remember our leader can eat 10bn$ per 6 months see our reserves in 2007 and 2008.
Imran Khan
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 68,815
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
nothing but we wait wait and wait at war time and they never come just they make drama same like 71.there is no garenty because low of jungle.
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Without a resolution of the Kashmir dispute, or a 'Nuclear Free South Asia' (as Neo suggested) I think agreeing to such a proposal will be political suicide for any government.
*Speculation*
I do have a suspicion that, given the cuts in the Strategic Plans Division (SPD) and reported refusal to test various new systems, that the Zardari government has agreed to implement some sort of slowdown or cap on Pakistan's strategic programs, through budgetary pressures.
Of course the cut in the SPD budget could also be due to the economic situation - the Zardari government has had to cut development expenses and other programs as well, so we should still give it the benefit of the doubt on that count.
And the refusal to test certain systems could be a result of the whole 'friendship and peace with India' Tamasha, but I think post Mumbai the Tamasha is a flop and there is no reason to delay testing anymore.
*Speculation*
I do have a suspicion that, given the cuts in the Strategic Plans Division (SPD) and reported refusal to test various new systems, that the Zardari government has agreed to implement some sort of slowdown or cap on Pakistan's strategic programs, through budgetary pressures.
Of course the cut in the SPD budget could also be due to the economic situation - the Zardari government has had to cut development expenses and other programs as well, so we should still give it the benefit of the doubt on that count.
And the refusal to test certain systems could be a result of the whole 'friendship and peace with India' Tamasha, but I think post Mumbai the Tamasha is a flop and there is no reason to delay testing anymore.
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
The complete article:
Let's Buy Pakistan's Nukes
By BRET STEPHENS
Every visitor to Pakistan has seen them: 20-foot tall roadside replicas of a remote mountain where, a decade ago, Pakistan conducted its first overt nuclear tests. This is what the country's leaders -- military, secular, Islamist -- consider their greatest achievement.
A model of Chaghi mountain, the site of Pakistan's nuclear test.
So here's a modest proposal: Let's buy their arsenal.
A.Q. Khan, father of Pakistan's nuclear program (and midwife to a few others), likes to point out what a feat it was that a country "where we can't even make a bicycle chain" could succeed at such an immense technological task. He exaggerates somewhat: Pakistan got its bomb largely through a combination of industrial theft, systematic violation of Western export controls, and a blueprint of a weapon courtesy of Beijing.
Still, give Mr. Khan this: Thanks partly to his efforts, a country that has impoverished the great mass of its own people, corruptly enriched a tiny handful of elites, served as a base of terrorism against its neighbors, lost control of its intelligence services, radicalized untold numbers of Muslims in its madrassas, handed the presidency to a man known as Mr. 10%, and proliferated nuclear technology to Libya and Iran (among others) has, nevertheless, made itself a power to be reckoned with. Congratulations.
But if Pakistanis thought a bomb would be a net national asset, they miscalculated. Yes, Islamabad gained parity with its adversaries in New Delhi, gained prestige in the Muslim world, and gained a day of national pride, celebrated every May 28.
What Pakistan didn't gain was greater security. "The most significant reality was that the bomb promoted a culture of violence which . . . acquired the form of a monster with innumerable heads of terror," wrote Pakistani nuclear physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy earlier this year. "Because of this bomb, we can definitely destroy India and be destroyed in its response. But its function is limited to this."
In 2007, some 1,500 Pakistani civilians were killed in terrorist attacks. None of those attacks were perpetrated by India or any other country against which Pakistan's warheads could be targeted, unless it aimed at itself. But Pakistan's nuclear arsenal has made it an inviting target for the jihadists who blew up Islamabad's Marriott hotel in September and would gladly blow up the rest of the capital as a prelude to taking it over.
The day that happens may not be so very far off. President Asif Ali Zardari was recently in the U.S. asking for $100 billion to stave off economic collapse. So far, the international community has ponied up about $15 billion. That puts Mr. Zardari $85 billion shy of his fund-raising target. Meantime, the average Taliban foot soldier brings home monthly wages that are 30% higher than uniformed Pakistani security personnel.
Preventing the disintegration of Pakistan, perhaps in the wake of a war with India (how much restraint will New Delhi show after the next Mumbai-style atrocity?), will be the Obama administration's most urgent foreign-policy challenge. Since Mr. Obama has already committed a trillion or so in new domestic spending, what's $100 billion in the cause of saving the world?
This is the deal I have in mind. The government of Pakistan would verifiably eliminate its entire nuclear stockpile and the industrial base that sustains it. In exchange, the U.S. and other Western donors would agree to a $100 billion economic package, administered by an independent authority and disbursed over 10 years, on condition that Pakistan remain a democratic and secular state (no military rulers; no Sharia law). It would supplement that package with military aid similar to what the U.S. provides Israel: F-35 fighters, M-1 tanks, Apache helicopters. The U.S. would also extend its nuclear umbrella to Pakistan, just as Hillary Clinton now proposes to do for Israel.
A pipe dream? Not necessarily. People forget that the world has subtracted more nuclear powers over the past two decades than it has added: Kazakhstan, Belarus, Ukraine and South Africa all voluntarily relinquished their stockpiles in the 1990s. Libya did away with its program in 2003 when Moammar Gadhafi concluded that a bomb would be a net liability, and that he had more to gain by coming to terms with the West.
There's no compelling reason Mr. Zardari and his military brass shouldn't reach the same conclusion, assuming excellent terms and desperate circumstances. Sure, a large segment of Pakistanis will never agree. Others, who have subsisted on a diet of leaves and grass so Pakistan could have its bomb, might take a more pragmatic view.
The tragedy of Pakistan is that it remains a country that can't do the basics, like make a bicycle chain. If what its leaders want is prestige, prosperity and lasting security, they could start by creating an economy that can make one -- while unlearning how to make the bomb.
Let's Buy Pakistan's Nukes - WSJ.com
Let's Buy Pakistan's Nukes
By BRET STEPHENS
Every visitor to Pakistan has seen them: 20-foot tall roadside replicas of a remote mountain where, a decade ago, Pakistan conducted its first overt nuclear tests. This is what the country's leaders -- military, secular, Islamist -- consider their greatest achievement.
A model of Chaghi mountain, the site of Pakistan's nuclear test.
So here's a modest proposal: Let's buy their arsenal.
A.Q. Khan, father of Pakistan's nuclear program (and midwife to a few others), likes to point out what a feat it was that a country "where we can't even make a bicycle chain" could succeed at such an immense technological task. He exaggerates somewhat: Pakistan got its bomb largely through a combination of industrial theft, systematic violation of Western export controls, and a blueprint of a weapon courtesy of Beijing.
Still, give Mr. Khan this: Thanks partly to his efforts, a country that has impoverished the great mass of its own people, corruptly enriched a tiny handful of elites, served as a base of terrorism against its neighbors, lost control of its intelligence services, radicalized untold numbers of Muslims in its madrassas, handed the presidency to a man known as Mr. 10%, and proliferated nuclear technology to Libya and Iran (among others) has, nevertheless, made itself a power to be reckoned with. Congratulations.
But if Pakistanis thought a bomb would be a net national asset, they miscalculated. Yes, Islamabad gained parity with its adversaries in New Delhi, gained prestige in the Muslim world, and gained a day of national pride, celebrated every May 28.
What Pakistan didn't gain was greater security. "The most significant reality was that the bomb promoted a culture of violence which . . . acquired the form of a monster with innumerable heads of terror," wrote Pakistani nuclear physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy earlier this year. "Because of this bomb, we can definitely destroy India and be destroyed in its response. But its function is limited to this."
In 2007, some 1,500 Pakistani civilians were killed in terrorist attacks. None of those attacks were perpetrated by India or any other country against which Pakistan's warheads could be targeted, unless it aimed at itself. But Pakistan's nuclear arsenal has made it an inviting target for the jihadists who blew up Islamabad's Marriott hotel in September and would gladly blow up the rest of the capital as a prelude to taking it over.
The day that happens may not be so very far off. President Asif Ali Zardari was recently in the U.S. asking for $100 billion to stave off economic collapse. So far, the international community has ponied up about $15 billion. That puts Mr. Zardari $85 billion shy of his fund-raising target. Meantime, the average Taliban foot soldier brings home monthly wages that are 30% higher than uniformed Pakistani security personnel.
Preventing the disintegration of Pakistan, perhaps in the wake of a war with India (how much restraint will New Delhi show after the next Mumbai-style atrocity?), will be the Obama administration's most urgent foreign-policy challenge. Since Mr. Obama has already committed a trillion or so in new domestic spending, what's $100 billion in the cause of saving the world?
This is the deal I have in mind. The government of Pakistan would verifiably eliminate its entire nuclear stockpile and the industrial base that sustains it. In exchange, the U.S. and other Western donors would agree to a $100 billion economic package, administered by an independent authority and disbursed over 10 years, on condition that Pakistan remain a democratic and secular state (no military rulers; no Sharia law). It would supplement that package with military aid similar to what the U.S. provides Israel: F-35 fighters, M-1 tanks, Apache helicopters. The U.S. would also extend its nuclear umbrella to Pakistan, just as Hillary Clinton now proposes to do for Israel.
A pipe dream? Not necessarily. People forget that the world has subtracted more nuclear powers over the past two decades than it has added: Kazakhstan, Belarus, Ukraine and South Africa all voluntarily relinquished their stockpiles in the 1990s. Libya did away with its program in 2003 when Moammar Gadhafi concluded that a bomb would be a net liability, and that he had more to gain by coming to terms with the West.
There's no compelling reason Mr. Zardari and his military brass shouldn't reach the same conclusion, assuming excellent terms and desperate circumstances. Sure, a large segment of Pakistanis will never agree. Others, who have subsisted on a diet of leaves and grass so Pakistan could have its bomb, might take a more pragmatic view.
The tragedy of Pakistan is that it remains a country that can't do the basics, like make a bicycle chain. If what its leaders want is prestige, prosperity and lasting security, they could start by creating an economy that can make one -- while unlearning how to make the bomb.
Let's Buy Pakistan's Nukes - WSJ.com
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Quite frankly, reading the tone of Bret Stephens article, and the plethora of inaccuracies, the following response is probably the most suitable:
TOPGUN
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2006
- Messages
- 8,689
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Yea do this so anyone can attack us specialy our enemies ! just waiting for it to happen this is a nightmare to dream about never should happen and never will happen and i hope it doesnt happen these nukes are our pride or protecters it shall stay this way! if that the case then all Nuke nations should get paid and get rid of there nukes !!
Imran Khan
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 68,815
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
first they offer us 100bn$ for finish our nukes then they offer us to give them 200bn for defend us .wow
