The Nuclear Noose Around Pakistan’s Neck

So.. um.. what exactly is your question about the Mina incident? I don`t think it was set up by the ISI, and I don`t think you can convince me that it was.

arjun #315 I am not advocating pakistan increasing its defense spending - in fact, i am calling for a reduction in conventional military (we dont need all these generals and colonels floating around in Pakistan) AND maintaining nukes to serve as a cooling system for the Advanis of India when they start overheating with their rhetoric.

So please try not to misrepresent my views.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Ref fountainheader #306

[Taiwan is the main reason America is not letting anyone sell China a carrier. Russia is selling it to India, but not China, because America says so. This is not USSR, tahmedjee, this is Russia, which follows American diktats. America does not mind India having a carrier because it sees India as a friendly state, even a potential ally in the Indian Ocean, and if need be, in the Pacific rim.]

A minor fact that people overlook is that the US sold India naval aircraft (Vought Aircraft Corporation`s A-6, if I am right) in the 60s for use on INS Vikrant. The denial of the A-7 aircraft for the INS Viraat (for political reasons) led to India buying Harrier VTOL/STOL aircraft. The US did not attempt to block the sale of the Harriers by Britain.

So the US has never been against India operating an aircraft carrier. They have in fact encouraged it.

For all his supposed reasonableness, Tahmed falls into the knee-jerk anti-Indian brigade where most issues are concerned. Instead of arguing about India`s defence policies with ``jingoistic Indians`` like you, I think he needs to ask someone whom he holds in high esteem, namely that complete fraud Soysauce, what he thinks of the incident in Mina when Hajj pilgrims trampled people to death while attempting to throw stones at a stone pillar. If and when Soysauce answers that question, our reasonable Pakistani is likely to re-classify Soysauce as a kaffir guilty of blaspheming Islam.

But no danger of that happening. Just like the US winks at Pakistan`s selling of nuclear equipment and secrets, Tahmed will wink at Soysauce`s running away from answering questions that will expose his hypocrisy.

fountainheader #306

1. You write ``As someone said before, the intent was to drag Pakistan, kicking and screaming, out of the nuclear closet.`` How was this bad for Pakistan? Indeed, things improved dramatically in a number of ways for Pakistan, as follows:

(a) Instead of Advani issuing threats to Pakistan (as he did prior to Pakistan`s nuclear response), Indian policy towards Pakistan became pacifist and we soon had Vajpayee visiting Lahore declaring Pakistan was here to stay. What a difference a bit of muscle makes!!;
(b) Last year musharaff could openly respond to India`s threats of overrunning Pakistan by declaring Pakistan`s intent to use the nuclear option in case of war.
(c) Military and economic sanctions that been imposed under the Pressler amendment the hurt pakistan much more than india in the 1990`s were lifted.

With enemies like Advani, Pakistanis dont need any friends. :-) You may consider Advani`s remarks brilliant, I consider them ill-informed, arrogant and self-defeating and find it appalling that a man of his poor judgement remains unquestioned and at the helm of affairs in India and could well come to power if Vajpayee (who is indeed a statesman) were to retire.

On China: I suppose we can agree to disagree on our views concerning China as being a threat to anyone. I just think it would be totally out of character for the Chinese to be anything but a source of stability in the world. The truth will come out in due course anyway.

MaheshG #303 Perhaps Kalam is a scholar-statesman - he is your president and as long as he doesnt threaten at every opportunity (as some of your other BJP-types like to do) to teach us pakistanis a lesson, then I wish him all the best. India has indeed had some fine scholar-statesman as presidents, Dr. Radhakrishnan notably. Kalam did come to prominence on account of his missile-making skills and not on account of a political career - I think you will agree. After all, I am sure there are other muslim members of the BJP too.

Anyway, I just hope this entire indian-pakistan relations take a turn for the better (as they are beginning to do), and that we all get rid of our nukes and reduce our conventional militaries and start focussing on the long-neglected Abduls and Saimas and Nathu Rams and Shridevis who live their lives walking the dirty streets of lahore and delhi. THAT is the real battleground - and that is battle where indians and pakistanis are on the same side and against a common and most cruel of enemies - the dismal poverty in which most of our people live out their lives.

Mahesh #302 one more thing, you write ``Man is inherently selfish ``. Agreed. And that is exactly the reason why man (unless blinded by hatred or arrogance) will seek the path of peace rather than the path that (with today`s weapons) leads to self-annihilation!!

