Spending on the nuclear programme is an on going process. Even with the commissioning of the reactor huge amount of money is being spent on the nuclear programme. Had the large amount of money spent on the reactor earlier been used to build a few dams or even maintain properly the existing water infrastructure, Pakistan would not have face such a huge problem. Well thats up to you though, its your money after all. But then dont accuse others especially the media who fail to see as to why a country like Pakistan with such pressing humanitarian concerns spends so much on defense. As i said earlier- once you take aid, you make yourselves a legitimate target for criticism.
You are expanding upon the authors argument on your own - the author very specifically criticizes the completion of the Khushab reactor in the context of the floods. The author does not make a general claim of 'Pakistan's nuclear program'. And even if the author (and in this case you) is going to raise the general issue of spending on Pakistan's nuclear program, then provide the figures being spent on it post floods to support your criticizm.
As it stands, given the author's specific reference to the Khushab complex, the criticizm is invalid, and you are inventing new arguments to defend dishonest and invalid reporting by Western authors.
Current data with the WB shows that the number of Pakistanis living below the poverty line is 33% as compared to 29% in India. Even with a much bigger population & defense spending we seem to have done much better in reducing poverty.
And as I pointed out, the data has changed since 2008 due to several factors - economic turmoil due to political instability, terrorism and mismanagement. But the point of those figures was to illustrate that even when Pakistan was spending billions on F-16's, AWAC's, the Khsushab complex etc. it was managing to control its poverty rate to very favorable levels compared to India.
While the poverty rate has climbed since due to various factors, Pakistan has also not signed any major defence deals or started any major military nuclear programs in the last year either
Agreement signed in March 2010 with United States for an additional 14 F-16s, variant unconfirmed, to be delivered by December 2010. Well this order could have been canceled to divert money to flood relief. This is precisely what the reporter was referring to, American aid used to buy weapons.
U.S. to provide 14 F-16 jet planes to Pakistan
And again, an agreement signed before the floods, and as you pointed out, little is known whether these are the MLU aircraft that were discussed under Musharraf, whether they will be paid for through US funds etc. So again, invalid criticism in the light of the floods. Had this agreement been signed during or immediately after the floods, it would have been valid.
Right now it is evident in both cases that the authors resorted to dishonest and malicious reporting to malign Pakistan.
