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

[skyisthelimit]

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.

Agree 100%, I was talking more from creating good environment for investments, will use better wordings next time.

Such reports carry message in different formats, American Congress view, to create business impact and so on. Propaganda works in such ways

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Agree 100%, I was talking more from creating good environment for investments, will use better wordings next time.

Such reports carry message in different formats, American Congress view, to create business impact and so on. Propaganda works in such ways

At the end of the day, without specific State Department warnings or measures to discourage US companies from investing in Pakistan, these editorials carry little influence. Without the State Department stepping in, businesses will make decisions on investments in Pakistan based on their usual risk and RoI analysis.

Where this propaganda is damaging is on people to people relationships. These propaganda narratives poison minds domestically and perpetuate an anti-Pakistan narrative, much like the Pakistani Establishment is accused of doing with anti-US propaganda and narratives in the Pakistani media.

 

[desimorty]

Exactly. India and China know it. But they aren't the ones putting tactical nuclear weapons on a battlefield. Fears of Pakistan doing so is the scare, because when the warhead and the delivery is mobilised, it has a greater chance of being targeted not just because of the enemy but also by groups like Taliban or AQ.
This may be a bluff from Pakistan, that of arming tactical nukes on shoot and scoot and I hope so.
Its still a better idea if you want to nuke a armour column like T-90s and Arjuns then you can still do it from the sea or air where they still less vulnerable and options just as versatile. Also, people who tend to have a weapon and are vulnerable to tend to use said weapon before they lose it.

 

[Viper0011.]

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.

I LOVE NYT's economy and the financial section. That's ALL there is to love. The rest, they write anything that their lobby of choice wants them to write. Nothing new. That's why, I refer to other media outlets for news and ONLY read Financial and Market news on NYT

So for like fifteen years, they've scared the world by writing every week about "Pakistan has the FASTEST growing arsenal". Now that they announced full spectrum defense based on their Flash lights, now NYT will play "reverse psychology" of 15 years. Now let's tell the world, India is the largest and fastest manufacturer of Flash lights, so Pakistan should be scared

 

[AUz]

@Hyperion

Just a thought came in my mind..

How the hell Russia with her 1.1 trillion economy (nominal) is able to create and maintain a credible nuclear deterrence against United States with thousands of nuclear warheads, diversified delivery systems, MIRVed weapons, and what not?

If Russkies can do it, why can't the rest of world such as India, Pakistan, and so on? ( I know Russians have been way more advanced but I'm talking about the situation in next few decades)...

 

[Hyperion]

The cost breakdown between creating and maintaining is roughly (95 / 5), and most of present Russian "thousands of nuclear warheads", were designed and produced at the time of USSR (one of the most powerful and richest nation state on the planet). Therefore, inheritance is what gives them the leverage today..... only thing they need to do now is maintain (viability testing of subcomponents) and upgrade (update), need be, and that too, gradually!

@Hyperion

Just a thought came in my mind..

How the hell Russia with her 1.1 trillion economy (nominal) is able to create and maintain a credible nuclear deterrence against United States with thousands of nuclear warheads, diversified delivery systems, MIRVed weapons, and what not?

If Russkies can do it, why can't the rest of world such as India, Pakistan, and so on? ( I know Russians have been way more advanced but I'm talking about the situation in next few decades)...

 

[xyxmt]

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

Lobbying money is being spent before Raheel's Visit

 

[nForce]

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

And your most capable delivery mechanism launches it on your own territory, 'tactical nukes'.

 

[SQ8]

Already being discussed, and generally on how utterly biased the article is even from a general observation status.

 

[AUz]

The cost breakdown between creating and maintaining is roughly (95 / 5), and most of present Russian "thousands of nuclear warheads", were designed and produced at the time of USSR (one of the most powerful and richest nation state on the planet). Therefore, inheritance is what gives them the leverage today..... only thing they need to do now is maintain (viability testing of subcomponents) and upgrade (update), need be, and that too, gradually!

Economic wise, USSR was barely a 2 trillion dollar economy.

But they had control of lots of resources..may be that's the catch?

Honestly, Pakistan should establish its nuclear deterrence to a level that nobody dares to break it. I know its not gonna happen over night but next three, four decades aren't going anywhere..They are ours. So why not move beyond india?

Even if Pak can't establish a complete deterrence against USA---it should have atleast a complete deterrence against states like UK, France, Germany etc..

Basic rule of international relations is that global system is anarchic. Only "currency" in global system...only and THE only currency...is power. Hard power.

Pakistan of 2060 shouldn't be the Pakistan that can be bullied by major powers on their whips. It should be a great power of its own!

 

[wiseone2]

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

americans have done a good job of protecting tens of thousands of nukes. they have the resources to do so
the concern about pakistan is whether you have the resources to do the same

Economic wise, USSR was barely a 2 trillion dollar economy.

But they had control of lots of resources..may be that's the catch?

Honestly, Pakistan should establish its nuclear deterrence to a level that nobody dares to break it. I know its not gonna happen over night but next three, four decades aren't going anywhere..They are ours. So why not move beyond india?

Even if Pak can't establish a complete deterrence against USA---it should have atleast a complete deterrence against states like UK, France, Germany etc..

Basic rule of international relations is that global system is anarchic. Only "currency" in global system...only and THE only currency...is power. Hard power.

Pakistan of 2060 shouldn't be the Pakistan that can be bullied by major powers on their whips. It should be a great power of its own!

pakistan cannnot survive a first strike from America or Russia. how can you expect to deter them ?

 

[Saquibk]

At least they have elevated Pakistan's status from a failed state to a losing nuclear power. That is an improvement I guess.

 

[AUz]

americans have done a good job of protecting tens of thousands of nukes. they have the resources to do so
the concern about pakistan is whether you have the resources to do the same



pakistan cannnot survive a first strike from America or Russia. how can you expect to deter them ?

I don't.

india is deterred for now. Hopefully our economy grows by leaps and bounds and Pakistan becomes a developed, powerful, independent Muslim nation.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

More BS from jew york times

 

[usman.exe]

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.
...

How the hell is it a losing race. What NYT failed to check is that its only acquiring a nuclear weapons capability that is costly, once the infrastructure is in place, the nukes are just rolling out the factory. Actually they cost far less than than the many conventional warfare components we need to spend money on. And with time it would become more and more efficient and cost effective. And this is our strategy, contain India's conventional advantage with our nuclear prowess. And we got them in all sorts of packages for any platform and theatre. I knew of BBC and WSJ publishing garbage, now I will just add NYT to the list. But the issue always has been as what they call 'reigning in'. All this talk about terrorism, Haqqani group blab blah is just a smoke screen. Nothing but getting rid of our nukes is what they have always wanted. So dream on, Pakistan and its nukes aren't going anywhere. Accept it.