from Afghan Journal:
India, Pakistan and their growing nuclear arsenal
India and Pakistan exchanged a list of each other's nuclear installations on Saturday like they have done at the start of each year under a 1988 pact in which the two sides agreed not to attack these facilities. That is the main confidence building measure in the area of nuclear security between the two countries, even though their nuclear weapons programmes have expanded significantly since then. Indeed for some years now there is a growing body of international opinion that holds that Pakistan has stepped up production of fissile material, and may just possibly hold more nuclear weapons than its much larger rival, India.
Which is remarkable given that the Indian nuclear programme is driven by the need for deterrence against much bigger armed-China, the third element in the South Asian nuclear tangle. The Indians who conducted a nuclear test as early as 1974, thus,may be behind not just the Chinese, but also Pakistan in terms of the number of warheads, fissile material and delivery systems.
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists in a global report in August 2010 estimated that India had assembled 60 to 80 warheads and produced enough fissile material for 60-105 nuclear warheads. Pakistan is estimated to have assembled 70–90 warheads and produced missile material for as many as 90 warheads. China's arsenal was estimated at 240 nuclear warheads. Here's a PDF of the report prepared by Robert S.Norris and Hans M.Kristensen.
The majority of India’s and Pakistan’s warheads are not yet operationally deployed, the researchers said. Both countries are believed to be increasing their stockpiles although the competition is nowhere near the intensity of the race between the United States and Russia during the Cold War. Indeed even today the combined total of Indian and Pakistan warheads will only be slightly more than the number carried by a single U.S. Trident submarine.
Nevertheless the race to expand nuclear weapons programme as also missile development adds another layer of instability in South Asia, with Afghanistan and Pakistan at the centre of the turmoil and home to al Qaedaand allied militant groups. The question is why now ? Why is Pakistan seeking to expand its arsenal ? Is this a numbers game ? Are the rivals getting sucked into a nuclear arms race without intending to ?
Mark Hibbs, a nuclear affairs expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told me in a conversation last month there was a "budding arms race" on between India and Pakistan, although nowhere near the scale of the Cold War duel between the United States and the Soviet Union.
from Pakistan: Now or Never?:
Wikileaks on Pakistan
In the State Department cables released by Wikileaks and so far reported, the most eye-catching as far as Pakistan is concerned is a row with Washington over nuclear fuel.
According to the New York Times, the cables show:
"A dangerous standoff with Pakistan over nuclear fuel: Since 2007, the United States has mounted a highly secret effort, so far unsuccessful, to remove from a Pakistani research reactor highly enriched uranium that American officials fear could be diverted for use in an illicit nuclear device. In May 2009, Ambassador Anne W. Patterson reported that Pakistan was refusing to schedule a visit by American technical experts because, as a Pakistani official said, “if the local media got word of the fuel removal, ‘they certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s nuclear weapons,’ he argued.”
The Pakistan Army is deeply sensitive about any questions on the safety of its nuclear weapons. The country is also often awash with conspiracy theories accusing the Americans of harbouring secret plans to dismantle the nuclear weapons.
That said, the row reported by the NYT appeared to have been about HEU at a nuclear research reactor rather than the weapons themselves, so it may turn out to be less dramatic than it appears. Pakistan's nuclear weapons are considered to be well-guarded although analysts have cited a risk of militants trying to seize nuclear material which they might use to make a dirty bomb. (For a factbox on Pakistan's nuclear weapons, see here).
Of potentially huge significance for Pakistan are cables, reported in The Guardian, saying that Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has repeatedly urged the United States to attack Iran to destroy its nuclear programme.
"The Saudi king was recorded as having 'frequently exhorted the US to attack Iran to put an end to its nuclear weapons programme', one cable stated. 'He told you [Americans] to cut off the head of the snake,' the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Adel al-Jubeir said, according to a report on Abdullah's meeting with the US general David Petraeus in April 2008." The Guardian reported.
@Sumaira
And pray, may I ask who the so called ‘undercover’ terrorist organisations are that operate in the country?
Rex Minor
India’s Iran stance will be crucial at the U.N.
India took its deserved place at the world’s most powerful table on Tuesday, winning a two-year seat on the United Nations Security Council with the resounding support of 187 of the assembly’s 192 countries.
