Are nuclear weapons holding back USA from seizing them from ISI clutches?

Discussion in 'Pakistan' started by SADAKHUSH, Oct 23, 2012.

  1. SADAKHUSH

    SADAKHUSH Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,802
    Likes Received:
    758
    Location:
    Winterland
    As, I was watching contenders for next Presidents term in USA the discussion turned into whether USA should divorce Pakistan and cut off all the foreign aid Pakistan. Both the candidates expressed the opinion that USA should not abandon a nation siting on a stockpile of over 100 nuclear bombs and on its way to accumulate 200 of the nuclear bombs.

    Therefore a question arises, Is it in USA and her allies interest to let Pakistan build more stockpile or take them down with in next year or so. If they accumulate close to 200 of the weapons, what will USA do than? Are these weapons holding them(USA and her allies) back from wresting the control of weapons? What price in terms of peace and stability of the world of future we will have to pay if decisive action is not taken now?
    Another question on my mind is, has Pakistan been moving the nukes to tunnels in occupied Kashmir or in other words under the direct control of China? Does any agreement exist between China and West (USA and he Allies) Russia and India under which China has assured Pakistan that it is in their interest to hand over the major portion of the nuclear arsenal for safe keeping which will result in completion of an operation which I have code named "PEDENUPA"(Peaceful denuclearization of Pakistan).
     
  2.  
  3. blank_quest

    blank_quest Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2012
    Messages:
    2,128
    Likes Received:
    927
    In days of War the Number matters but remember that If Pakistan Thinks that sitting on the Stockpile is a guarantee for Saving its Breakup then its the Biggest fool. External War can be won by Nuclear War heads but not the Internal War. Don't forget USSR as a best example. China is surviving due to Economic well being. Any country without economic well being is destined to be choked into Death. Afghanistan is surviving due to opium production and parallel economy. No country, Be it America or India or China or any other country, will survive as a Nation without Economic Activity be it legal or illegal.. Best example is the upcoming Demand in UK or in Spain.
     
  4. parijataka

    parijataka Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2011
    Messages:
    4,893
    Likes Received:
    3,688
    Location:
    Bengaluru
    There is some truth to it that a nation with nuclear warheads is less likely to be attacked by others. Take the example of Libya, when Libya gave up nuclear option Gaddafi and Libya were seen as eays targets and West and the Lbyan rebels unseated Gaddafi. Or N Korea that is treated with careful respect by USA. Also the reason why Iran is racing ahead to guard itself and its oil in getting nuclear armed.
     
  5. devgupt

    devgupt Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Messages:
    576
    Likes Received:
    261
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, Utah, US
    In case of N Korea-
    1) A China unwilling to see it fall because of its value as a buffer between the American troops present in S Korean and Japanese mainland,
    2) A China desiring presence of N Korea to keep Japan in check
    3) the refugee problem in case of war and the cost of reconstruction - N Korea is no East Germany.
    These conditions are allowing N Korea to survive.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2012
    mayfair likes this.
  6. parijataka

    parijataka Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2011
    Messages:
    4,893
    Likes Received:
    3,688
    Location:
    Bengaluru
    US was trying to disarm N Korea as well AFAIK, but what you say is correct - N Korea has powerful China as its mentor and protector.
     
  7. thakur_ritesh

    thakur_ritesh Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,434
    Likes Received:
    1,719
    Location:
    Land of the GODS - "Dev Bhomi".
    The game in and about Pakistan is a far bigger than a couple of hundred nukes, the most important, Pakistan gives the US an advantage that no one else in the region is willing to give, the key word being willing, and in a region that houses countries like India, China, and Russia who have collectively shown that they are less likely to agree on its’ foreign policy, the importance of a friendly Pakistan with whom the alliance remains strong and intact only remains in the US’ interest, and don't forget the energy abundant CARs in the vicinity and the easy access point that Pakistan provides them with.

    Not that I am under playing the importance of the Pakistani nukes to the US but then that is just one of the many issues which increase the importance of Pakistan to the US.

    On your questions specific:

    Nothing spectacularly new, but continue doing what they have been doing, which is keep working with the PA so that they don’t go rouge, which means the PA, and as has continued to happen for the past many decades, will keep having its’ way more likely than not in this relationship. The number of nukes by and large remains inconsequential.

    Is the US really interested in wresting these nukes, if so, why did they look the other way when Pakistan was busy smuggling all the things required to make these nukes during the Zia era? Soviet Union is thrown up as the excuse, but seriously the Americans want to us to believe such a silly excuse?

    These nukes are not meant to be taken back, but the US’ concern is that these get kept safely and far from falling in the hands of the forces that posse a threat to the US, rest, what you read is by and large paranoia and sensationalism.

    The other point, you attack Pakistan for those nukes, the fear that these nukes go up for smuggling, and land up with terror outfits, losing an ally which is ready to sell itself to the US’ interest at the best price possible, an ally which is ready to lease its’ army and other national institutions so as to meet the interests of the US, is something the US will not be interested to let go off because of paranoia and sensationalism.

    The world won’t have to pay any bigger a price than they have. It is India, and Afghanistan which are likely to pay the price and Kandahar plane hijack, Kargil war, Mumbai terror attacks coupled with innumerable terror attacks in the more recent past have shown how horrific the price continues to be, and least one mentions what all Afghanistan continues to go through.

    Pakistan will never ever put their nukes in the direct control of any one, than have it directly under their control. The talk of their friendship with the PRC "deeper than the oceans, and higher than the mountains" is good to keep the average folk in Pakistan in all good humor, but then the reality is quite different and the Pakistani ruling elite, and most importantly their army, understand the reality real well to trust anyone with their nukes.

    Always remember one thing about the Pakistani nukes, this country is absolutely and deeply paranoid about their nukes, and there hasn't been any bigger possession for them, ever!

    I have my serious doubt, though China would definitely want a stable, prosperous Pakistan which is less on rants and terror than it is today. Are the Chinese and the Russians as high on paranoia in Pakistan nukes up for grabs as the Americans, I seriously doubt that, as a matter of fact, and if you read the Indian think tanks who matter in strategy formulation, there remains no such paranoia in India either though rhetorically we are likely to play by the tune as that favours us in further creating the hysteria.

    The bottom line, if one followed the debate closely, there isn't any dichotomy in the way the Americans and in this particular case the two candidates view Pakistan and none of them are underestimating the value that this country brings to the US, which means, no matter what, the US is going to work for stronger US-Pak relations, and that isn't music to our ears.
     
  8. farhan_9909

    farhan_9909 Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2012
    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    496
    Location:
    Abbottabad,Bannu
    Pakistan and USA relations are very complex

    they will remain like this forever

    and USA themselves admitted that we dnt know where pakistani nukes are

    And 100 warheads are past tense.4th plutonium reactor is almost completed and first one almost 2 decades old

    the numbers of warheads might be around 1k.
    though now it seems like pak has stopped making warheads for bigger missile.and rather relying on tactical nukes
     
  9. sandy_3126

    sandy_3126 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Kalifornia

    umm... its not that easy to build and store nukes,not exactly barfis
     
  10. Dovah

    Dovah Untermensch Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2011
    Messages:
    4,754
    Likes Received:
    3,273
    Location:
    Modindia
    It's easy in lalaland.
     

Share This Page