Lighting The Nuclear Fire

Re veeresh 203

I`d rather s/uc/k into an inferior mango than put with with the drivel posted by a whole lot of s/uc/kers on chowk!



It wont make the putrid air of Delhi less poisonous nor luxury of Air condition interrupt in the Defence & Clifton Beaches.

re : shammi on poll

if that is true then we pakistanis have been fighting for nothing and we hould immediately end cross broder inflitration but id still want to go to war because india wants to invade and destroy pakistan and india doesnt want peace because its proved thats its a fascist hindu state hell bent on ``correcting the mistake of pakistan``

thank god we pakistanis have nuclear weapons to defend ourselves if cooler heads prevail then thats great but all analysts think WAR IS INEVITABLE if so i propose PAF strike FIRST at indian nuclear installations and air bases ...........this will send a good message to vajpayee that pakistan is not a pushover ive always had an instint that kashmir isnt worth risking pakistan for ......but this is about pakistan and india and izzat how DARE india INVADE soverign pakistan territory ......................india will find that pakistan is not afghanistan and india is no america

Iran being close to both India and Pakistan will stay nuetral in Indo-Pak conflict

Concerned by the mounting tension between the two nuclear neighbors, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Monday that Tehran ``welcomes talks`` between the two nuclear-armed powers to defuse tension. He didn`t elaborate, but Iranian lawmakers and political analysts say Iran should remain neutral if war breaks out.

``Iran`s national interests require it to adopt a position of active neutrality in case a war breaks out. Iran`s strategy will be to launch an all-out diplomatic drive to prevent (any) spread and continuation of a war,`` said Mohsen Torkashvand, a lawmaker and member of the Iranian parliament`s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee.

``Considering Iran`s good relations with both Pakistan and India, it will be totally against Iran`s national interests to side with any of the warring parties,`` he said.

Mostafa Kavakebian, leader of a reformist party, said neutrality would be the best strategy for Iran, but said the situation ultimately could require limited supporting measures if Pakistan`s Muslim population were to be subjected to serious danger.

there is no question indian hatred for islam and pakistan will be responsible for a nuclear war .......................

INDIAN SCENARIO II

Thu May 30,10:03 PM ET

By Richard Reeves

PARIS -- The last time Pakistan got India really mad, that would be in 1972, this is how it ended:

The military dictator of the moment, that would be Gen. Yahya Khan, was sitting in a hole just dug behind the commander in chief`s house at army headquarters in Rawalpindi with a couple of sandbags over his head to protect him against Indian bombs. He had only one companion, Sultan Khan, his foreign secretary, and he asked his chief diplomat when he thought the Americans, led by his friend Richard Nixon, would come to save them.

Nixon loved Yahya Khan, a gruff, Scotch-drinking man who liked to tap a cavalryman`s crop agaist his leg, and had helped the American president make the contacts that led to his historic trip to China to meet with Mao Tse-tung. But, of course, the Americans never came. Neither did the Chinese, who were pledging undying loyalty to Pakistan. They meant verbal and diplomatic loyalty, but Khan misunderstood.

In fact, Khan misunderstood most everything, including what happened just before he climbed into his earthy new bomb shelter. He had been meeting with the U.S. ambassador, who was trying to tell him he was on his own, when the ambassador was literally pulled away by his military attache. That would be the famous pilot and Air Force general Charles (Chuck) Yeager. ``We`ve got to get out of here right now,`` said Yeager.

Why? Yeager explained that for some fool reason Khan had ordered a few of his planes to attack airfields in India. Probably Khan thought a few explosions would persuade Nixon to send in the Marines. Now, said Yeager, the Indians are going to send in bombers and the Pakistanis were going to send up their entire air force to dogfight. When the Pakistanis landed to refuel, the Indian bombers would turn for home, but a second Indian wave would arrive and destroy Pakistan`s air force while it was all on the ground with empty gas tanks.

And that`s what happened. Pakistan, which is to India as Canada is to the United States, lost half its country in a couple of weeks. What is now Bangladesh used to be East Pakistan, but the Indians invaded, capturing hundreds of thousands of Pakistani troops sent from Rawalpindi, in West Pakistan, to reverse the result of elections in which East Pakistani separatists had predictably won every seat in the national Parliament, giving them political control over both wings of divided Pakistan.