Immediately, the country’s U.N. Ambassador Hardeep Singh Puri began talking of his intent to use the tenure to push for reform, with an eye on a permanent berth for the Asian giant.
But the perennial issue of sanctions against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Iran and its nuclear ambitions are a more pressing — and complex — issue for India in its new role.
India, a key trading partner with Iran, has recently advocated an anti-sanctions stance, but under pressure from the U.S. voted for sanctions at the International Atomic Energy Association in 2006, and again at the U.N. General Assembly a couple of years later.
With the added responsibility of its new-found position as a global mediator, its position will come under greater scrutiny and further pressure from pro-sanctions states.
South Africa, which was also elected to the Council in New York on Tuesday, caused major headaches during its last two-year period with its reluctance to support sanctions.
If India sticks with its friendship with Iran, the two powerful emerging economies with the support of Brazil – which also has a close relationship with Tehran – could unite to seriously derail attempts from the U.S. and others to curb Ahmadinejad’s ambitions.
This is a meaningful stand from India, if there are no sanctions on Iran, we could soon look at a day when Iran too would a participant and come into main stream IAEA, to fight and win a different opinion like Iran the only way is through friendship, dialogue and by becoming a part of the debate, acknowledging their side of the argument and recognizing it, so far Iran has made only statements and not gone to any war, nor has used nukes for destructive purposes, this stand would coerce Iran to make responsible statements and then conduct responsibly, I have no doubt that they cannot, inclusive dialogue is a win-win going forward.
from Afghan Journal:
Pakistan’s Zardari in China; nuclear deal in grasp
(File picture of President Zardari in China)
Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari is in China this week, making good his promise to visit the "all weather ally" every three months. During his previous trips, his hosts have sent him off to the provinces to see for himself the booming growth there, but this trip may turn out be a lot more productive.
Zardari may well return with a firm plan by China to build two reactors at Pakistan's Chashma nuclear plant, as my colleague in Beijing reports in this article, overriding concern in Washington, New Delhi and other capitals that this undermined global non-proliferation objectives.
It's a bit of a nuclear poker going on in the region and Afghanistan as the new battleground between the regional players cannot remain untouched.
The proposed Chinese nuclear transfer to Pakistan follows a groundbreaking deal that the United States and India sealed two years ago which allows New Delhi to access U.S. nuclear technology and fuel while retaining the right to pursue a military programme. It was a deal that raised eyebrows all around, overturning decades of U.S-led efforts to wear down India's resistance to nuclear disarmament pacts through a combination of tough technology sanctions and offers of a a strategic relationship designed to appeal to New Delhi's global aspirations.
In the event, Washington which invaded Iraq on the grounds that it was developing nuclear weapons, and has tightened the squeeze on Iran for its nuclear activities, virtually gave New Delhi pretty much what it has coveted all along. The right to pursue a weapons programme as well as complete access to international nuclear technology to boost civilian nuclear power for an energy-starved nation. It was as if the Pope had thrown the Bible away when it came to India, as an Indian diplomat long used to haranguing by U.S. officials over the country's nuclear programmes told me back then.
Somehow the USA appears to be always in the lime light of any developments around the world. Is it because they have a “grand bouge”? Look east the wise man of today’s says. while I write the German chancelor is in China make joint priograms on high tech. China now has the fastest passsenger trains in the world, the German technology which even the German Govt. found it uneconomical to have it in germany. The USA seems to boast about the slowest passenger train in an industrial country. Have they not done enough to use the taiwan bogey with China? Why should anyone have problems with the peaceful nuclear energy? The Indian politicians should not be jealous of Pakistan peaceful activities. In fact I would recommend that India and Pakistan could also enter into high tech joint projects? Is this not the way to create trust and peace between these two nations, or are they going to keep on bickering about the territory and disregard the people, which is the wealth of the two nations?
Rex Minor
from Afghan Journal:
When India-Pakistan wargames become real
(Pakistani army tanks in exercises in Bhawalpur sector. Pic by Christopher Allbritton)
Pakistan is conducting its biggest military exercises in 21 years and at the weekend thousands of troops backed by fighter jets took part in a mock battle to repel a simulated Indian military advance and inflict heavy casualties. The manoeuvres were designed to test a riposte to India's Cold Start doctrine of a rapid and deep thrust into Pakistan in a simulated environment, but you are never far from real action on the heavily militarised border between the two countries.
