India army chief calls for Pakistan nuclear cap

[MZUBAIR]

Fri May 29, 2009 7:25pm IST
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - The world must put pressure on Pakistan to restrict its nuclear capabilities, India's army chief said on Friday, adding that reports of Pakistan stockpiling nuclear arsenal was a matter of serious concern.
The New York Times last week reported U.S. lawmakers were told in confidential briefings that Pakistan was rapidly adding to its nuclear capability, stoking fears in Congress about the diversion of U.S. funds.

Islamabad dismissed the report, saying Pakistan was determined to maintain a minimum nuclear deterrence as nuclear-armed rival India beefed up its conventional forces.

As Pakistan battles a growing Taliban insurgency, reports in U.S. media have raised the nightmare scenario of its nuclear weapons falling into militant hands.

"I think the world community should put the kind of pressure which is required on Pakistan to cap the enhancement of their nuclear capability," General Deepak Kapoor told reporters.

"They require a certain minimum amount (nuclear capability), but ... Pakistan's attempts to increase the number of its nuclear weapons is a matter of serious concern."

Pakistan tested nuclear devices in May 1998 in a tit-for-tat response to India's own atomic tests just days before. The neighbours have fought three wars since 1947.

Relations between the two sides nosedived in November after gunmen attacked Mumbai and killed 166 civilians. New Delhi blamed the assault on Pakistan-based militants and "paused" a four-year-old peace initiative. It said Islamabad needed to act against the planners of the attack to revive peace talks.

The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs last week approved tripling U.S. economic aid to Pakistan to about $1.5 billion a year for the next five years, including money for schools, the judiciary, parliament and law enforcement.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the Obama administration was confident Pakistan would not use a planned increase in U.S. aid to strengthen its nuclear arsenal.


India army chief calls for Pakistan nuclear cap | South Asia | Reuters

I heard that news on GEO and I laughed.
Its really a coward statement from Indain COAS.

Pakistan made nukes just to counter India. And he is requesting word to pressurise Pakistan to pause the enhancements. lolz .......

Pakistan is extending its Nuclear power from last few years. So this makes him sweaty.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well, whatever else, India is definitely not improving its image in Pakistan, and by asking for international intervention in Pakistan's nuclear program, it is only heightening suspicions over its role in the current chaos.

 

[jeypore]

Well, whatever else, India is definitely not improving its image in Pakistan, and by asking for international intervention in Pakistan's nuclear program, it is only heightening suspicions over its role in the current chaos.

Since we are mortal enemies per se, there is new term for your statement AM, SOFT POWER. Which to me it is useless, but currently that is the strategy India is using in this war of Terror.

 

[blain2]

That is my point, that MIRV is more of an offense based nuclear arsenal then defense. Nuclear arms are predominatly meant for deterance purpose only. But As you boldely put it will make India's defense sheld obsolete, in return starts a new game of offense based nuclears arsenal from the Indian side.

Jeypore,

Not exactly. Once India deploys an ABM, even if its for limited areas, it actually cuts back the number of targets that Pakistan would be planning to hit (which is what this entire deterrence is based upon). If India does not deploy ABM, then life goes on. The escalation is on the part of India, not Pakistan. ABM is only to counter Pakistan's deterrence. This is the reason Pakistan would have to look at Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicle (MIRV) capability (This is for Sargodhian Eagle's question about what MIRV is).

 

[Xeric]

Well jeypore, you forgot to make mention of the 8 reactors that india managed to keep out of the IAEA safeguards besides the indo-US nuke deal.

Any guud reason that you can come up with?

 

[jeypore]

Jeypore,

Not exactly. Once India deploys an ABM, even if its for limited areas, it actually cuts back the number of targets that Pakistan would be planning to hit (which is what this entire deterrence is based upon). If India does not deploy ABM, then life goes on. The escalation is on the part of India, not Pakistan. ABM is only to counter Pakistan's deterrence. This is the reason Pakistan would have to look at Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicle (MIRV) capability (This is for Sargodhian Eagle's question about what MIRV is).