The age of the Great Nations is over. And the sooner the newly wealthy chattering classes of delhi and islamabad realize that in the subcontinent, the better off poor Abdul and Nathu Ram (who can only admire the fine houses of the chattering classes from a distance), will be.

Letter to Daily Times, 02/07/04:

Damage control

Sir: The recent disclosures about A.Q Khan’s nuclear proliferation have created a serious situation. Pakistan will be under severe pressure in the coming weeks and months. The demands will range from permitting international inspections to perhaps a rollback of the nuclear programme. But Pakistan has simply invested too much in the programme to abandon it at this juncture.

President Pervez Musharraf should be cognisant of the international community’s scepticism of Pakistan’s official position regarding this issue. Keeping in mind the seriousness of the charges, President Musharraf and the army must conceive of a comprehensive plan to mollify the concerns of the international community and convince them of the security of Pakistan’s nuclear assets. This is both in the interest of the army as well as Pakistan.

More worrying is the reaction in Pakistan, where a majority thinks the entire episode is some sort of a cover-up by the Pakistan Army to hide its own involvement in the affair. This growing schism between the Pakistan Army and the people does not bode well for the future and can have dire consequences if nothing is done to arrest this trend.

It is in Pakistan’s interest to end this issue as soon as possible. However, a story such as this will not end easily and events like AQ Khan’s controversial pardon and confession will only lead to more speculation. President Musharraf would do well to be a bit more forthcoming about the role of security agency officials who worked at KRL.

In the end, while it is important to reassure the international community, it is even more important to win over the trust of the people of Pakistan.
TAIMUR MASUD KHAN
USA

Fountainheader #306

{{links from the Global Security site that talks about the PLA`s efforts to get a carrier. Alephnull...or someone else, has also posted another link later on.}}

Here it is once again– a copiously footnoted article from IDSA on Chinese efforts in the direction of acquiring aircraft carrier capability (incidentally provides some coverage of Chinese naval thought and rebuts those notions about China supposedly lacking blue-water ambitions).

Dragon`s Dragonfly: The Chinese Aircraft Carrier

Here is a relevant quote:

“You Xu and You Ji have noted that in the second phase of the development (2001 to 2020), the PLA Navy `would gradually break away from the west Pacific and enter the oceans around the world` . Beyond 2020, China would have the capability of a major sea power.”

Faced with such an article, one can of course refuse to read it, pleading lack of time or some other excuse – and come back in a month, or six months, or a year, repeating the same old lame arguments. There is also the tactic of incomprehension.

{{If despite this, you stick to your opinion, that China`s choice of sticking to coastal navy is not a Hobson`s choice, I can`t really say much more.}}

You are now encountering the Egyptian phenomenon that many of us are already very familiar with.

{{Taiwan is the main reason America is not letting anyone sell China a carrier.}}

Taiwan is one of the sole superpower’s unsinkable aircraft carriers – like Japan. But there are more fundamental reasons for the Americans impeding Chinese efforts towards a blue-water navy. A basic pillar of American global strategy for the last 60 years was that the defence of the US mainland would be carried out on the extremities of the Asian continent - i.e. in Western Europe in the west of the continent, and in East Asia – Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc. in the east of the continent. The Pacific and the North Atlantic were going to be American lakes. No other power would be allowed to challenge American maritime dominance – not the Soviets, certainly not the Chinese. So the Chinese wannabe Mahans are stuck facing the overwhelming power of the US Seventh Fleet in their own backyard pond. Despite the expense to the US that policy is well worth it in terms of control over global trade.

That has not prevented the Chinese from buying old Western (HMAS Melbourne), old Soviet (Minsk, Kiev) and never-completed Soviet (Riga – renamed Varyag) aircraft carriers, and studying them closely before scrapping them or converting them into floating theme parks. There is some carrier-related technology that they will have a great deal of trouble acquiring or mastering. For instance, the US is the only country that makes steam catapults – without one, you are restricted to STOBAR or VTOL operation of fixed wing aircraft, with resultant restrictions on payload/range. Still, there is good reason to believe that carriers are going to be a part of future Chinese naval doctrine – it is a question of when rather than whether.

It makes little cademic sense that a man of Hoodbhoys stature and academic qualifications in physics and backed by many felloships in Strategy from USA indulge in conspiracy theories.

First,``Thirty years ago, fearful of India`s newly acquired nuclear weapons, Pakistan set out on its own quest to become a nuclear weapons state.``
Well Threat Perception is a very vital component of any country`s policy making and Pakistan was correct. 1971 had been a humilating lesson for Pakistan while the world including the Ummah had chosen to look the other way. India went nuclear in 1974 followed by the Indira Doctrine. If ever, there was any awakening and redressal to 1971, it came in the form of Pakistan`s nuclear Program. In Threat Perception, Control and Fear are diagramatically opposed and meeting points between the two create a perception followed by a response. Fear is becoming yellow and Hoodbhoy is wrong.