On Sunday, as the mock battle unfolded in the deserts of eastern Pakistan, the two armies were engaged in a real exchange of fire a few hundred miles away, along the border in Punjab. Both sides reported the firing in the Shakargarh sector and as is the norm blamed the other for starting it. It didn't last long and by the standards of Indo-Pak artillery duels it was a blip. But what is interesting is it took place along a settled section of the border as distinct from cross-border firing along the Line of Control separating the two armies in disputed Kashmir. Shooting across the international border has been rare, although there have been incidents in January this year and in July and September in 2009.
NightWatch intelligence, which closely tracks developments across South Asia, says the Shakargarh sector carries the weight of history and perhaps there is a message behind the shooting. This is the site of a decisive battle during the 1971 India-Pakistan War in which Indian rocket launcher units destroyed Pakistani army armoured brigades ending hostilities in that sector. Firing in the location is always a reminder of December 1971. So the question is were the Indians trying to remind the Pakistanis about that battle nearly four decades ago even as Pakistan carried out the wargames named Azm-e-Nau 3 or New Resolve 3?
India, Pakistan wargames have in the past caused jitters especially when thousands of troops are massed near the border along with heavy armour and you are not sure whether they are only meant for exercises or is it a preparation for a real war. Back in 1987, India conducted Brass Tacks, the largest military exercise of its kind across South Asia in the deserts of Rajasthan a few hundred miles from the Pakistan border.
The exercises included the bulk of Indian Army and its mechanised and armoured formations; in short all the paraphernalia for a real war, concentrated on Pakistan's sensitive border areas. For a Pakistani, it would seem the ideal location from which to launch a cross-border operation into the Pakistani state of Sindh that could cut Pakistan in half.
If 6M Indian Kashmiri Muslims do not want to be under the Indian Republican Flag, let them move to Azad Kashmir under the Pakistani flag. Then they will realize how good they have it now. India is not giving up an inch of Kashmir, any Indian politician if even thinks of giving up anything, will be no more.
from Afghan Journal:
Standing by your friends:India, U.S. push ahead with nuclear deal
For all the hand-wringing in India over getting sidelined by the United States in its regional strategy, the two countries have gone ahead and just completed an important deal on the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel from reactors to be built in India.
The agreement is a key step in the implementation of the India-U.S. civil nuclear pact which grants India access to nuclear fuel and technology, even though it has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Under the agreement India can reprocess U.S.-originated nuclear material under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards which in itself is a symbolic concession, according to the Washington Post. It said that the Indians were a bit concerned about the idea of American officials running around their nuclear reactors , a sort of "a symbolic, sovereignty issue" as a source in the U.S. nuclear industry said. They would rather submit to oversight by the IAEA, which thus far is a model the United States has only followed for nuclear collaboration with Europe and Japan.
Considering that America has gone to war in Iraq on the grounds that it was building weapons of mass destruction and is at this time pushing for tougher sanctions against Iran for its nuclear programme, it is indeed a big deal. It can also potentially reshape the strategic landscape in South Asia with the world virtually granting legitimacy to India as a nuclear weapons state while denying that to Pakistan.
Pushing the accord through in the U.S. has been a "wrenching affair" as the Indian Express put it, riding against the current of proliferation concerns worldwide. Why should the world be making an exception for India just as it is breathing down hard on Iran and North Korea to roll back their nuclear programmes ? Where, after all, is the iron-clad guarantee that India won't divert some of the plutonium extracted from the imported spent fuel to its strategic weapons programme, the experts ask. Blatant double standards, the Union of Concerned Scientists said.
No wonder Pakistan asked for a similar deal at high-level talks in Washington last week aimed at putting their tempestuous ties on a more even keel.
And so in that sense, the India-US nuclear deal, really the crown jewel of a strategic partnership, will be the elephant in the room as Washington, Islamabad, and New Delhi tackle a complicated three-way relationship in one of the world's most unstable regions.
how can you compare India with china, Korea, Pakistan & even UNITED STATES.