Well, times have changed. The current military dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, is as charming as Yahya Khan and a lot smarter. He has only half as much country, but he does have nuclear weapons -- though there is some question over who has control of them. And, because of those weapons, the Indians will very possibly attack to try to get them before the Pakistanis use one or two. That prospect was headlined last weekend in London`s Sunday Telegraph under the astonishing headline, quoting an Indian general: ```India Can Afford to Lose 25 Million People. But Could Pakistan?```

It is more likely that Pakistan could lose everything. All this was perfectly predictable. To be immodest, even I could do that -- and I did in an October column called ``The Indian Scenario.`` That was based on the almost certain probability that the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan (news - web sites) would drive the Taliban and al-Qaida into Pakistan -- where else could they go? -- and that movement might destabilize Pakistan or even make it into a new base for unholy Holy War. That would leave India with the choice it faces now: Trust to Musharraf, the United States and luck to prevent the use of the nuclear missiles pointed at them from Pakistan, or go into Pakistan and try to take them out.

So here we are, on the brink of massive war and at the mercy of a deluded general thinking, as did Yahya Khan, that the people of his country love him and will follow him anywhere. They don`t and they won`t.

Pakistan may be more of a country than Afghanistan, but it is in some ways in worse shape than it was when it was created 55 years ago -- as the Muslim counterpart to Hindu India -- by the British as they fled South Asia at partition in 1947. In those 55 years, Pakistan has been unable to establish democracy or any kind of truly legitimate government. It has not educated its people much beyond feudalism, and it still believes itself the equal of India, which it is not, never was and never will be. God help them.

Yes, the United States is the ``Great Power,`` as they say on radio and television here in France. But what do we have power over? Not Musharraf, not Pakistan and not events to come.

We had to retaliate after Sept. 11; we had to cater to Musharraf. But it is becoming more and more obvious that we do not know what will happen next or what use to make of our great power.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/020531/79/1mgvi.html

Re: Soysauce #229

Interesting read on the names of Pakistani missiles, but you omitted details on Ahmed Shah Abdali. Why is he a hallowed name in Pakistan? I can understand the first two, but not the last one. Abdali drove the final nail in the coffin of the Mughal empire, and he was never able to consolidate his rule over N. India. His attack left N. India in a state of anarchy that paved the pave for the establishment of Sikh rule, at the cost of Mughal possessions. So why Abdali?

soundmeister #239 you write ``when a dude in a threepiece suit and an Eton accent who purports to his country`s ambassador to the UN says those same things, it scares the living daylights out of one.``

Heh! Heh! That`s the idea, isnt it.

This is for Hobbytys across the border. Paki missiles being a North Korean and Chinese import are of poor quality and very poor accuracy range when compared with Indian missiles. Read CNN

on Indo-Pakistan missile ranges. Even their best missile has a poor accuracy than worst of Indian missiles.

This is for Hobbytys across the border.

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=11007

Indian nuke arsenal dwarfs Pak`s: Jane`s

Press Trust of India

Washington, May 31: India has upto 150 nuclear warheads while Pakistan could only call upon a third of that total at most, Jane`s defence publications said, as fears persisted the two rivals were slipping towards a disastrous war.

Although both sides have declined to give details of the size or capability of their arsenals since shocking the world with rival nuclear weapons tests in 1998, a survey by Jane`s strategic weapons systems has estimated their destructive potential.

India may be able to deploy a 20 kilotonne device from a MiG, Jaguar or Mirage aircraft, and could be able to deliver a bomb of a similar size on Prithvi, Dhanush and Agni ballistic missiles, the article said.

``It is estimated that India probably has between 50 and 150 nuclear warheads available,`` the survey, released by the London-based group in Washington, said.

``Analysis from some sources suggests that there is sufficient weapons grade uranium and plutonium available to India to build more warheads.`` Pakistan`s program is less advanced, but it probably has between 25 and 50 nuclear warheads available, the report said.

``Pakistan`s planned yield for its larger nuclear weapons design was 20 to 25 kilotonnes providing a warhead that would probably be fitted to Shaheen and Ghauri ballistic missiles.

in response to tahmed`s post #242,a simple `wah!` will have to suffice.

I have not read the dailies this morning, in order not to feel completely nauseous after drinking an extra large cuppa black java, but reality has to be faced at some point, and chowk isn`t the place for reality bytes (as has been proven time and time again). But then, neither are ALL the dailies or weeklies (caveat to all you cutters and pasters).

As I sit in my classes, or at work, or wander through this bizarre carnival called a city and think about this amassing of troops, the Kashmiris, and my family in Pakistan, and the families of my Indian friends, I keep trying to think of ways in which this `not so pretty situation` could end outside of either side continuing to fire shots at each other. And the only solution I can come up with seems so simple that it would be laughed off. I`m taking conflict resolution courses, where I read about various theories (all from a Western lens), and I know that we as a people (forgive me, you hard core nationalists for my lumping us together) have, and always have had avenues, means, through which the taking of lives could be avoided, within our own culture(s). Have we used those to the fullest of our capabilities? Or is it so much easier for us to just resort to the gun (and now the nukes) than to appreciate what words mean..to realize the sacredness of them, and not turn these words into hollow promises, hollow threats, or bellicose ones for that matter? You hard-headed and hard-hearted people may mock what appears to be my simple mindedness, but I really do want to know..have we lost our `civil society`? our elders? do all our priests and mullahs cry out for blood? have our village panchayats always prescribed justice as `an eye for an eye`?

What are war and the idiotic threats of nuking and calls for a `decisive war` going to do to restore justice? Absolutely zilch. Our spin doctors, politicians, diplomats, and our most revered heads of state talk war, and talk peace, and yet some of them remain ignorant of the huge responsibility, the accountability, and last but not least the consequences of their words and their actions. Kind of like some of us chowkies do, no? Apologies for the long post.

Romair:

...and I forgot to add this from the survey:

``...On the issue of citizenship, overall, 61% said they felt they would be better off politically and economically as an Indian citizen and only 6% as a Pakistani citizen, but 33% said they did not know....``

This should remove all doubts that militancy inspired by Pakistan is earning it goodwill in Kashmir. Nobody like to live forever with a gun held to their heads, and Pakistan-backed militancy has destroyed lives while offering nothing in return.

Romair:

Did I read you asking somewhere that if Kashmiris reject militancy and Pakistani `volunteers`, then Pakistan should keep its fingers out of Kashmir (a la Bangladesh, Afghanistan)?

I invite you to check out this survey by a UK-based consultancy that calls itself MORI (Market & Opinion Research International) as being `the largest independently-owned market research company in the United Kingdom` (some excerpts):

``Kashmiris Reject War In Favour Of Democratic Means``

Although the vast majority in Jammu and Leh believe the correct way to bring about peace is though democratic elections, opinions are more evenly divided in and around Srinagar, with a bare majority (52%) agreeing with this view.

Nevertheless, the vast majority - 76% - of those in the Srinagar region believe India and Pakistan should not go to war to bring about a permanent solution.

There is a general consensus across the regions that it is not possible to hold democratic elections while violence continues - 65% agree while 34% disagree.

A very clear majority of the population - 65% - believes the presence of foreign militants in Jammu and Kashmir is damaging to the Kashmir cause, and most of the rest take the view that it is neither damaging nor helpful.

Overall, two thirds of people in Jammu and Kashmir take the view that Pakistan`s involvement in the region for the last ten years has been bad. Only 15% believe it has been good for the region, while 18% say it has made no real difference.

END QUOTE

Full results at:

http://www.mori.com/polls/2002/kashmir.shtml

Rsridhar I see you have the YLH syndrome. Shoot before you read. I said

``here are some interesting quotes from the newspapers of Pakistan. ``

now my triple starred hole who is the idiot of CHOWK. You just pushed YLH to second position.

http://www.mori.com/polls/2002/kashmir.shtml

Kashmiris Reject War In Favour Of Democratic Means

MORI publishes results of major new survey

31 May 2002

The vast majority of Kashmiris oppose India and Pakistan going to war to find a permanent solution to the situation in Kashmir and believe the correct way to bring peace to the region is through democratic elections, ending violence, and economic development.

They also believe the unique cultural identity of the region should be preserved in any long-term solution, and there is virtually no support for the state of Jammu and Kashmir being divided on the basis of religion or ethnic group.

These are the main findings to emerge from a poll conducted by the independent market research company, MORI International, at the end of April (20-28 April 2002), just before the start of the recent escalation of conflict in the region.

Interviews were conducted in the Jammu and the surrounding rural areas, Srinagar and its surrounding rural areas and in Leh. Interviewers were set quotas for sex and religion (assessed by the interviewer) to match the population of each region.

Although the vast majority in Jammu and Leh believe the correct way to bring about peace is though democratic elections, opinions are more evenly divided in and around Srinagar, with a bare majority (52%) agreeing with this view.

Nevertheless, the vast majority - 76% - of those in the Srinagar region believe India and Pakistan should not go to war to bring about a permanent solution.

There is a general consensus across the regions that it is not possible to hold democratic elections while violence continues – 65% agree while 34% disagree.

A very clear majority of the population – 65% - believes the presence of foreign militants in Jammu and Kashmir is damaging to the Kashmir cause, and most of the rest take the view that it is neither damaging nor helpful.

Overall, two thirds of people in Jammu and Kashmir take the view that Pakistan’s involvement in the region for the last ten years has been bad. Only 15% believe it has been good for the region, while 18% say it has made no real difference.

On the issue of citizenship, overall, 61% said they felt they would be better off politically and economically as an Indian citizen and only 6% as a Pakistani citizen, but 33% said they did not know.

A suggestion that most people do not feel that the current political parties have the solution to the problems in Kashmir is reflected in the fact that around half, or more, of the population in each region agree with the view that ‘a new political party is needed to bring about a permanent solution in Kashmir’.

People in all regions are in general agreement that ‘the unique cultural identity of Jammu and Kashmir – Kashmiryat – should be preserved in any long-term solution’. Overall, 81% agree, including 76% in Srinagar and 81% in Jammu.

There is also widespread consensus on the types of proposals which will help to bring about peace in Jammu and Kashmir. More than 85% of the population, including at least 70% in each region, think the following will help to bring about peace:

Economic development of the region to provide more job opportunities and reduction of poverty – 93%

The holding of free and fair elections to elect the people’s representatives – 86%

Direct consultation between the Indian government and the people of Kashmir – 87%

An end to militant violence in the region – 86%

Stopping the infiltration of militants across the Line of Control – 88%

The critical role people see for economic development in helping to solve the problems is further underlined by the 74% who think that ‘people from outside of Kashmir being encourage to invest in the area to help rebuild Kashmir’s economy and tourist industry’ will help to bring peace to the state.

There is also a widespread view, held by 80%, that allowing displaced Kashmiri Pandits to return to their homes in safety will help to bring about peace.

Views are mixed on the likely impact of ‘People in Jammu and Kashmir having the freedom to travel in both directions across the Line of Control’. Those in and around Srinagar and Leh generally feel this would help to bring peace while those in Jammu take the opposite view.

An overwhelming 92% oppose the state of Kashmir being divided on the basis of religion or ethnicity. There is also overwhelming support – 91% – for a forum in which Kashmiris from both sides of the Line of Control can discuss common interests.

A clear majority - 70% - also support the borders between Pakistani-controlled Kashmir and Indian Kashmir being opened for much more trade and cultural exchange. However, while the views in Srinagar and Leh were very decisive – over 90% support – those in Jammu were much more balanced – 47% support, 53% oppose.

Views are also split on the issue of granting more autonomy to Kashmir. Overall 55% support ‘India and Pakistan granting as much autonomy as they can to both sides of Kashmir to govern their own affairs. However, while the majority in Srinagar and Leh support this, the majority in Jammu oppose this policy.

There are also mixed views about the role and impact of the Indian security forces. In Srinagar and Leh, at least nine out of ten believe that security forces scaling down their operations in Jammu and Kashmir would help to bring peace, whereas in Jammu opinions are reversed.

There are clearly different perceptions of the behaviour of the Indian security forces. Nobody interviewed in Leh or Jammu believes that human rights violations by Indian security forces in Jammu and Kashmir are widespread, whereas in Srinagar 64% of the population think they are widespread.

Perceptions are different with respect to human rights violations by militant groups in Jammu and Kashmir. 96% of those in Jammu believe such violations are widespread whereas only 2% of those in Srinagar believe they are widespread (although 33% believe they are ‘occasional’).

Technical note

Methodology

Fieldwork was carried out by FACTS Worldwide, MORI`s affiliate company in India, between 20 - 28 April 2002.

In total, 850 interviews were completed, face-to-face, with adults aged 16+ across 55 localities within Jammu and Kashmir. This comprised 22 localities in Jammu City, 20 in Srinagar City and 6 in Leh (urban areas), as well as in 3 villages around Jammu and 4 villages around Srinagar (rural areas).

Quotas were set by gender, religion (assessed by observation) and locality, according to the known population profile of the region.

A random selection procedure was used to select individual respondents.

Sample Profile

The following table details the profile of respondents by locality and religion:

Locality Total i`views Breakdown by religion (observed)

Muslim Hindu Sikh Buddhist Christian

Srinagar 300 292 8 - - -

97% 3% - - -



Villages nr Srinagar 60 58 2 - - -

97% 3% - - -



Jammu 344 103 229 7 1 4

30% 67% 2% *% 1%



Villages nr Jammu 71 21 50 - - -

30% 70% - - -



Leh 75 35 4 - 36 -

47% 5% - 48% -





Total 850 509 293 7 37 4

60% 34% 1% 4% *%

Quotas were based on 1981 Census data (population in 1,000s):

Total pop. Muslim Hindu Sikh Buddhist Christian

Kashmir Valley

(Srinigar & surrounding areas) 3,102 2,977 125 - 0.2 -

96% 4% - *% -



Jammu region 2,717 805 1,803 100 1 8

30% 66% 4% *% *%



Ladakh

(incl. Leh) 134 62 4 - 68 -

46% 3% - 51% -





Total 65% 32% 2% 1% *%

Statistical Reliability

The sampling tolerances that apply to the percentage results in this report are given below. This table shows the possible variation that might be anticipated because a sample, rather than the entire population, was interviewed. As indicated, sampling tolerances vary with the size of the sample and the size of percentage results. The confidence intervals take no account of design effects and, of course, there were certain areas in each region we did not conduct interviews.

Approximate sampling tolerances applicable to percentages at or near these levels (at the 95% confidence level)

Base: 10% or 90% 30% or 70% 50%

850 (total) 2 3 3

415 (Jammu region) 3 4 5

360 (Srinagar region) 3 5 5

75 (Leh) 7 10 11

Source: MORI

For example, for a question where 50% of the people in a sample of 850 respond with a particular answer, the chances are 95 in 100 that this result would not vary more than 3 percentage points, plus or minus, from the result that would have been obtained from a census of the entire population using the same procedures. Tolerances are also involved in the comparison of results between different elements of the sample. A difference, in other words, must be of at least a certain size to be statistically significant. The following table is a guide to the sampling tolerances applicable to comparisons.

Differences required for significance at the 95% confidence level at or near these percentages

Base: 10% or 90% 30% or 70% 50%

432 (Men) and 418 (Women) 4 6 7

415 (Jammu region) and 360 (Srinagar region) 4 7 7

415 (Jammu region) and 75 (Leh) 7 11 12

360 (Srinagar region) and 75 (Leh) 8 12 13

Source: MORI

- ENDS -

Tahmed,

re: ``...Get the chowk staff to followup to pleadings from saminashah, roohi and others to enforce its stated standards: Give her a third chance to head the Pakistan government. (She`ll fire the guy, and ...``

Hey! Somehow I feel I`m getting teased here...but don`t know exactly how...

Whats this about Hamid overeating?

Benazir`s solution to the current crisis: Give her a third chance to head the Pakistan government. :-)

Benazir`s other solutions to the world`s problems:

1. Eliminate hunger: Give her a third chance to head the Pakistan government. (She even has an idea this time: She will make the peasants eat cake).

2. Improve literacy: Give her a third chance to head the Pakistan government. (She knows about about educational institutions: after all, she went to Harvard).

3. Introduce law and order: Give her a third chance to head the Pakistan government. (Watch how she orders her kids around - they know who is the boss!).

4. Remove traffic jams in Karachi: Give her a third chance to head the Pakistan government. (She even has a house in Karachi!!)

5. Stop hamidm from eating too much in his next visit to Pakistan: Give her a third chance to head the Pakistan government. (Hubby Zardari weighs no more than his moustache, thanks to her eagle eye).

6. Get the chowk staff to followup to pleadings from saminashah, roohi and others to enforce its stated standards: Give her a third chance to head the Pakistan government. (She`ll fire the guy, and replace him with her Minister for Chowk Affairs - with Secretary, 5 Additional Secretaries, and as many section chiefs as there are Chowk posters).