Pak. in a losing nuclear race :EDITORIAL: New York Times

[haviZsultan]

We're not NPT, CTBT, FMCT signatories or ratifiers, therefore, legally, come suck our d***s........... the article is so full of shit that my computer started stinking..........

Americans being tupical Americans and looking at the world with their narrow parochial vision. They refuse to see the big picture of how it is wrong to try and disarm Pakistan without doing the same for India. The Americans are like a cheating housewife. Always changing allies. Now shifting towards India.

 

[ito]

Americans being tupical Americans and looking at the world with their narrow parochial vision. They refuse to see the big picture of how it is wrong to try and disarm Pakistan without doing the same for India. The Americans are like a cheating housewife. Always changing allies. Now shifting towards India.

You cannot blame Americans here. Pakistan is fine with its strategic nukes, but tactical nukes are totally a different ball game. Tactical nukes are easier to smuggle and fall into the hands of terrorist organizations. There is every chance that if a nuke falls into the hand of a terrorist organization, the first causality will be America. You people with your obsession with India is putting the whole world at danger.

 

[Vyom]

Americans being tupical Americans and looking at the world with their narrow parochial vision. They refuse to see the big picture of how it is wrong to try and disarm Pakistan without doing the same for India. The Americans are like a cheating housewife. Always changing allies. Now shifting towards India.

Americans don't tilt towards anyone. They protect only their interests, they would nuke India tomorrow if it fits their interests.

 

[My-Analogous]

You cannot blame Americans here. Pakistan is fine with its strategic nukes, but tactical nukes are totally a different ball game. Tactical nukes are easier to smuggle and fall into the hands of terrorist organizations. There is every chance that if a nuke falls into the hand of a terrorist organization, the first causality will be America. You people with your obsession with India is putting the whole world at danger.

US can't find our nuclear location with satellite and tons of money spend on this project and expecting others with lower resources to achieve the target which they fails

 

[EAK]

To add to all this India has already tighten screws on pakistan on water front , so its economic and water wars of future where pakistan has no chance to stand against us.

LOL .. indian keyboard warriors and there mental masturbation

 

[Jlaw]

It’s expected to become the world’s third largest nuclear power with as many as 120 warheads, behind the U.S. and Russia.

then I stopped reading this opinion piece of trash.

 

[Solomon2]

It seems NYT is after pakistan's nukes. So much is being written about pakistan's nuke in NYT these days.

The Pakistan Nuclear Nightmare
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD NOV. 7, 2015

Credit Anthony Russo
With as many as 120 warheads, Pakistan could in a decade become the world’s third-ranked nuclear power, behind the United States and Russia, but ahead of China, France and Britain. Its arsenal is growing faster than any other country’s, and it has become even more lethal in recent years with the addition of small tactical nuclear weapons that can hit India and longer-range nuclear missiles that can reach farther.

These are unsettling truths. The fact that Pakistan is also home to a slew of extremist groups, some of which are backed by a paranoid security establishment obsessed with India, only adds to the dangers it presents for South Asia and, indeed, the entire world.

Persuading Pakistan to rein in its nuclear weapons program should be an international priority. The major world powers spent two years negotiating an agreement to restrain the nuclear ambitions of Iran, which doesn’t have a single nuclear weapon. Yet there has been no comparable investment of effort in Pakistan, which, along with India, has so far refused to consider any limits at all.

The Obama administration has begun to address this complicated issue with greater urgency and imagination, even though the odds of success seem small. The recent meeting at the White House on Oct. 22 between President Obama and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan appears to have gone nowhere. Yet it would be wrong not to keep trying, especially at a time of heightened tensions between Pakistan and India over Kashmir and terrorism.

What’s new about the administration’s approach is that instead of treating the situation as essentially hopeless, it is now casting about for the elements of a possible deal in which each side would get something it wants. For the West, that means restraint by Pakistan and greater compliance with international rules for halting the spread of nuclear technology. For Pakistan, that means some acceptance in the family of nuclear powers and access to technology.

