US scholar urges nuclear deal with Pakistan

[Edevelop]

WASHINGTON: Western powers should negotiate a nuclear deal with Pakistan similar to its accord with India as a way to reduce dangers from Islamabad, a prominent expert said Wednesday.

Mark Fitzpatrick, a longtime US diplomat who is now a scholar at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, voiced alarm about Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, the world's fastest growing, which he said would likely expand until at least 2020.

Fitzpatrick said no solution was ideal, but he called for Western nations to offer Pakistan a deal along the lines of a 2005 accord with India, which allowed normal access to commercial nuclear markets despite its refusal to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

“The time has come to offer Pakistan a nuclear cooperation deal akin to India's,” Fitzpatrick said as he launched a new book, “Overcoming Pakistan's Nuclear Dangers,” in Washington.

“Providing a formula for nuclear normalization is the most powerful tool that Western countries can wield in positively shaping Pakistan's nuclear posture,” Fitzpatrick said.

Fitzpatrick said that Pakistan faced a “heavier burden of proof” than India to demonstrate it is a responsible power, after the father of Islamabad's bomb, Abdul Qadeer Khan, spread the technology widely, and due to the presence of Islamic extremist groups.

Among conditions for a nuclear deal, Pakistan should stop blocking a new international agreement banning the production of fissile material and join the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, he said.

In the book, Fitzpatrick said the risk of a much-discussed scenario in which Islamic extremists seize nuclear weapons was exaggerated, and that the larger danger was that Pakistan-linked militants would launch a new attack inside India and trigger a devastating nuclear war.

Fitzpatrick, while voicing concern over an arms race, said Pakistan was constrained by its lack of uranium ore.

Quoting anonymous sources, Fitzpatrick said Pakistan's production may end in 2020, by which time it would have some 200 nuclear weapons, about double the current estimate.

Fitzpatrick also doubted reports that Pakistan would share nuclear weapons with Saudi Arabia in response to the kingdom's concerns on Iran, saying Islamabad would not want to open potential conflict with another neighbor.

Many experts believe Saudi Arabia funded Pakistan's nuclear program. The South Asian nation went nuclear in 1998 days after a test by arch-rival India.


US scholar urges nuclear deal with Pakistan - DAWN.COM

 

[OrionHunter]

I think there's nothing wrong in a U.S. civilian nuclear deal with Pakistan as long as it is confined to power generation. After all, these nuclear power plants would be under IAEA safeguards to ensure that spent fuel is not used for production of nukes or proliferated.

But then Pakistan needs to keep in mind the exorbitant costs involved in building nuclear power plants.

America will also insist on purchasing expensive plants from them and avoid paying liabilities to the extent required. Signing a Civil Liability Nuclear Damage bill will be a bone of contention. They will try and ensure that foreign suppliers of civilian nuclear equipment would pay no more than a paltry amount of compensation in the event of a nuclear accident.

 

[45'22']

i dont think US leadership will agree to this.........there is a lot at stake

 

[Levina]

Humankind's worst nightmare is a terrorist letting off a nuclear bomb in a major city.And there are enough terrorists in Pakistan.
But hey what about US???
A report by BBC in july 2012 shows nuclear failure in US,when some intruders broke into the US weapons facility in Oak ridge Tennessee by simply cutting through 3 fences.They manged to get as far as the wall of the building that housed enough highly enriched Uranium. And they were confronted by just a single guard.
The intruders happened to be protesters making a political point.
So that shows how US manages its Uranium...lead by example they say. Ha!!
Hague Summit has tightened the nuclear security but countries like India,Pakistan,Russia and China refused to cooperate since US and its allies love to show their high handedness.
Nevertheless nuclear security is the need of the hour. I hope Pakistan can keep its Uranium safe.

This line stand out

Fitzpatrick, while voicing concern over an arms race, said Pakistan was constrained by its lack of uranium ore.

Interesting!!!

 

[Hyperion]

FMCT not going to happen for two more decades. CTBT, they can kiss our arses. Treaty, no treaty, doesn't matter one bit. By favoring just India, US of A has lost all it's moral standing. When some nuclear shit hits the fan, US of A will be as helpless as it is today in the case of Crimea. Sad part is, they never learn.

And every Western power can shove their high tech up theirs. Now I really get the scope of their power.

1. An effing Boeing missing for three weeks, not a clue, and they used to say, we can see a virus on the tip of peoples dicks while they were peeing.
2. Russia comes walking in. All they could do was: protest.

Bhawawwawawawawwawawawawawa........

WASHINGTON: Western powers should negotiate a nuclear deal with Pakistan similar to its accord with India as a way to reduce dangers from Islamabad, a prominent expert said Wednesday.

Mark Fitzpatrick, a longtime US diplomat who is now a scholar at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, voiced alarm about Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, the world's fastest growing, which he said would likely expand until at least 2020.

Fitzpatrick said no solution was ideal, but he called for Western nations to offer Pakistan a deal along the lines of a 2005 accord with India, which allowed normal access to commercial nuclear markets despite its refusal to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

“The time has come to offer Pakistan a nuclear cooperation deal akin to India's,” Fitzpatrick said as he launched a new book, “Overcoming Pakistan's Nuclear Dangers,” in Washington.

“Providing a formula for nuclear normalization is the most powerful tool that Western countries can wield in positively shaping Pakistan's nuclear posture,” Fitzpatrick said.

Fitzpatrick said that Pakistan faced a “heavier burden of proof” than India to demonstrate it is a responsible power, after the father of Islamabad's bomb, Abdul Qadeer Khan, spread the technology widely, and due to the presence of Islamic extremist groups.

Among conditions for a nuclear deal, Pakistan should stop blocking a new international agreement banning the production of fissile material and join the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, he said.

In the book, Fitzpatrick said the risk of a much-discussed scenario in which Islamic extremists seize nuclear weapons was exaggerated, and that the larger danger was that Pakistan-linked militants would launch a new attack inside India and trigger a devastating nuclear war.

Fitzpatrick, while voicing concern over an arms race, said Pakistan was constrained by its lack of uranium ore.

Quoting anonymous sources, Fitzpatrick said Pakistan's production may end in 2020, by which time it would have some 200 nuclear weapons, about double the current estimate.

Fitzpatrick also doubted reports that Pakistan would share nuclear weapons with Saudi Arabia in response to the kingdom's concerns on Iran, saying Islamabad would not want to open potential conflict with another neighbor.

Many experts believe Saudi Arabia funded Pakistan's nuclear program. The South Asian nation went nuclear in 1998 days after a test by arch-rival India.


US scholar urges nuclear deal with Pakistan - DAWN.COM

 

[45'22']

FMCT not going to happen for two more decades. CTBT, they can kiss our arses. Treaty, no treaty, doesn't matter one bit. By favoring just India, US of A has lost all it's moral standing. When shit hits the fan, US of A will be as helpless as it is today in the case of Crimea. Sad part is, it never learns.

but i dont think USA is going to give a civil nuclear deal to Pak as many reports show Pak will be using the uranium for making WMD

 

[Screambowl]

What is the use of making nuclear deal with pak...India had the power and money to buy what will pakistan buy from by selling its lands to USA

Pakistan never pays money, they just allow their land to enter Afghanistan, this is how they pay.

 

[Secularpakistani]

I did not start it

oh really ?
"Pakistan wil buy with what?They are living off aid from various countries as of now their economy is in shambles."
Stop posting such and i won,t insult you.

 

[Hyperion]

Dude. You are not in this field. What actually is happening is that India has been given the lease to make more weapons. Not the other way around.

It doesn't matter. Other than fuel security that comes with the deal, everything else we are manufacturing ourselves. We are now completely self sufficient. Weapons and energy. Besides, don't you see how the global paradigm is shifting, away from the US of A? Don't you see it? Nations have stopped giving an eff. Everyone knows the true strength of American imperialism, and sorry to say, it has started to decline.

but i dont think USA is going to give a civil nuclear deal to Pak as many reports show Pak will be using the uranium for making WMD

 

[45'22']

Dude. You are not in this field. What actually is happening is that India has been given the lease to make more weapons. Not the other way around.