Its disgrace that there is no one keeping watch on US & China.
china is considered to be a noble country but it is one of the biggest threat to mankind.
china is responsible for degradation in quality of goods
it has started annexing India’s territories
and India’s people are threat to themselves all corrupt admins are also few citizens between them
What does Nobel for Obama mean for India?
Obama has won the Nobel Peace prize.The citation commends him for calling for a nuclear-weapon free world, emphasising the role of international institutions and preferring dialogue.Less than a year into his presidency he has yet to implement much of his programme.”For the time being Obama’s just making proposals. But sometimes the Nobel committee awards the prize to encourage responsible action,” said Poland’s Lech Walesa, a Nobel Peace Laureate.What does it mean for India to have the most powerful man in the world honoured for his policies?The policies of the Obama administration are different from those of the George W. Bush era when multilateralism was seen as a liability.Bush’s ambassador to the U.N. was John R. Bolton whose scepticism towards multilateralism was well known.Yet Bush helped India get a crucial waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group and was described as the friendliest U.S. President India has had.Obama on the other hand has called for strengthening nuclear non-proliferation, prompting India to seek clarifications.Pratap Bhanu Mehta, president of the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi, argues in a recent column that Indians find it more difficult to deal with those who they think of as American liberals than the conservatives.Will we now see a more forceful and active Obama on issues like non-proliferation that India is wary of ?
if obama can able to resolve the tibet freedom then he is great and india also can sign for nuclear weapon it is the first china who need to stop a mind of occupying other nations and make dictator rules.
Do we need the big bomb?
It’s been more than a decade since the Buddha smiled again.
A debate has exploded in the Indian media about the circumstances of India’s hydrogen bomb test, with a group of scientists questioning the yield of the test.
The government claimed a yield of 45 kilotons; while the sceptics say the yield was much less at 25 kilotons.
K. Santhanam who claims the thermonuclear bomb was a ‘fizzle’ called for more nuclear tests to develop hydrogen bombs.
The argument in a nutshell is that if India doesn’t have a bomb big enough with which it can threaten an adversary, then the adversary may be emboldened to carry out a nuclear strike.
However, many experts demur given the changed international environment.
The controversy came right before President Obama made a call for all UN states to ratify the NPT.
Of course India needs a bigger bomb and a change to the no first use policy.
Whats the use of making an A bomb and then sitting silently while enemy forces nuke the hell out of you first probably crippling your ability to retaliate with anything let alone nukes.
If one country is allowed to have a nuclear program every other country should have a right to do so as well.
Its quite amusing to see the only country to use an A bomb to go around trying to disarm to or make nuclear deals with other countries.
from Pakistan: Now or Never?:
Nuclear South Asia: Iran fires a shot at India
Iran looks like it will come out swinging at a global conference on the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) opening in New York on Monday, and in the process take a swipe at Israel as well as India.
And that is a bit of a shift, for India and Iran have ties going back into history, but which have in recent years come under pressure and play in the tangled relationship between India and Pakistan.
Iran, according to this Reuters story, has submitted papers to the NPT conference accusing the United States of violating the treaty by developing new nuclear weapons and providing nuclear aid to Israel and India. The target is clearly Washington and according to the story an attempt by Tehran to deflect attention from its own nuclear programme.
But by turning the spotlight on India, is it risking turning off an old friend, a civilisational ally?
India and the United States sealed a deal under which Washington would help India expand its civilian nuclear energy programme, even though New Dehi has refused to sign the NPT or renounce its nuclear weapons. New Delhi has long argued that the NPT was discriminatory allowing the five countries - the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia - which are also the permanent members of the UN Security Council to possess nuclear weapons while prohibiting others from doing do so.
richard perle, in a private conversation with barack obama:
“there are a few hundred million people, mr president, that refuse to see the benefits of our plan…
“we will have to eliminate them, but since we’ve exceeded the sustainable carrying capacity of the planet by a factor of five or six, they would be eliminated anyway.
“in the meantime, someone has to decide who will live and who will die, and it’s only fitting that we, who have the power to destroy the planet many times over, are the ones who make that decision.
“in fact, i make the case that our achievements, including the development nuclear weapons, are proof of our superiority, and therefore our entitlement to make that decision.”
from Pakistan: Now or Never?:
India-U.S: advancing a transformed relationship
In the space of a decade, the United States and India have travelled far in a relationship clouded by the Cold War when they were on opposite sides.
From U.S sanctions on India for its nuclear tests in 1998 to a civilian nuclear energy deal that opens access to international nuclear technology and finance, while allowing New Delhi to retain its nuclear weapons programme is a stunning reversal of policy and one that decisively transforms ties.
America has also 'soberly' after decades of differing over counter-terrorism priorities become a vocal supporter of India's concerns over the use of Pakistani territory for Islamist militant groups, says the Asia Society in a report laying out a blueprint for an expanded India-U.S. relationship ahead of President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration on Tuesday.
Indian and U.S. interests have converged and "never in history have they been so closely aligned," the report by an Asia Society Task Force says, arguing for a still deeper security and economic engagement between the two large democracies.
Click here for a PDF of the report
The Obama administration must keep India as one of its top foreign policy priorities, Richard Holbrooke, chairman of the Asia Society and who has been talked about as a possible envoy to South Asia, and Vishakha N.Desai, president of the Asia Society, say in a joint foreword
pakistan is happy making friends with US, but what they dont know is they had already made a death wish by doing that, to realise that see the history of US with pakistan, initially they started on good note with lot of aid to pakistan over decades, but wheel of fortune has changed for them now, they have started experiencing thunder storms by US now on western border which will lead to total tormoil in pakistan with new chapters begining such as BLA rising, fata & swat achieving their own independence, also giving rise to small autonomous states with US neutralising there nuclear arsenal. question will be , would these small states still live with peace, the answer is simple no, analogy with famous ‘kahavat – kutte ki doom’. So, finally india will have to take control of these small lawless states.
I HAVE STUDIED THE ARTICLE WITH DUE ATTENTION AND FIND THAT AT ONE PLACE IT IS MENTIONED THAT “Indeed for some years now there is a growing body of international opinion that holds that Pakistan has stepped up production of fissile material, and may just possibly hold more nuclear weapons than its much larger rival, India”. THE QUESTION AROSE IF INTERNATIONAL BODY OPINES PAKISTAN HAS STEPPED UP THE PRODUCTION of FISSILE MATERIAL THEN WHY THE WORD “MAY AND POSSIBLY COMES IN HOLDING NUMBER OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS”. This seems that the opinion formed is purely more on guesswork than an opinion formed on authenticates facts.
The other fact of comparing India with China’s threat more than Pakistan’s from India seems funny. One would like to know what was the threat-measuring yardstick used in this case.
India is much bigger than Pakistan and had to fight three bloody wars for survival and India fought only one that too in 1962. Then how Pakistan can become an aggressor and India a victim, the matter should be other way round.
One must remember nuclear bomb will not be used by Pakistan and by India as it is for deterrent, but will be explode if at all in Mid-East by Israel. People are unaware of that and the world may have to pay dearly for that. Why not write about it and do some researches on that. What is the hitch in doing so? Is it nice to keep mum when the name Israel is pronounced?
Political And Defense strategists think people linked with India would like elimination of Pakistan all together so that India with its old and new friends could effectively contain China to the north.
Pakistan has to think hard for its survival and needs to do what ever is possible on its part to do to live side by side with a genocide committal country like India. The reason for which many States of India often then not want to secede from India because of its inhuman treatment and discrimination which is very much on record.
India is Israel of the East that is an undeniable fact. Otherwise, why the genocide case sponsored by Indian political leaders is hanging with the Indian Supreme Court for decades exactly as the genocide case of Israel is hanging with the human Rights Commission because of fear of the unknown.
It seemed ridiculous to compare US and Russian Cold war with India – Pakistan nuclear capability and production or competition. Here The Question is Pakistan’s Survival not to win any race, grab land of India, or conquer India.
I suggest in line with many Political and Defense strategists that the world now needs to focus attention on disarming all countries possessing nuclear armaments and establishments irrespective of big and small countries. This will strengthen US Presidents endeavor to make the world totally nuclear free.
To do that first disarms Israel. As it is the most dangerous country of the world’s existence. Leave aside India and Pakistan that can be done at any moment once Israel the most dangerous country of the world is disarmed.
Pin pricking with motives to help country to gain support is meaningless and weakens the cause for which such attempts are made. People these days have learned to think in three dimensions.