Second ``But spectacular revelations beginning late last year by Iran, and later Libya, have forced Pakistan`s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, to launch an investigation of Pakistani involvement in secret transfers of vital nuclear weapons information and equipment to Iran, North Korea and Libya. Musharraf has conceded the existence of ``an underworld of people`` in Pakistan who, out of ``personal greed,`` could have sold nuclear secrets``
What is so spectecular. Why Hoodbhoy feels so happy to use such an adjective. In any case there is nothing new to it. The whole world knew that Pakistan`s Program is Covert. Perhaps, Hoodbhoys excitement lies in the assumption betrayed by the tiltle of the article ``NOOSE AROUND PAKISTAN`S NECK``. Well ironically there was a noose around Bhutto`s neck in 1979, the true Father of Pakistan`s Nuclear Program. It is a noose no more, but more responsibility.

Yes like all sensible Pakistanis I agree that Khan may well have blackmailed the Nation in return for his expertise and now stands disgraced. Its nothing ununusual. Gen Douglas McArthur was belittled and an even worse dispensation awarded to Mussa Bin Nusair and Khalid Bin Walid. No individual is greater than the nation.

Boy Boy Boy!!! I just saw Tom Brokaw of NBC reporting from Pakistan. This country is being humilated in the world. He was on big screen on Times Square, New York. He said Paki nuclear program is in US`s control. US media is after Pakistan and there does not seem to be any end to it. Tom Brokaw will be in Islamabad for a week reporting.

tahmed32 #291

Response to your point a)
- Okay, I am not yet sure about your views on China`s desire to build/buy aircraft carriers. Even now, you are insisting that China is being ``realistic`` and hence ``focussing`` on a coastal navy. Aleph and I have said time and again that China has been trying to build a blue water navy, but has been thwarted by American pressure. And these are not just guesses as you doubted in one post. Please read my #221 where i have given links from the Global Security site that talks about the PLA`s efforts to get a carrier. Alephnull...or someone else, has also posted another link later on. If despite this, you stick to your opinion, that China`s choice of sticking to coastal navy is not a Hobson`s choice, I can`t really say much more. Maybe you doubt the veracity of the links.

Taiwan is the main reason America is not letting anyone sell China a carrier. Russia is selling it to India, but not China, because America says so. This is not USSR, tahmedjee, this is Russia, which follows American diktats. America does not mind India having a carrier because it sees India as a friendly state, even a potential ally in the Indian Ocean, and if need be, in the Pacific rim. America has blocked Russia`s sale of the cryogenic engine to India in the past too, remember?

China has not ruled out force as a way of annexing Taiwan. Read this report -

Communist China`s Taiwan Invasion Threat

The first line itself says - On January 30 1996, Communist China`s Premier Li Peng emphasized that in trying to absorb Taiwan as ``a region of China...in the final analysis, we cannot promise to give up the use of force.``

The whole report will tell you many facts that will clear up the misconceptions you have about China. And you will appreciate why, even while working to resolve all issues with China, India has to at least make an effort to keep up with it militarily, for the sake of deterrence.

About Vikrant, glad you mentioned the Seventh fleet. Sending the Ghazi was the right move in my opinion. The Vikrant was sure to be used in the attack on EP through the sea-route. Had the Ghazi been successful in sinking Vikrant, it would have made a big difference.

Response to your point 2)
- I guess our views on militarisation are quite different. let us just agree to disagree on this point. However, regarding Japan and Germany opposing militarisation after WW2, again, it was a Hobson`s choice.....where Hobson = USA.

Responding to point 3)
Pakistan needs to keep its guard up. It needs to possess all weapons necessary for defence as well as counter attack(missiles), even if tomorrow the country is ruled by a perfectly democratic government. i am not opposed to there being a strong military in pakistan. It is a country of 15 crore people, it should have a strong military. I am just opposed to the military ruling the country and being in control of the policy-making. Let Pakistan build n-bombs, missiles, everything. You never know what might happen tomorrow. India may have a jingoistic leader who decides to attack POK. USA might just decide to ``liberate`` Pakistan. So I agree Sir, in fact I heartily support your view that pakistan should keep its guard up. I just don`t understand your classification of Pakistan and China`s militarisation as necessary, defensive , realistic, etc and that of India`s as jingoistic, aggressive unnecessary, wasteful and paranoid.

About Advani`s comments after the 1998 Pokhran blasts. well, though this has been stated by other posters before, I shall paraphrase. Pakistan`s nuclear weapons did not become a ``deterrent`` on 29th May. Pakistan nuclear weapons became a deterrent the day that Pakistan acquired/built them. In the minds of the Indian government, the nuclear-deadlock has existed since the 80s. All that Pokhran-Chagtai did was give Pakistan the ability to rattle the nuclear sabre in public. While from the viewpoint of a pacifist, I can understand why you thought Advani`s comments were dumb, from a strategic as well as tactical point of view, they were brilliant. As someone said before, the intent was to drag Pakistan, kicking and screaming, out of the nuclear closet. And he succeeded. Sanctions were imposed on pakistan as well, whom they hurt much much much more than us.

And tahmed, dont forget that Pakistan in 1998(or even now) was not this benign country going about life peacefully. It has been waging proxy war against india for 2 decades, created the Taliban so that it could ``outsource`` the proxy war to Afghanistan....or to use jargon, for ``strategic depth``. Think of things in the right perspective and you see why the nuclear tests were a brillaint move.

Tahmed,

You asked us to view how things look from across the border. Pakistanis are paranoid. Does it mean that Indians should always address their paranoia or do what they think is required?

Re: Vikrant, people have already pointed out how Vikrant helped defeat Pakistan in record time. Keeping that in mind why would you think Vikrant was a waste of money. It served the purpose it was bought for.

Re: Kalam, thank you for finally stopping calling him ``bomb maker``. But you are insisting that Kalam was made the president because Indians are jingoistic and hence have rewarded his service of making missiles with India`s presidentship. Indians have made him the president not for his role in DRDO but because of his progressive, honest, intelligent views. He is one of the most articulate, educated presidents India has ever had. Recognize the man for his abilities not for his role in DRDO.


Re: Buddha, you say ``I would restate Buddha to say: When nations stop stop competing and start cooperating, they create conditions for a lasting peace. ``. That`s plain poppycock. Buddha was more intelligent than Karl Marx. Man is inherently selfish and Buddha was very intelligent in recognizing that fact (says a lot about Buddha).

Germany and Japan have reassessed their military/political ambitions precisely because they were faced with powerful adversaries. Thank you lucky stars that there were other nations as powerful as Germany and thank your lucky stars for WW-II. If there was only one mighty nation then we wouldn`t have had World War-II but million holocausts all over.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

harimau #290
IMO, the country most likely to suffer a nuclear attack is India. IMO, India seemst o be the `most threatened with nuclear attack` if you go by the US officials own descriptions of conflicts we nearly had with Pakistan in late 80s, in 1990 and during Kargil. It could be all be a big bluff of course.

Perhaps as you say, helping China`s adversaries along the nuke route was the more intelligent way for India to tackle the longstanding proliferation double standard than this `suffering in silence`.

But we came out of our nuclear self-abnegation very late and IMO, are still apologetic about it. Perhaps there is good reason to be, because nuclear weapons are horrible things and you become more unsafe when you pass them on to others to do as they choose. India may be safer if the world has fewer nukes overall, among allies and enemies both.

Tahmed,

You asked us to view how things look from across the border. Pakistanis are paranoid. Does it mean that Indians should always address their paranoia or do what they think is required?

Re: Vikrant, people have already pointed out how Vikrant helped defeat Pakistan in record time. Keeping that in mind why would you think Vikrant was a waste of money. It served the purpose it was bought for.

Re: Kalam, thank you for finally stopping calling him ``bomb maker``. But you are insisting that Kalam was made the president because Indians are jingoistic and hence have rewarded his service of making missiles with India`s presidentship. Indians have made him the president not for his role in DRDO but because of his progressive, honest, intelligent views. He is one of the most articulate, educated presidents India has ever had. Recognize the man for his abilities not for his role in DRDO.


Re: Buddha, you say ``I would restate Buddha to say: When nations stop stop competing and start cooperating, they create conditions for a lasting peace. ``. That`s plain poppycock. Buddha was more intelligent than Karl Marx. Man is inherently selfish and Buddha was very intelligent in recognizing that fact (says a lot about Buddha).

Germany and Japan have reassessed their military/political ambitions precisely because they were faced with powerful adversaries. Thank you lucky stars that there were other nations as powerful as Germany and thank your lucky stars for WW-II. If there was only one mighty nation then we wouldn`t have had World War-II but million holocausts all over.