Pakistan needs nuclear deterrence, says US

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/06-pakistan-needs-nuclear-deterrence%2C-says-us-170-rs-02

WASHINGTON: A person no less than the US military chief has conceded that Pakistan’s nuclear programme is different from those of Iran and North Korea because it makes ‘extraordinary efforts’ to protect its nuclear weapons while there’s no reason to trust those two countries.

Admiral Mullen not only defended Pakistan’s efforts to protect its nuclear arsenal but also pointed out that the Pakistani programme aimed at deterring a perceived threat from India, unlike those of Iran and North Korea that Washington says would have destabilising affects around the world. “I have raised this issue with the Pakistani military since Day 1,” he said. “As much as we are focused on this (terrorism) threat — and the Pakistanis are more than they used to be – they see a threat in India and (having nuclear weapons) is their deterrent. They see this as a huge part of their national security.”

Pakistan is not a member of the NSG, which regulates nuclear trade and generally prohibits exports to nations that have not joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons outside the pact, as does India, which received a waiver from the export control organisation in 2008 and has since finalised nuclear trade deals with a number of NSG nations.

China, however, insists that any civilian nuclear trade with Pakistan would not violate its international commitments as it was only implementing an agreement it signed with Pakistan before joining the NSG in 2004.

South Asia expert Stephen Cohen of Washington’s Brookings Institution recently told his audience

“Any nation that has faced Indian intelligence’s covert war followed by an outright invasion to divide it can not be told to ignore that threat.” ----- So Pakistan does need Nuclear deterrence from India?

“My assessment is that “the Taliban” is not one organized monolith with a clear set of unified goals and single chain of command. There are many disparate groups operating under the label of “the Taliban”. My guess is that some of these groups have probably also been infiltrated by foreign intelligence agencies like RAW and Khad that want to wage covert war in Pakistan to destabilize it.”

Here’s what Christine Fair of Rand Corporation thinks about Indian involvement in destabilizing Pakistan via its growing presence and influence in Afghanistan:

“I think it would be a mistake to completely disregard Pakistan’s regional perceptions due to doubts about Indian competence in executing covert operations. That misses the point entirely. And I think it is unfair to dismiss the notion that Pakistan’s apprehensions about Afghanistan stem in part from its security competition with India. Having visited the Indian mission in Zahedan, Iran, I can assure you they are not issuing visas as the main activity! Moreover, India has run operations from its mission in Mazar (through which it supported the Northern Alliance) and is likely doing so from the other consulates it has reopened in Jalalabad and Qandahar along the border. Indian officials have told me privately that they are pumping money into Baluchistan.” ----- HMM

** ----- HMM ----- Another solid reason for Pakistan to get Nuclear Reactors from China ----- so we can contain India and its so called Cold Start Strategy within her borders by keeping her intimidated by ----- MAD**

What do you think?.

2

Re: Pakistan needs nuclear deterrence, says US

[note] Please add your comments & what you’d like to discuss. Thanks. [/note]

3

Re: Pakistan needs nuclear deterrence, says US

Sorry about that I was not done writing my comments!

4

Re: Pakistan needs nuclear deterrence, says US

Persoanlly i pray for a world without Nuclear weapons… or all but close quarter weapons and mid range weapons like bows and spears.

I hate industrial scale warfare.

But since theres no such chance in the current world i would rather see to it that Pakistan has no less Nukes than the enemy.

Why should we hold back when all others are continueing to stockpile thier own arsenalls…

It would be foolish to think we need scrap our only advantage among Muslim nations… in fact i dearly hope Turkey and Iran get nukes as well.

5

Its already in place

P.S: Cold Start is as good as no start

6

Re: Pakistan needs nuclear deterrence, says US

But no excuse to let your guard down in any case old saying goes…

Pray and hope for peace… but be ready and prepare for war.

7

Beside 2008 US-India nuclear deal India made another nuclear deal with Canada last Sunday ----- soon Japan would be next to make similar deal with India ----- what’s next ----- Pakistan has to broaden it’s quest for nuclear technology and the likes -----

8

It’s fairly trivial to take a few lines someone said, out of context!

First Stephen Cohen and Christine Fair were in a discussion sponsored by Foreign Affairs magazine from March 31, 2009! Well over a year ago. What’s interesting is the subject of the discussion, “What’s the Problem With Pakistan?”

Here is how Ashley Tellis, one of the participants, responded to Fair:

Here is now Fair responded, rather retracted:

As for Cohen, here is his thesis:

Admiral Mullen was speaking to a perceived threat that Pakistan believes it has. He was not endorsing the Pakistani position. That would be totally contra-indicative of the Obama administration position.

Journalists everywhere are sensationalists. They want circulation. They want people to read them. As thinking human beings, it’s important to put things into the right context.

If Pakistanis and Indians want to fight, there are plenty of reasons. There is no reason to manufacture positions. The real question here is, do we have the will, because that’s what it takes will, to make peace?

9

Agreed, Pak should maintain the course, we cannot start a conventional race and win but nooclar is a different game altogether, “its called the game changer” as analyst got it right below, staright from the horses mouth.

