Pakistan supports non-discriminatory, complete nuclear disarmament: PM

[pkpatriotic]

Pakistan supports non-discriminatory, complete nuclear disarmament: PM
Updated at: 0725 PST, Thursday, August 14, 2008
ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani on Wednesday said that Pakistan supports the objective of universal, non-discriminatory and complete nuclear disarmament.

He was talking to Gareth Evans, former Australian Foreign Minister, who is also President of the International Crisis Group and Co-Chairperson of the International Commission on Nuclear-Nonproliferation and Disarmament here at the PM Secretariat. Mehmud Ali Durrani, Advisor on National Security also attended the meeting.

 

[IceCold]

Pakistan supports non-discriminatory, complete nuclear disarmament: PM
Updated at: 0725 PST, Thursday, August 14, 2008
ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani on Wednesday said that Pakistan supports the objective of universal, non-discriminatory and complete nuclear disarmament.

He was talking to Gareth Evans, former Australian Foreign Minister, who is also President of the International Crisis Group and Co-Chairperson of the International Commission on Nuclear-Nonproliferation and Disarmament here at the PM Secretariat. Mehmud Ali Durrani, Advisor on National Security also attended the meeting.

Just a thought why do such statements always come from Pakistan and irrespective of the government? A completely unthankful nation that got something after so many sacrifices and they talk about disarmament. Bloody pathetic.

 

[Flintlock]

Just a thought why do such statements always come from Pakistan and irrespective of the government? A completely unthankful nation that got something after so many sacrifices and they talk about disarmament. Bloody pathetic.

Most nations, including India, support the idea of non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament in principle. Nothing new in this.

 

[IceCold]

Most nations, including India, support the idea of non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament in principle. Nothing new in this.

What is there to support to? If a nation has got something after so many sacrifices why to let it go in vain. Now i agree that its not going to happen, but what purpose does it serve other then looking plain stupid IMO.

 

[jaison]

lets hope the world is free of nuclear arms but more conventional armsno offence just kidding.

 

[su-47]

What is there to support to? If a nation has got something after so many sacrifices why to let it go in vain. Now i agree that its not going to happen, but what purpose does it serve other then looking plain stupid IMO.

pakistan's nuclear program started when india tested a nuclear device in 1974. so if india becomes non-nuclear, pakistan can also.

but for india to become non-nuclear, china has to disarm. and china will disarm when USA and russia disarms. Russia will disarm when USA, france and Uk disarm. and i dont see that happening even in the next century, let alone the near future.

 

[IceCold]

pakistan's nuclear program started when india tested a nuclear device in 1974. so if india becomes non-nuclear, pakistan can also.

but for india to become non-nuclear, china has to disarm. and china will disarm when USA and russia disarms. Russia will disarm when USA, france and Uk disarm. and i dont see that happening even in the next century, let alone the near future.

Let us suppose India does accepts disarmament, my question is why should Pakistan follow suit? Point that i am trying to make is that nuclear tech isn't something you get served on a silver pladder, its years of hard work, research, dedication, finance and many other factors. One could agree that Pakistan followed suit because India tested a nuclear device but why does it has to be this way what India does we follow suit. Even if the whole world gets non nuclear, we should not. It is achieved after years of hard work and nation has suffered some very tough times( period of sanctions) not because one day gillani sb could stand up and say we are willing to give up nuclear weapons if others give it too.
The rest i agree that it isn't going to happen. Unlike us the governments of other nations are not fools to give up the hard work done by their scientist all in vain.

 

[GHATAK]

Nuclear disarmament is never practical, its only for political show.

Pakistan's cannot have a call on this, as India's threat spectrum is not Pak specific.

India is in a situation where it has to counter china, so there is no question of arms race with Pakistan.

Now pakistan is in a bad situation, because it is indirectly competing against china.

Also, arms race between two countries can prove suicidal to the economically weaker country. Taking this into account, Pakistan is in a disadvantage position.

The best interest for pakistan is to stop support to taliban and terrorists in Kashmir and make peace with India [Which they are not interested to do]

Because arms race is something where Pakistan can never ever win India.

Its plain and simple, our market is 6 times bigger.

 

[Flintlock]

Let us suppose India does accepts disarmament, my question is why should Pakistan follow suit? Point that i am trying to make is that nuclear tech isn't something you get served on a silver pladder, its years of hard work, research, dedication, finance and many other factors. One could agree that Pakistan followed suit because India tested a nuclear device but why does it has to be this way what India does we follow suit. Even if the whole world gets non nuclear, we should not. It is achieved after years of hard work and nation has suffered some very tough times( period of sanctions) not because one day gillani sb could stand up and say we are willing to give up nuclear weapons if others give it too.
The rest i agree that it isn't going to happen. Unlike us the governments of other nations are not fools to give up the hard work done by their scientist all in vain.

This isn't about hardwork or sacrifice. This is about a much larger issue which is that so many nukes are a real threat to the very existence of the human race.

If the whole world decides to non-nuclear, Pakistan would have to follow suit if she doesn't want to make enemies with, well, the whole world.

 

[EagleEyes]

Nuclear disarmament is never practical, its only for political show.

Pakistan's cannot have a call on this, as India's threat spectrum is not Pak specific.

India is in a situation where it has to counter china, so there is no question of arms race with Pakistan.

Now pakistan is in a bad situation, because it is indirectly competing against china.

Also, arms race between two countries can prove suicidal to the economically weaker country. Taking this into account, Pakistan is in a disadvantage position.

The best interest for pakistan is to stop support to taliban and terrorists in Kashmir and make peace with India [Which they are not interested to do]

Because arms race is something where Pakistan can never ever win India.

Its plain and simple, our market is 6 times bigger.

Ermmm no.

Pakistan has to counter India because it is a threat. It has nothing to do with China. Indirectly or/= (have nothing to do with China).

At current position Pakistan's policy of minimum deterrence works perfectly where it can shut down the offensive enemy (in case India). The current defence budget works perfect for this scenario and discourages arms race.

Pakistan doesn't support Taliban hence there have been 100s of operations since 9/11 attacks. Neither does Pakistan support terrorists in Kashmir, hence the official condemnation against Indian forces killing innocent Kashmiris, etc..

As far as "arms race" is concerned and its notion that Pakistan will never win that against India (not that it wants to). Better economy of Pakistan's in the future has the potential to negate such present scenario.

 

[GHATAK]

Ermmm no.

Pakistan has to counter India because it is a threat. It has nothing to do with China. Indirectly or/= (have nothing to do with China).

I mean, indirectly Pakistan would have to spend the amount of money that India will spend to challenge China. You know what I mean ?

At current position Pakistan's policy of minimum deterrence works perfectly where it can shut down the offensive enemy (in case India). The current defence budget works perfect for this scenario and discourages arms race..

I would not say it works perfectly, but yes Nuclear deterence works.

Pakistan doesn't support Taliban hence there have been 100s of operations since 9/11 attacks. Neither does Pakistan support terrorists in Kashmir, hence the official condemnation against Indian forces killing innocent Kashmiris, etc...

US intelligence reports have clarified that taliban has camps in Pakistan. Moreover, Osama is also likely to be pakistan. Even your own PM has accepted that next 9/11 will be most probably from Pakistan.

As far as "arms race" is concerned and its notion that Pakistan will never win that against India (not that it wants to). Better economy of Pakistan's in the future has the potential to negate such present scenario.

May be, but at present India's growth rate is far far far ahead of Pakistan.
A quick comparison of currencies should give some insight.

 

[IceCold]

I mean, indirectly Pakistan would have to spend the amount of money that India will spend to challenge China. You know what I mean ?

This is where minimum deterrence comes into play. We don't need to mach Gun vis-via-vis with India.

I would not say it works perfectly, but yes Nuclear deterence works.

I don't think it works in that manner. For a conventional threat or for that matter limited war, Nuclear will not play any role IMO. A conventional threat will be deter conventionally.

US intelligence reports have clarified that taliban has camps in Pakistan. Moreover, Osama is also likely to be pakistan. Even your own PM has accepted that next 9/11 will be most probably from Pakistan.

Ohh please lets not even go for those US reports. And our own PM said next 9/11 will happen from Pakistan, would you provide a link for that.

May be, but at present India's growth rate is far far far ahead of Pakistan.
A quick comparison of currencies should give some insight.

India is much bigger in size having much more resources at her disposal, Pakistan on the other hand is a small country and as such the comparison doesn't really exists. However we are doing fine as well. Rupee just recently hit low and one can understand why, but overall we are doing fine, fine enough to sustain our military budget.

 

[genmirajborgza786]

india becomes non-nuclear, pakistan can also.
but for india to become non-nuclear, china has to disarm. and china will disarm when USA and russia disarms. Russia will disarm when USA, france and Uk disarm. and i dont see that happening even in the next century, let alone the near future.

this was a classic one

 

[IceCold]

This isn't about hardwork or sacrifice. This is about a much larger issue which is that so many nukes are a real threat to the very existence of the human race.

If the whole world decides to non-nuclear, Pakistan would have to follow suit if she doesn't want to make enemies with, well, the whole world.

With Pakistan being the only nuclear power, it would certainly be fun.

 

[Flintlock]

With Pakistan being the only nuclear power, it would certainly be fun.

Ah, but you see, the world isn't going to disarm and then wait patiently for Pakistan to do so. Its gonna have to be simultaneous.

So, in a scenario where the world agrees to disarm simultaneously, if Pakistan is the only country which refuses to disarm, I doubt its nukes will be able to protect it from what will follow: total isolation probably followed by forcefully disarming it.