At the moment, Pakistan is a pariah in the nuclear sphere to all but China; it has been punished internationally ever since it followed India’s example and tested a weapon in 1998. Pakistan has done itself no favors by refusing to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and by giving nuclear know-how to bad actors like North Korea. Yet, it is seeking treatment equal to that given to India by the West.

For decades, India was also penalized for developing nuclear weapons. But attitudes shifted in 2008 when the United States, seeking better relations with one of the world’s fastest-growing economies as a counterweight to China, gave India a pass and signed a generous nuclear cooperation deal that allowed New Delhi to buy American nuclear energy technology.

American officials say they are not offering Pakistan an India-like deal, which would face stiff opposition in Congress, but are discussing what Pakistan needs to do to justify American support for its membership in the 48-nation Nuclear Supplier Group, which governs trade in nuclear fuel and technology.

As a first step, one American official said, Pakistan would have to stop pursuing tactical nuclear weapons, which are more likely to be used in a conflict with India and could more easily fall into the hands of terrorists, and halt development of long-range missiles. Pakistan should also sign the treaty banning nuclear weapons tests.

Such moves would undoubtedly be in Pakistan’s long-term interest. It cannot provide adequate services for its citizens because it spends about 25 percent of its budget on defense. Pakistan’s army, whose chief of staff is due to visit Washington this month, says it needs still more nuclear weapons to counter India’s conventional arsenal.

The competition with India, which is adding to its own nuclear arsenal, is a losing game, and countries like China, a Pakistan ally, should be pushing Pakistan to accept that. Meanwhile, Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister, has done nothing to engage Islamabad on security issues, and he also bears responsibility for current tensions. The nuclear arms race in South Asia, which is growing more intense, demands far greater international attention.

 

[jaydee]

In an editorial published on November 7, the American daily said Islamabad’s competition with India, “which is adding to its own nuclear arsenal, is a losing game”. At present, Pakistan is spending about 25 per cent of its budget on defence. Reining in its nuclear operations would be in the country’s long-term interest, the editorial said. “It cannot provide adequate services for its citizens” because of the huge allocation for defence.
Pakistan’s official position is that it needs more nuclear weapons to counter India’s conventional arsenal. It’s expected to become the world’s third largest nuclear power with as many as 120 warheads, behind the U.S. and Russia.
Last month, Pakistan Foreign Secretary Aizaz Chaudhary had told a news briefing in Washington that Islamabad had built low-yield nuclear weapons, or tactical nuclear weapons, “to counter Indian aggression”. Such weapons “are more likely to be used in a conflict with India and could more easily fall into the hands of terrorists…,” added the editorial.
The NYT has also urged the U.S. to keep trying to reach a deal with Pakistan aimed at reining in its nuclear programme.
“The major world powers spent two years negotiating an agreement to restrain the nuclear ambitions of Iran, which doesn’t have a single nuclear weapon. Yet there has been no comparable investment of effort in Pakistan, which, along with India, has so far refused to consider any limits at all.”
The Obama administration has begun talks with Islamabad in this regard. But a nuclear deal similar to the one with India is not on the cards. American officials “are discussing what Pakistan needs to do to justify American support for its membership in the 48-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, which governs trade in nuclear fuel and technology.”
At present, Pakistan is not an internationally recognised nuclear power. The father of the country’s nuclear weapons programme, A.Q. Khan, has been accused of providing nuclear technologies to countries such as North Korea and Iran.
Recently, former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani had said in an interview that Tehran had received nuclear centrifuges from Pakistan.
It is worth noting that the NYT editorial comes at a time when tensions are running high between India and Pakistan. The editorial also criticises Prime Minister Narendra Modi for not doing anything “to engage Islamabad on security issues, and he also bears responsibility for current tensions

USA in a losing global hegemony race as it's debts have climbed to $ 20 trillion and it cannot sustain it while it's citizens are suffering from high unemployment rates and rising healthcare costs and ever decreasing social security.
We don't give a shit what they whine about.NO compromise on our nuclear ambitions.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

I don't know who gave Pak the idea that having 'more nukes' is the key to security. Having 'enough' is the key.

 

[saiyan0321]

Nyt has been really interested in our nuclear arsenal... They make nuclear bombs look like Cherry bombs that can fall from.one hand to another.. Jeez the idea that terrorists can get a nuclear bomb, a delivery vehicle and codes to operate it is not only ridiculous but absurd especially with zarb e azb killing them. Pakistan is focusing on advanced delivery systems as well to keep up with the times as well as increasing the arsenal to make sure any misdemeanor will be punished accordingly....

 

[danger007]

Losing game? Pakistan already has enough nukes to end Hindustan as we know it. And that is all that matters.

vice versa... we don't need that much nukes for pakistan..

 

[nangyale]

You cannot blame Americans here. Pakistan is fine with its strategic nukes, but tactical nukes are totally a different ball game. Tactical nukes are easier to smuggle and fall into the hands of terrorist organizations. There is every chance that if a nuke falls into the hand of a terrorist organization, the first causality will be America. You people with your obsession with India is putting the whole world at danger.

What terrorist you mean the ones sponsored by India and US?

• Now that Iran nuclear is locked in, Uncle Sam is turning to Pakistan - next on the list.

Your uncle Sam has lost the game in Ukraine, Afghanistan and Iraq.
It's got a royal mess for itself in the whole middle East and China is showing it the middle finger in Asia. I don't it would be too wise for your uncle to start messing around with Pakistan again, especially at the current juncture.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It seems NYT is after pakistan's nukes. So much is being written about pakistan's nuke in NYT these days.

It's not really anything new. It's been on and off for a while. The US government floating the idea of mainstreaming Pakistan's nuclear program is the latest trigger.

 

[skyisthelimit]

Losing game? Pakistan already has enough nukes to end Hindustan as we know it. And that is all that matters.

Yes and that is no secret. But how will you invite investment with such approach, Nawazji has even taken bonds on loan now with high interest rate.

We need to grow economic clout so no one can BS us.

I hope your leadership understands this. We can have multiple nuclear wars on pdf though

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What a lot of commentators missed was the response from high level Pakistani security officials interviewed by the media, in the aftermath of the David Ignatius piece in the WaPo. As one security official said, and I'm paraphrasing, 'the Americans have misread our desire for entry into the NSG'.

Here's the reality - Pakistan is in no hurry to sign any '123 deal' with the US. This is for a variety of reasons, and resource constraints play a large part in them. Pakistan's investment in civilian nuclear infrastructure, which is the key area where NSG membership would help, is essentially going to be tied down in the new Karachi nuclear power plants for the next 5-10 years, and unless there is some significantly improved NPP technology outside of China, for a reasonable cost, Pakistan may not need to look beyond the Chinese for more NPP contracts.

During this time, Pakistan needs to focus on domestic, economic growth and absorption of civilian nuclear technology because at the end of the day, admission into the NSG and individual agreements with the NSG members is going to be largely based on Pakistan's ability to trade with these nations. This does not mean that Pakistan should stop pushing for entry into the NSG or not enter into negotiations with the US and other countries on this issue, but it should not compromise on her nuclear weapons program in these negotiations because it currently does not need to compromise.

Pakistan is currently in the process of ramping up her weapons grade plutonium production through the Khushab complex and other associated infrastructure, and even the US knows that Pakistan is not going to throw that time, effort and investment down the toilet over a civilian nuclear deal. This is why the proposals floated so far, representative of maximal expectations from the US, are even in their current form not completely outlandish - restrict missile ranges and tactical nukes. The first doesn't really impact Pakistan's security concerns with respect to India, and the second can be offset by addressing the conventional military imbalance.

Yes and that is no secret. But how will you invite investment with such approach,

Nuclear weapons or the increase in nuclear weapons are not the cause behind low foreign investment - the cause behind low foreign investment is the domestic security situation and energy issues.