You are wrong that is made for deterrence Blain. Case in Point:

MIRVed land-based ICBMs were considered destabilizing because they tended to put a premium on striking first.
Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now this program is against what Zardari sayed few months ago, which is "Pakistan believes in no first strike program." With this type of modernization, justification of outrage is justified.

 

[blain2]

You are wrong that is made for deterrence Blain. Case in Point:



Now this program is against what Zardari sayed few months ago, which is "Pakistan believes in no first strike program." With this type of modernization, justification of outrage is justified.

You missed my entire point. You place an ABM then Pakistan won't sit there and watch its nuclear strike capability erode. The next logical step beyond our current capabilities is the MIRV technology. Also that definition of the MIRV above is by no means comprehensive. The baseline idea with MIRV technology is to saturate the opposing side's missile defences in order to ensure that you get your strike through. If you deploy ABM then obviously Pakistan's current single warhead capability would become limited in terms of its use. As such Pakistan has no option but to scale it.

Secondly, AAZ has been caught with his foot in his mouth quite a few times. There is no change in Pakistan's nuclear doctrine. We retain the right to strike first because that is what gives us the appropriate level of deterrence. There has been no talk of the idiotic AAZ no-first-strike posture ever since the earlier snafu.

 

[ajpirzada]

Obama says pak nukes are safe
Mullen says pak nukes are safe
not that i care but when world kind of stopped worryin we get this statement from indian chief. any particular intel which indian chief knows but mullen doesnt??

 

[sergente rehan]

Who cares about a meanless statement of indian army chief!

 

[Xeric]

One more thing, if the indian are getting carried away with the idea that Pakistan is shifting away from its 'first strike stance' then they need to wakeup.

There is no happy go marry in the case of nukes dear!

We have not made them to rust, but to make use of them when and where required.

Dont just get swayed with what our politicians say.

So now if your COAS felt back stabbed and heartbroken as Pakistan has again shifted away from its 'no first use stance' then you are mistaken as we never had this slant ever.

 

[Patriot]

History has shown that Pakistan only counters India.India introduce something new in the region and we simply develop some cheap cost effective counter measure for that.Considering the kind of AMD India is getting Pakistanis would not be dumb if they dont increase the number of warheads and improve the quality ie The warhead should be able to destroy more infrastructure and kill more people (Its wrong but everything is fair in war!)

 

[Contrarian]

especially the MIRV capability, pretty much makes India's missile defence shield plans obsolete before it can even be deployed.

It doesnt. It still reduces the number of targets with the given number of warheads, albeit reducing the original numbers.

It still raises the cost for Pakistan to attain the same level of nuclear capability vis-a-vis India.

Lastly, it also induces the element of probability and increases chances of survivability of regions protected for India, and thus correspondingly increases the chances of a full scale retaliation-something that Pakistani generals would now have to factor in-because Pakistan has always planned for a first strike.

The commissioning of the nuclear sub in IN, would also be something significant to factor in Pakistani equations.

All in all, it still raises the bar for Pakistan.

 

[Ghareeb_Da_Baal]

is this article a joke?

 

[Contrarian]

But since Pakistan does not have a defence shield, or plans for one, how dies that require India to switch to a more 'offense based nuclear arsenal'?

India will shift to more offense based nuclear arsenal because of China. All the new ballistic missile developments in India are now China centric, incase you missed it. The Agni III and Agni V are solely being made with the aim to be able to target China's key cities and industrial centres, and the capital ofcourse.

MIRV is a part of the plan. Regardless whether Pakistan switches to a more offensive arsenal or not, India will.

 

[jeypore]

Well jeypore, you forgot to make mention of the 8 reactors that india managed to keep out of the IAEA safeguards besides the indo-US nuke deal.

Any guud reason that you can come up with?

I have limited knowledge of Indo-US nuke deal, but the 8 reactors are meant for Armys use, and that was clearified before hand.