$100 billion for Pakistan to abolish nuclear weapons

[Shoaib_Sham]

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.

Lets say even if we get nuclear free South Asia. In that case Pakistan will be worse off then India. Our nuclear strenght is the ultimate deterence to growing Indian conventional military power. We have no other option than to own these babies even if India decides to become nuke free country (which obviously is not a possible scenario).

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

A more reasonable approach would be to progressively broaden US/Western economic and social cooperation with Pakistan, with the conditions of continuation of democracy.

The problem in Pakistan isn't her nuclear weapons, it is the instability and lack of continuity in institutions. Trying to tie in nuclear weapons to engagement only complicates the situation, with no major gains in terms of stabilizing the country.

A stable and progressive Pakistan poses no threat, with or without nuclear weapons, therefore the article is inherently flawed in that sense.

 

[fatman17]

A more reasonable approach would be to progressively broaden US/Western economic and social cooperation with Pakistan, with the conditions of continuation of democracy.

The problem in Pakistan isn't her nuclear weapons, it is the instability and lack of continuity in institutions. Trying to tie in nuclear weapons to engagement only complicates the situation, with no major gains in terms of stabilizing the country.

A stable and progressive Pakistan poses no threat, with or without nuclear weapons, therefore the article is inherently flawed in that sense.

isnt that the biden-luger or biden bill being proposed to the next US congress.

 

[Patriot]

This is bullshit.US will not help us even if we're under US Nuclear Umbrella..Anyway don't worry Zardari can't sell nukes..

 

[IceCold]

It will be better if such a deal is offered to India instead, why because the next US target is China and for that they need to have a greater partnership with India, Pakistan doesnt fit into the equation, also just because zardari is in government and you can see him every now and then in the US getting dictations, the average Pakistani takes US as a possible next threat for Pakistan, a threat which is far bigger then the one posed by India and it wouldnt be far fetched to think that sooner then latter the present regime will have to distance it self from the US or perhaps will meet the same faith as the mushrraf government did in the next election or maybe even before considering the situation isnt very idle for them in the first place.

 

[Beskar]

Ahhh now they think we should sell our Nuclear Arsenal?

With fancy equipment like the F-35, M1A1, AH-64, and a Non-Nuclear Pakistan, what EXACTLY are we going to do with them? Try to scare India with flyby's?

Thanks, but NO Thanks. The only reason why this nation is still living after 1999 with it's precious four provinces as Pakistan, is because of our Nuclear strength. We terminate our programme, we terminate our respect, pride, and honour.

They might as well ask for our balls and guts too. Stupid bastards!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

isnt that the biden-luger or biden bill being proposed to the next US congress.

Exactly!

Again, the nuclear weapons are not a problem, it is the collapse of a state of 170 million people, with or without weapons, that is.

Raising the issue of WMD's in Pakistan is just an attempt to distract from the real issues, and the tougher, longer term solutions.

 

[mhacsan]

its a matter of respect and dignity for the country, its same as sell your mother for few bugs. dealing with 100 billion means getting us rid of security on what we are proud of as a nation. taking a wheel out of a vehicle will derail it one way or other.

but i say it is our own weaknesses that other point fingures on us. we kept asking for aid, begging, n bowing infornt of others for money. let them know that we are the proud nation and we will never sell our motherland. we are not Amercians we are Pakistanis. the nation which made million of sacrifices when pakistan was created we will not let our ancestors blood go to waste. INSHALLAH.

May ALLAH bless and secure Pakistan, as our leaders has no abilities to do so - except ISI and Military

Long live Pakistan

 

[Vinod2070]

Exactly!

Again, the nuclear weapons are not a problem, it is the collapse of a state of 170 million people, with or without weapons, that is.

Raising the issue of WMD's in Pakistan is just an attempt to distract from the real issues, and the tougher, longer term solutions.

With weapons and without weapons makes a big difference.

In the latter case it is a problem for the country and it's neighbors only.

 

[jeypore]

$100 billion for Pakistan to abolish nuclear weapons?
By Masood Haider
Wednesday, 17 Dec, 2008 | 03:16 AM PST |


NEW YORK: The United States and other Western donors should agree to a $100 billion economic package for Pakistan provided it ‘verifiably eliminates its entire nuclear stockpile and industrial base that sustains it,’ proposes a opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal Tuesday.
The writer, Bret Stephens,had interviewed President Asif Zardari during his recent visit to the United Nations where Mr Zardari made repeated appeals for financial aid from the international community. Stephens suggests that a $100 billion should be ‘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 US provides Israel: F-35 fighters, M-1 tanks, Apache helicopters. The US would also extend its nuclear umbrella to Pakistan, just as Hillary Clinton now proposes to do for Israel.

The Wall Street Journal, a conservative business newspaper, is generally considered to echo the thinking of a powerful segment of think tanks and opinion makers in the United States.
Stephens posits that such an undertaking by the next Obama administration could work, pointing out that ‘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’, he says.
In Stephens view ‘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?’
‘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,’ he asserts.

DAWN.COM | Pakistan | $100 billion for Pakistan to abolish nuclear weapons

these assholes are desperates for our nukes

I would take the money, make the country sound financially, then later on build my nuclear program secretly. Why not eat the pudding and the pie.

 

[TOPGUN]

Haha yea right & let your country attack ? plzz we are not born yesterday thx!

 

[Imran Khan]

I would take the money, make the country sound financially, then later on build my nuclear program secretly. Why not eat the pudding and the pie.

or keep only three bombs secretly and finish all of others

100bn$ with three nuclear bonbs

 

[JK!]

Topgun if the threat of attackwas not there I quite like the devilry of that option.

 

[TOPGUN]

Jk boss thats the whole thing the threat will always be there my friend and yes there nature is 2 face one agreed with epool !!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

With weapons and without weapons makes a big difference.

In the latter case it is a problem for the country and it's neighbors only.

Either way you are looking at huge problems through extremism, crime violence and terrorism through conventional weapons.

The major issue here should be prevention of collapse, not nuclear weapons.