It doesn't matter. Other than fuel security that comes with the deal, everything else we are manufacturing ourselves. We are now completely self sufficient. Weapons and energy. Besides, don't you see how the global paradigm is shifting, away from the US of A? Don't you see it? Nations have stopped giving an eff. Everyone knows the true strength of American imperialism, and sorry to say, it has started.

can you back that up with a source
as far as i know,no international reports are suggesting that we are increasing our arsenal but the same is not true for Pak

what you say about USA could be correct,still i see no way they will give you a civil nuclear deal
but again why do you want one from US

i think the chinese are assisting you there also

His name says akhand bharat in hindi, you can clearly see what kind of extremist he is.

he will surely be back with a new ID, aero should ban his IP permanently

since his name is akhand bharat that doesnt mean he is an extremist
stop ur personal attacks or i will report you also

as far as who the culprit was here,you dont know either of them
and i know both
so stop

 

[Hyperion]

Not in favor of any deal with the US. I'm in favor of a deal with China. Besides that deal with China will NOT give us fuel security, so we will somehow have to work that out ourselves. FMCT is our crimson line. Not a chance. Either they give us EXACTLY the same deal, or we keep developing even more weapons. Eventually they will learn, and that isn't that far off. They do understand now that we can not be cornered. Ball is in their court.

Do you think there are sources for such things?

can you back that up with a source
as far as i know,no international reports are suggesting that we are increasing our arsenal but the same is not true for Pak

what you say about USA could be correct,still i see no way they will give you a civil nuclear deal
but again why do you want one from US

i think the chinese are assisting you there also

 

[surya kiran]

The first question, which needs to be asked, does Pakistan need a nuclear deal?

1. It will put restrictions as IAEA safeguards will need to be applied to the reactors, where fuel will be supplied.
2. If the deal is for electricity generation, then is it really required?
   1. According to a GoP Policy paper, the shortfall is 4,500 to 5,000 MW. This can be met from current installed capacity, since it is not being fully utilised.
   2. Bring down cost of power generation, while increaseing recoveries.
3. Bring down transmission loss.

Else, the nuclear deal is just an ego thing. Please feel free to correct me.

 

[tarrar]

What is the use of making nuclear deal with pak...India had the power and money to buy what will pakistan buy from by selling its lands to USA

We are making our own Nuclear plants & weapons, where as you Indians only know how to buy & paint it in Indian colors. So STFU.

 

[Hyperion]

Our civil reactors are all safeguarded. That's the duplicity to begin with. Yes, we have more than 80,000 MW of untapped hydel power, we surely need to focus on that, however, that's not the point here. The point is, by giving just India the deal, they have freed up your reserves for making more weapons. So why not us?

Besides, we are the biggest thorn in their eyes. Not because of CTBT or NPT, but rather FMCT. They know we never going to sign it, even if the whole planet is burning.

The first question, which needs to be asked, does Pakistan need a nuclear deal?

1. It will put restrictions as IAEA safeguards will need to be applied to the reactors, where fuel will be supplied.
2. If the deal is for electricity generation, then is it really required?
   1. According to a GoP Policy paper, the shortfall is 4,500 to 5,000 MW. This can be met from current installed capacity, since it is not being fully utilised.
   2. Bring down cost of power generation, while increaseing recoveries.
3. Bring down transmission loss.

Else, the nuclear deal is just an ego thing. Please feel free to correct me.

 

[surya kiran]

Our civil reactors are all safeguarded. That's the duplicity to begin with. Yes, we have more than 80,000 MW of untapped hydel power, we surely need to focus on that, however, that's not the point here. The point is, by giving just India the deal, they have freed up your reserves for making more weapons. So why not us?

Besides, we are the biggest thorn in their eyes. Not because of CTBT or NPT, but rather FMCT. They know we never going to sign it, even if the whole planet is burning.

Like I said, its more India got it, why not us? I think, Pakistan should stop worry about this nuclear deal. Get the weapons required and get on with it. Also, Pakistan has no known source of neither Uranium nor Thorium. Hence, the complete program will be heavily dependent on importing the same. With the previous case of circular debt and non collection of dues and transmission loses, it makes no sense at all till these problems are fixed.

So I ask again, if not ego, what is the need for the deal?