India’s superiority stands neutralized: Realization about conventional forces

By Sanjeev Miglani

NEW DELHI: Nearly five years after India and Pakistan became nuclear powers, New Delhi is finally coming to terms with what that status means — the threat of a Pakistani first strike has neutralized its conventional superiority.

Analysts say last year’s inconclusive military standoff between the neighbours highlighted what many had feared when the two conducted tit-for-tat nuclear tests in 1998, that India would no longer dare go to war with Pakistan.

10

Re: Pakistan needs nuclear deterrence, says US

Nuclear deterrence or not, there are two things which are visibly proven and I think we all (the honest ones anyways) can agree to. They are:

  1. As long as India sponsors in any way, shape, or form terrorism in Pakistan. Pakistan will suffer. No nukes required.

  2. As long as India keeps itself committed to indigenous projects like Arjun and LCA, Pakistan doesn’t face any immediate threats, because we all know the rapid progress of Indians on that front. :hehe:

11

I think you nailed it…

12

I can safely postulate now that you being an Indian ----- may believe your fellow Indian Ashley Tellis’ statements as coming straight out of horses’ mouth ----- I am absolutely flabbergasted by the fact that people like yourself would not be able to psych out even the fraction of the enigma here. Being a fresh pair of eyes ----- to myself ----- the folly of Mr Tellis’ statements seem absolutely tenuous, bias, insidious and a bridge too for when it comes to Pakistan.

Set aside Tellis’ trifling comments and statements pertaining to Pakistan ----- hasty Indian nuclear deals with several countries are considered as grave security threats by most Asian countries ----- including but not limited to Pakistan and China ----- on the contrary it is nebulously viewed by most Indians as vistas of the future for prosperity and security of India -----

Regarding Cohen’s comments ----- I would not paper over the cracks here ----- yet try to look at his underlying statements -----

Here is what Cohen said -----

Quote: With the end of bipolarism the long-held dream of becoming one of the world’s four or five centers of power and authority seemed to move closer, but other than run of the mill peacekeeping operations under UN auspices—just like Bangladesh—it shows few signs of playing a larger role. Perhaps maintaining its own integrity is enough for the time being, but the chronic conflict with Pakistan is another reason why India remains confined to its region.

What to Do?

Let me conclude with a small “to do” list, addressed mostly to India but also to outsiders who want to be of help:

Kashmir is both the cause and effect of this paired-minority complex, it can’t be “solved” because there is no solution as long as present mind-sets prevail. Read the superb new study by Ambassador Howard Schaeffer of America’s many failed attempts coming out shortly from the Brookings press, and instead, look for ways that turn Kashmir into a non-zero sum problem. My suggestion would be to address, more broadly, the looming environmental and water issue, of which Kashmir is an important component. This affects India, China, Nepal, and Bangladesh, this is properly dealt with on a regional basis. Kashmir, as such, is not “ripe” for resolution, but parts of the problem are.
Regional trade is another area where India and Pakistan need an excuse to do only what is in their self-interest. In this case there is the problem of the big fish-little fish: Pakistan is big fish as far as Afghanistan is concerned, but a little fish when it comes to India. India of course is the whale as far as Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. India stands to gain a lot by giving up a little, a mind set that is common in the business community but not among the bureaucrats.

Nuclear proliferation provides us with anotherff opportunity, and if missed, all parties will suffer. India tirelessly avoids the issue by pious accusations in the direction of Pakistan on how not to be a responsible nuclear weapons state. All that India needs to do is to rediscover the Rajiv Gandhi action plan, which not only called for global disarmament—a politically safe thing to with the Bush administration gone—but Rajiv also addressed, if briefly, the prospect of movement at the*regionallevel. This now means China, India and Pakistan, and it should not take more than ten minutes to figure out how many nuclear weapons would preserve deterrence stability for India. Given that India was rewarded with an incredibly generous agreement by the Bush administration, India should do more than simply reiterate its own excellent record. Such a region-wide agreement might include better verification and assurances regarding national protection of weapons and fissile material; it is not that Indian practices are bad (although there is little evidence that they are good), it is that India’s vulnerability to a nuclear weapon from Pakistan is self-evident. It is astonishing that the same Indian officials and “formers” who decry Pakistan as a rogue state and the epicenter of terrorism, seem perfectly happy with Pakistan’s control over a growing nuclear arsenal.

Finally, India needs to engage in introspection about he full range of military power that it wields. India is certainly Asia’s third great state, but the book I am now completing will argue that its strategic weight and its military power have been misjudged. Just because a state has done well in one or two areas does not necessarily mean that it will do well in all of them. There are no more than a handful of political and administrative officials who really understand the use of force and the instruments of military power. India cannot remove key threats by force, yet it maintains a huge army and an equally large paramilitary force that are strategically dysfunctional. It sometimes behaves like a timid state for good reason—yet it wants its neighbors to be in awe of its power. No big state will ever be beloved by its smaller neighbors, but India has failed to capitalize, especially in the case of Pakistan, on its real assets—these are its great cultural and economic power, not its army or its nuclear weapons. Unquote: