Excellent article by Maleeha Hamid Siddiqui in Dawn on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Recent co-operation agreements between USA and India may make matters even worse. ( F. Sheikh )

KARACHI: What are the perils of nuclear competition? Does amassing nuclear weapons add to the quality of stability in the region? Is there an alternative model of nuclear deterrence? These are some of the hard questions that need to be asked about Pakistan’s nuclear deterrence policy, said Sadia Tasleem, lecturer at the department of Defence and Strategic Studies, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.

She was speaking at a talk on ‘Contemporary security landscape and the perils of nuclear competition in South Asia — is there a way out for Pakistan?’ on Wednesday organised by the department of International Relations, University of Karachi.

Ms Tasleem in her presentation pointed towards changing trends in Pakistan’s nuclear deterrence posture. “Recent developments in Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and missile capabilities indicate a shifting trend in its doctrinal thinking. Many in the west call Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal the fastest growing This might be debatable. However, it is certainly one of the rapidly growing arsenals. Security policy-makers strongly feel that they cannot afford to cap Pakistan’s nuclear ability.” In other words, Pakistan is moving away from minimum credible deterrence posture to full-spectrum deterrence posture.

Explaining this further, she said: “Pakistan publicly adheres to minimum credible deterrence [No to a No First Use of nuclear weapons] to placate international forces. But through ISPR statements we know that Pakistan is diversifying its nuclear arsenal under full-spectrum deterrence. This means deployment becomes essential. Hence, tactical weapons such as Haft-IX with a range of 60kms have been developed and test-fired meant to deter Indian advances in Pakistani territory.”

In her opinion, this deterrence posture is problematic. Pakistan’s nuclear deterrence posture is constantly linked to India’s nuclear and military developments. “This means we cannot set a bar to our nuclear arsenal whereas India has two-faced threats in China and Pakistan.”

Another problem is Pakistan needs to have a large number of deployable tactical weapons placed at several places. “Pakistan has limited short-range missiles and it is important to have fully deployable capable readiness that means Pakistan needs to take out its weapons from wherever it is hiding in caves or tunnels and deploy them swiftly. The enemy can calculate the time gap and based on that calculation inflict damage.”

Nuclear competition versus arms race

She also said questions should be asked that nobody seemed to be asking. For instance, is Pakistan doing the right thing in its national security strategy? Can’t we do without Haft-IX? Will we be annihilated if we do so? Are we engaging in nuclear competition? Is it a folly to enter in such a nuclear competition?

Pakistan is moving towards nuclear competition and not an arms race. It is not the arms race seen during the Cold War years between the US and the Soviet Union. “They had a similar power symmetry and had the resources to engage in such an arms race. The power dynamics were similar between these two countries and they could follow each other.”

This is not the case between Pakistan and India due to asymmetric power dynamics. Consequently, they are developing and modernising their arsenal differently. “India is developing ballistic defence system and Pakistan is spending more on cruise missiles.”

Technology itself and the scientific community’s stake are the factors that are driving nuclear competition. “Since there is psychological pressure on the country to expand its nuclear programme, there is induction of more sophisticated weapons. Hence, technology becomes a driver behind competition.”

http://www.dawn.com/news/1160067/we-are-adding-to-our-nuclear-arsenal-to-the-point-where-it-has-become-dangerous

By Kenan Malik

How ironic ,the leaders of the free world who recently attended the freedom of speech Paris march, even some who missed, are headed to Saudi Arabia with their heads bowed to pay respect to a leader who despised freedom of speech and Western way of life. Oil is thicker than blood. A worth reading article by Kenan Malik. ( F. Sheikh)

The world has lost a revered leader’, claimed US Secretary of John Kerry on the death last week of Saudi King Abdullah, a ‘man of wisdom and vision’, in Kerry’s words. David Cameron praised his ‘commitment to peace’ and ordered flags to be flown at half mast on government buildings. Christine Legarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund, even hailed him as a proto-feminist, a ‘strong advocate of women’.

In reality, the man that virtually every Western leader has bent over backwards to praise over the past few days  was a vicious tyrant, the absolute ruler of a kingdom that practiced torture and judicial murder, crushed any opposition, flogged and beheaded dissidents, imposed sharia law in the most brutal fashion, and exported jihadism across the world. He governed over a kingdom in which women need the approval of a male relative or guardian to marry, open a bank account, obtain a passport, attend university or to see a doctor, even for serious medical emergencies; a kingdom in which a woman must have a male chaperone any time she leaves home and is forbidden from driving. One would have thought that even the head the IMF should be able to see that this does not amount to ‘strong advocacy for women’.

Apologists for the late King Abdullah claim that he was a ‘reformer’ because he sought to bring about change slowly against the entrenched forces of the clergy and of culture. In fact, both the ‘cultural traditions’ and the ‘traditional’ religious norms of Saudi Arabia have only been established over the past two centuries, created, or appropriated, by the Saud clan, as a means of consolidating and maintaining its power.

https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/how-a-bunch-of-vicious-chancers-became-men-of-wisdom/