Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Security Circus

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015

    Lightbulb Security Circus

    A week from tomorrow will mark the 18th anniversary of Nawaz Sharif’s crowning achievement — the Chagai nuclear tests. We hear much these days about ‘development’ in the form of motorways, metro buses and what not but make no mistake — the announcement of Pakistan’s nuclear capability remains the jewel in the PML-N crown.

    What the Sharifs have called ‘Youm-i-Takbeer’ will be celebrated this year like in the past with the usual regalia. For a day the government will gain respite from all of its troubles and remind us all of the greatness of the Pakistani nation and the fact that we are now forever protected from the evil eye of the enemy (read: India).

    But after that day has passed, the prime minister will once again be in the dock, trying to convince the ‘public’ that he is not corrupt to the core and entitled to continue being the (rather ceremonial) leader of the country.

    Indeed one gets the sense that even on May 28 itself, the Pakistani people will not suddenly be transported back to that point in time 18 years ago when Nawaz Sharif, heroic son of the soil, proved to the world that we belonged in the comity of great nations.

    There has never been a public debate on the bomb.

    I was not among those particularly moved that day. It didn’t feel like there was anything valiant about possessing a nuclear bomb given the abject living conditions of millions of ordinary people in this country. I remember feeling disturbed by the collective outpouring of national pride, and realising just how distraught Robert Oppen*heimer must have been when the original A-bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.

    Those in this country that harbour a public position that is not unequivocally in favour of the bomb generally fall into the category of persona non grata. The standard view is that our possession of the bomb has forever eliminated the possibility of defeat in conventional war with our perennial enemy to the east.

    Quite aside from the fact that we have initiated at least as many wars as India has, and the fact that the last of these took place barely a year after the nuclear tests (read: Kargil 1999), I cannot help but ask whether ‘public opinion’ vis-à-vis our nuclear capability is as gung-ho today as it was up to some years ago.

    As with so many other matters of significance in this country, there has never really been anything approximating a public debate about the bomb, its meaning and the long-term consequences of its making. I doubt that such a debate will take place anytime soon, and so I am limited to outlining briefly here the contours of what such a debate would look like.

    First, what are the ethics of nuclear energy (remember that the bomb is only the most obvious and potent form)? We in this country have not been exposed to the realities of nuclear devastation, whether that which followed the American bombings at the toe-end of the Second World War in Japan in 1945 or accidents such as Chernobyl and more recently Fukushima. How would young people in this country feel about the bomb if they were adequately educated about the fallouts of nuclear energy?

    Second, given that the discourse about the bomb focuses so much on India, what would a nuclear war in the subcontinent actually look like? If we were to ever use a nuclear weapon against the evil enemy to the east, do we actually believe that we would suffer nothing for it? We share a border after all, and even bombing Kolkata would have serious repercussions for generations of Pakistanis hence.

    Third, what are the costs of continuing to dedicate exorbitant resources to a nuclear programme, and, for that matter, a highly unproductive military establishment? Ours is a country where health, education, drinking water, sanitation and many other basic needs remain unmet for a scandalously large part of the population. How do we reconcile that picture with the notion that the bomb makes us infinitely secure?

    For the record, I would not include in this hypothetical public debate the question of the command-and-control system of our nuclear facilities, a subject that has preoccupied ‘experts’ for many years. Who needs to be worried about a fanatical jihadi pressing the red button when Pakistani officialdom — and specifically the security establishment — has on more than one occasion indicated that it would not hesitate to use the bomb if push comes to shove?

    Perhaps a large majority of people in this country still take great pride in us having the bomb. Either way, Nawaz Sharif’s current plight offers a cautionary tale about the limits of nationalism. His government will make hay next weekend about the bomb but that will not save his legacy. Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to make believe that ‘national security’ is the only thing that matters.
    Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it. Begin it now.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2016
    But we cant rely on conventional weapons..we cant buy fighter jets submaries uav drones...but we must be indegenous in making fighters i mean 5th generation stealth fighters ..the saudi led 34 nation coalition must be reduced to those countries having defence budget of 10 billion dollars or so... here coaliton partners can contribute 4 to 5 billion dollars equal 40 to 50 billion dollars in return getting more advance military we can get.. here these 40 to 50 billion dollars can be spent in building reasearch and analysis centre to develop or jointly produce stealth fights
    Latest nuclear submarines
    Mine reapers
    And even one air craft carrier
    We can invite Russia and china to be the part of this strategic muslims made military coaltion..
    At the same time it will reduce unemployment in countries who are part of coalition

    We can reduce border desputes by deploying such army to reduce border tension
    Infiltrations or insurgencies

    Now once this 4 to 8 countries made coaltion established it can act as front line defense through coordinated control structure like pentagon..but natonal army with her reduced defence budget remain..hence there would not be proxies or insurgencies under any agendas...

    But partners must ensure to help each other and should never submit to any pressure of any kind or to be part of such treaty or organization that may damage intrests of coaltion partners

    Once such agreement made. We can invite north korea to be part of our coalition...bargaining H Bomb technology

    Like abdul qadeer khan did to built unranium enrichnent plant in lieu of na dong missle technology transfer

    We must keep in mind
    The aim of such military is to liberate palestine and kashmir but such agenda shoud be reveal when we coalition partners would become fully developed
    Capable to defend ourself

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Now in current situation we are relying on tactical nuclear weapons.which day by day catching by eyes of our enemies....right we must make full use of this coaltion where i perceive countries like
    Saudi arabia
    Turkey must with draw from nato if they want to join coalition
    And those having def budget greater than 6 billion dollars

    So they contribute equal that will bring democracy in this coalition hence consensus not consent
    Last edited by Zealot; 21st June 2016 at 01:16 AM.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts