What's new

Going nuclear came at a cost for Pakistan

Neo

RETIRED

New Recruit

Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Going nuclear came at a cost for Pakistan
Sun, May 11 2008

Karachi, May 11 (IANS) Weighing the implications of the nuclear tests carried out by India and Pakistan 10 years ago, many experts believe that while they may have contributed to stabilising bilateral relations somewhat, Islamabad still continues to pay a price for it.

Pointing out that the two South Asian countries witnessed a new balance of power in 1998, Lahore-based defence analyst Hassan Askari-Rizvi says: 'Nuclear weapons have given greater confidence to the Pakistani security establishment and, to a great extent, neutralised India's superiority in conventional defence.'

But he adds that it has also 'contributed to increasing internal insecurities for Pakistan' and lower spending on human development.

Physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy told IANS: 'Our nukes have given us the ability to destroy India, but that's about it.

'While we slowly regress, India forges ahead in science, space and computer technology, industry, education, governance, social mobilisation, nation-building, and international outreach.'

Back in May 1998, India carried out the first three tests May 11 and then two more May 13, leaving the world stunned. Not to be cowed down, and to show its own nuclear prowess, then Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif told the nation he had 'settled the score' with India by carrying out an equal number of explosions.

Sharif blamed India for pushing Pakistan 'into this position' and said it had to carry out the exercise to protect itself.

Ten years on, the nuclear programme no longer remains an irritant in Pakistan-US relations, says Askari-Rizvi, because 'counter-terrorism has become the most salient issue'.

The US, however, seems more worried about the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

Hoodbhoy says: 'The US has accepted India's nukes, not ours! The world is terrified of Pakistan's nukes going loose and rightly so too. It is quite possible that some day the jehadists will seize the nuclear weapons or nuclear materials.'

A.H. Nayyar, a peace activist and a physicist, agrees: 'In the year 2008, Pakistan stands miffed because the world seems ready to recognize India as a nuclear weapon state, not Pakistan. The lead in this case is being taken by the US, a staunch ally of Pakistan. It is ready to grant India the coveted status, albeit in a veiled way, but not to Pakistan.'

So what has Pakistan gained by going nuclear?

'For a while Pakistan's reputation shot up internationally. More accurately, many thought it did. The assumption was that a big stick commands respect. This is false, and the gain was strictly temporary,' says Hoodbhoy, giving an example of famine-stricken North Korea.

To Nayyar, the hope that nuclear weapons would lead to reduced expenditure on conventional defence also proved 'illusory' as the figure has increased manifold.

'An extremely euphoric Pakistan undertook the Kargil adventure (in Kashmir in 1999), only to learn the bitter lesson that in spite of nuclear weapons, the enemy can react resiliently in a conventional conflict and that nuclear weapons cannot possibly provide any guarantee against humiliation before the world,' Nayyar told IANS.

Going nuclear may have cost Pakistan's exchequer but, if you ask Hoodbhoy, the real damage was psychological.

'Our society became still more militarised and Pakistan's foreign policy became aggressive,' he says citing the Kargil and the Afghan wars.

'Our generals fantasized that covert jihad under the nuclear shield would cause the Indians to scamper out of Kashmir, but nothing of that sort happened. Instead, those jehadists turned against their masters. So today we are stuck with the war in FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas) and Swat, a direct consequence of delusional nuclear fantasies,' he says.

And that's not all. After trading nuclear secrets, Pakistan earned a bad name for itself. 'We are almost a nuclear pariah', says Nayyar.

The man behind the 1998 nuclear tests was Abdul Qadeer Khan. But his confession that he clandestinely transferred nuclear technology to Iran and Libya shocked the nation that had until then revered him as a national hero.

Nayyar says Khan made use of the network of international suppliers in sensitive material, and had no difficulty in using it to export sensitive technology from here to other countries. 'I am still open on the question of whether he did it for personal greed or as ordered. But he certainly had the means to export illicit technology.'

Says Hoodbhoy: 'The real paradox is that Khan is a nice man who worries about ordinary people, feeds hungry animals and is upset about the horrible state of education in Pakistan. Yet, whether for profit or good, he sold knowledge and weapon materials that may kill millions some day. This is a crime against humanity.'

Going nuclear came at a cost for Pakistan - Yahoo! India News
 
.
The man behind the 1998 nuclear tests was Abdul Qadeer Khan. But his confession that he clandestinely transferred nuclear technology to Iran and Libya shocked the nation that had until then revered him as a national hero.

Why do people keep referring to AQ Khan as the man behind the nuclear tests. All he did was just produce a method of enriching uranium allegedly using urenco designs. Anyone who was given money could have done the same. His contribution was minimal but the damage he created was tremendous.

Yet, people still insist on calling him a hero. :disagree:
 
.
This is just propaganda. We will sort out our problems one by one and eventually going nuclear will pay off as a reliable deterrent to any enemy looking to disregards our interests.
 
.
according to hoodbhoy pakistan is regressing in science and technology, but how is it.
our psuedo intelects are also psuedo peaceniks and make no constructive contribution to our society. hoddi should shove off with cowasgee et al
 
.
This guy does not seem to have any knowledge about the ground realities at all. He is too misguided when asserting pakistan's nuclear status. It is true that US seems to accept india as a nuclear power offering india nuclear fuel but it has more to do with geostrategic importance of india vs china as compared to pakistan. The world is of interest and so is the tilt in the foreign policy but that does not mean in anyway that the world does not accept pakistan as a nuclear power, because no matter what happens this fact cant be changed.
So saying that going nuclear came at a cost for pakistan is like living in a fools paradise.
 
.
I feel that is what author is trying to say that geo strategic importance of India is more then pakistan, also the american concerns about the hijacking of nuclear weapon is a serious concern.
 
.
This guy does not seem to have any knowledge about the ground realities at all. He is too misguided when asserting pakistan's nuclear status. It is true that US seems to accept india as a nuclear power offering india nuclear fuel but it has more to do with geostrategic importance of india vs china as compared to pakistan. The world is of interest and so is the tilt in the foreign policy but that does not mean in anyway that the world does not accept pakistan as a nuclear power, because no matter what happens this fact cant be changed.
So saying that going nuclear came at a cost for pakistan is like living in a fools paradise.

Dear Ice,

Nukes have not stopped the US using drones to kill people in Pakistan ? Infact Pakistan going nuclear has only brought them disrepute.

Regards
 
.
Dear Ice,

Nukes have not stopped the US using drones to kill people in Pakistan ? Infact Pakistan going nuclear has only brought them disrepute.

Regards

Thats not the point AN. You see nukes were meant as a deterrence against a much superior conventional enemy and not the US. As for stoping the US attack, you need to realize that most of them belong to AQ. Secondly the drones flew from within pakistan. The hulla huppa that GOP created was to make sure that everyone is happy.;)
 
.
This guy does not seem to have any knowledge about the ground realities at all. He is too misguided when asserting pakistan's nuclear status. It is true that US seems to accept india as a nuclear power offering india nuclear fuel but it has more to do with geostrategic importance of india vs china as compared to pakistan. The world is of interest and so is the tilt in the foreign policy but that does not mean in anyway that the world does not accept pakistan as a nuclear power, because no matter what happens this fact cant be changed.
So saying that going nuclear came at a cost for pakistan is like living in a fools paradise.

the difference between india and pakistan being nuclear states is quite simple really
india has shown a lot of responsibility in its nuclear dealings and pakistan has not (read proliferation).

being nuclear has nothing to do what-so-ever with the WoT (IMO)
 
.
the difference between india and pakistan being nuclear states is quite simple really
india has shown a lot of responsibility in its nuclear dealings and pakistan has not (read proliferation).

being nuclear has nothing to do what-so-ever with the WoT (IMO)

Pakistan isnt alone involved in proliferation, west have always been itself involved, then why to highlight pakistan only. I think it has been unfair and unjust as far as pakistan is concerned. We have equally been a responsible nuclear nation and also india itself isnt that pious either.
 
.
Pakistan is the declared nuclear power which is hated and discriminated against the most heavily and is also probably the weakest one militarily. For that reason Pakistanis have to be more careful than anyone else that proliferation does not occur because then the nuclear card can backfire and put pakistan in a lot of danger.
 
.
the nukes didn't make us regress.

It's the bombings, political uprising (against a formula that worked from 1999 to 2007 and the war in afghanistan that are breaking our backs.

before 2007 there was confidence within Pakistan which is lost these days. So now people are blaming these factors rather than take the ownership of the situation.
 
.
Dear Ice,

Nukes have not stopped the US using drones to kill people in Pakistan ? Infact Pakistan going nuclear has only brought them disrepute.

Regards

Pakistani nukes are India specific and from that standpoint, they have served their purpose. Who says that drones being used are without GoP's approval?
 
.
I feel that is what author is trying to say that geo strategic importance of India is more then pakistan, also the american concerns about the hijacking of nuclear weapon is a serious concern.

India's strategic importance is of course more than Pakistan's. Who else would be the hedge against the Chinese?

As far as nuclear weapons and hijacking, Americans will parrot that line till kingdom come. The concerns around theft, hijacking will NEVER come true for as long as the State of Pakistan and the Pakistan Army are around. With all seriousness, with the amount of speculation and outside scrutiny that has gone around the Pakistani nuclear capability, it is easily one of the world's most secure in terms of safeguards (I would venture that ours are as good as those of the western powers like France and UK).
 
. .

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom