Levina
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2013
- Messages
- 15,278
- Reaction score
- 59
- Country
- Location
Time will tell...well trust me, dont expect much from your current leadership ... because things have changed beyond the expectations
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Time will tell...well trust me, dont expect much from your current leadership ... because things have changed beyond the expectations
Time will tell...
Have you read his other comments on other issues? He lives in his own world.
By the way I am not commenting on the issue at hand as I don't know how influential NYT is, But this Op-Ed seem to be a fallout of Gen Kidwai, a Pakistan military general, brazen boasting of Pakistan nuclear capability recently at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Pakistan is hardly alone in its potential to cause regional instability. China, which considers Pakistan a close ally and India a potential threat, is continuing to build up its nuclear arsenal, now estimated at 250 weapons, while all three countries are moving ahead with plans to deploy nuclear weapons at sea in the Indian Ocean.
This is not a situation that can be ignored by the major powers, however preoccupied they may be by the long negotiations with Iran.
First, concerns about Pakistan’s programmes will be spread through the media and diplomatic channels. Then, Islamabad would be pressed to give assurances and accept constraints ostensibly to assuage these ‘concerns’.
Next, an effort would be made to translate these restraints and restrictions into binding commitments, including through the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group, the IAEA and the UN Security Council.
If Pakistan then ‘violates’ such restrictions, it would be subjected to multilateral or unilateral sanctions.
Time to end our obsession with INdian and Iranian situation.
they are totally different from us at many different levels.
Pakistan will be in good books of the West as long as we play our part to stabilize FATA and perhaps Yemen.
You are proposing sending our troops to Yemen ???
you got it Sir.
you got it Sir.
Obviously the Houthis if not countered now will soon land in Karachi in their amphibious assault ships
Obviously the Houthis if not countered now will soon land in Karachi in their amphibious assault ships
Obviously the Houthis if not countered now will soon land in Karachi in their amphibious assault ships
Khotiyon ki itni auqat ho he na jai.Obviously the Houthis if not countered now will soon land in Karachi in their amphibious assault ships
You may be conflating two separate arguments.
Argument #1: Pakistan has, for awhile, argued for NSG membership. Mr. Kidwai was pushing his argument, i.e., nuclear weapons in South Asia have brought peace and stability in the region.
Argument #2: NYT's argument is, "billions of dollars wasted on these (nuclear) systems would be better spent investing in health, education and jobs for Pakistan’s people". Nothing wrong with this line of thought except it ignores the broader question of regional stability which is where Mr. Kidwai's argument begins.
More importantly, NYT raised alarm on nuclear deployments in the Indian Ocean from all three regional powers (China, India, Pakistan). Here's the relevant bit:
Ergo, NYT is pushing for a more broader debate than just the NSG membership of Pakistan. It may happen or it may not. As I mentioned previously that due to proliferation risks it is difficult (impossible?) to completely denuclearize a nation-state once it has crossed a certain threshold which Pakistan has hundreds of times over and is about to with second-strike capability. Hence, if Pakistan agrees to restrict nuclear deployments in the Indian Ocean, it could end up with a NSG membership, i.e., a grand bargain.
The gentleman, former Pakistan ambassador to the UN, who penned this article seems to be against any 'constraints', as he noted:
In his assessment, arguments of 'constraint' are a slippery slope and should be avoided. Hence he is in the first camp, i.e., regional security is better maintained with nuclear weapons.
@A1Kaid: Your thoughts?
Nuclear weapons are a threat to world not to a region.
The key is with US. China, North Korea and Russia have nukes because US has. India has because China has and Pakistan has because India has. So sub regional agreements won’t work (such as among India, China and Pakistan)
As on Kidwai,
First, Kidwai should have remembered that he was taking at a peace conference.
First: By making India specific threats he made Pakistan came across as a state that is threat to peace in this region (the title of the NYT Op-Ed also reflects the same). That was the reason why the questions that followed his interview were more to do with Pakistan proliferation record, pace of its weapon development program etc…
Argument 2: Nuclear weapon never bring stability, they will certainly prevent small wars from happening.
As regarding the NSG membership, I doubt Pakistan will get it even if it gives a guarantee that it will not develop second strike capability. All nukes states have some sort of second strike capability.
This usually leads to, "Everyone should give up their nuclear weapons" which is all nice and dandy but its a hard sell, e.g, despite heavy sanctions and sabotage, U.S. couldn't convince Iran to give its nuclear ambitions. If you can't convince oil-rich Iran to give up on nuclear energy, forget about convincing, U.K., Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, Turkey, Belgium, Netherlands, and Italy on nuclear disarmament.
On the contrary, none of the nation-states you mentioned have obliterated the other so it all seems to be working fine.
And Mr. Kidwai's argument was that nuclear weapons have brought peace to South Asia's borders which is a great sign for regional stablity.
- Q&A is just Q&A, it's not part of Mr. Kidwai's argument. This should be obvious.
- If you want to base your argument on a click-bate title, be my guest.
Its the opposite, i.e., nuclear weapons bring peace and regional stability, forcing adversaries to avoid big wars and butt heads in small (proxy?) conflicts which is always better.
- I didn't suggest that any self-restraint on Pakistan's nuclear program will win it NSG membership. It was just an example. In fact, I'm not sure what will and in any case this article seems to be against any 'constraints' so that seems to be a non-starter for Pakistanis.
- I agree with you on the second-strike capability. Its a natural evolution of any nuclear program (which means Indian Oceans is F#%!$D).