Pakistan’s rush for more bombs — why?

Published: January 29, 2012
The writer currently teaches physics and political science at LUMS (Lahore). He taught at Quaid-i-Azam University for 36 years and was head of the physics department.

The writer currently teaches physics and political science at LUMS (Lahore). He taught at Quaid-i-Azam University for 36 years and was head of the physics department.

On January 24, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon vented his frustration at Pakistan’s determined opposition to a treaty that would limit fissile material production for use in nuclear weapons. For three years, Pakistan has single-handedly — and successfully — blocked the Conference on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva from discussing an effort that would reduce nuclear weapons globally. Consequently, within diplomatic circles, Pakistan has acquired the reputation of an outlier that opposes all efforts towards this end.

The opposition comes in the backdrop of news that Pakistan has the world’s fastest-growing nuclear arsenal. This claim — which still reverberates around the world — was first published in a Bulletin of Atomic Scientists report entitled “Pakistan’s nuclear forces — 2011”. The authors, Hans M Kristensen and Robert S Norris, say although the numbers of Pakistani warheads and delivery vehicles is a closely-held secret, yet “we estimate that Pakistan has a nuclear weapons stockpile of 90-110 nuclear warheads, an increase from the estimated 70-90 warheads in 2009”. They reckon that if the expansion continues, Pakistan’s stockpile could reach 150-200 in a few years. By this count, Pakistan’s arsenal may have already exceeded India’s, and will soon rival Britain’s.

The Bulletin report has not been denied by Pakistan. Its stockpile of highly enriched uranium is increased daily by thousands of centrifuges whirring away at the Kahuta Laboratory (and possibly elsewhere). This is augmented by plutonium producing reactors at Khushab; two are already at work and a third is undergoing trials. Google Earth photos show that a fourth one is under construction. The plutonium has no commercial purpose. Instead, the goal is to produce lighter but deadlier bombs to be fitted on to missile tips.

Pakistan’s position is that it needs to produce still more bombs — and hence more bomb materials — because of India. It cites the US-India nuclear deal, along with older issues related to verification problems and existing stocks. Indeed, that infamous deal is Pakistan’s strongest argument and a correct criticism: the US has committed itself to nuclear cooperation with a state that is not a signatory to the NPT and one that made nuclear weapons surreptitiously. Now that the sanctions once imposed are long gone, India can import advanced nuclear reactor technology as well as natural uranium ore from diverse sources — Australia included. Although imported ore cannot be used for bomb-making, India could in principle divert more of its scarce domestic ore towards military reactors. Pakistan also says that “Cold Start” — an operation conceived by the Indian military in response to more Mumbai-type attacks — requires it to prepare tactical nuclear weapons for battlefield use.

But the US-India nuclear deal may actually be a fig leaf. Pakistan’s rush for more bombs has as much to do with its changing relationship with the United States as with Indian military modernisation. This racing reflects a paradigm shift within Pakistan’s military establishment, where feelings against the US have steadily hardened over many years. Post-bin Laden, the change is starkly visible.

In the military’s mind, the Americans are now a threat, equal to or larger than India. They are also considered more of an adversary than even the TTP jihadists who have killed thousands of Pakistani troops and civilians. While the Salala incident was allowed to inflame public opinion, the gory video-taped executions of Pakistani soldiers by the TTP were played down. A further indication is that the LeT/JuD is back in favor (with a mammoth anti-US and anti-India rally scheduled in Karachi next month). Pakistani animosity rises as it sees America tightly embracing India, and standing in the way of a Pakistan-friendly government in Kabul. Once again “strategic defiance” is gaining ground, albeit not through the regional compact suggested by General Mirza Aslam Beg in the early 1990s.

This attitudinal shift has created two strong non-India reasons that favour ramping up bomb production.

First, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are seen to be threatened by America. This perception has been reinforced by the large amount of attention given to the issue in the US mainstream press, and by war-gaming exercises in US military institutes. Thus, redundancy is considered desirable — an American attempt to seize or destroy all warheads would have smaller chances of success if Pakistan had more.

But such an attack is improbable. It is difficult to imagine any circumstances — except possibly the most extreme — in which the US would risk going to war against another nuclear state. Even if Pakistan had just a handful of weapons, no outside power could accurately know the coordinates of the mobile units on which they are located. It is said that an extensive network of underground tunnels exists within which they can be freely moved. Additionally, overground ones are moved from place to place periodically in unmarked trucks. Mobile dummies and decoys can hugely compound difficulties. Moreover, even if a nuclear location was exactly known, it would surely be heavily guarded. This implies many casualties when intruding troops are engaged, thus making a secret bin-Laden type operation impossible.

The second – and perhaps more important — reason for the accelerated nuclear development is left unstated: nukes act as insurance against things going too far wrong. Like North Korea, Pakistan knows that, no matter what, international financial donors will feel compelled to keep pumping in funds. Else a collapsing system may be unable to prevent some of its hundred-plus Hiroshima-sized nukes from disappearing into the darkness.

This insurance could become increasingly important as Pakistan moves deeper into political isolation and economic difficulties mount. Even today, load-shedding and fuel shortages routinely shut down industries and transport for long stretches, imports far exceed exports, inflation is at the double-digit level, foreign direct investment is negligible because of concerns over physical security, tax collection remains minimal, and corruption remains unchecked. An African country like Somalia or Congo would have sunk under this weight long ago.

To conclude: throwing a spanner in the works at the CD (Geneva) may well be popular as an act of defiance. Indeed, many in Pakistan — like Hamid Gul and Imran Khan — derive delicious satisfaction from spiting the world in such ways. But this is not wise for a state that perpetually hovers at the edge of bankruptcy, and which derives most of its worker remittances and export earnings from the very countries it delights in mocking.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 30th, 2012.

Facebook Conversations

Reader Comments (118)

  • Nadir
    Jan 29, 2012 - 10:30PM

    Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are the only way Pakistan can punch above its weight and remain relevant, insuring that the generals get attention by global powers. Ramping up production, insures that foreign powers deal with the military, that is at the centre of every, global nightmare scenario where Pakistani nukes get compromised. Given the state of the Pakistani economy, the state of its peoples, bomb blasts, mass rallies by banned extremists, a nation disproportianetly affected by climate change, our nukes are the only thing we can gloat about and make ourselves feel important.


  • Gul
    Jan 29, 2012 - 10:55PM

    Nukes have made us more vulnerable than we were before acquiring it. Moreover the nuclear program has drained more our resources- financial as well as human, which could have been used on other nation building acts.

    Public have the right to know how much so far have been spent and how many personnel are directly or indirectly involved in this. Now Iran is also acquiring these. Think about the scenario three nuclear powers in a row. Having almost no trade relations – which open peace gates.


  • Azhar
    Jan 29, 2012 - 11:22PM

    Peace with our neighbors is the only solution, even if we had to trim our mustache a bit.


  • Faheem
    Jan 29, 2012 - 11:39PM

    O come on! We can’t eat grass anymore!


  • M. F.
    Jan 29, 2012 - 11:54PM

    There were days when Pak was begging India and the world to come to Non-Proliferation & Nuclear Dis-armament Treaties but all those requests fell on deaf ears.

    Again it’s good for Pakistan’s own future for healthy living to call-it-even and stop producing more nuclear fuel__ not even for business or trade.


  • Vijay K
    Jan 30, 2012 - 12:13AM

    @Nadir: I think its more then military though. India and Pakistan were irrelevant to the rest of the world till they acquired nukes. “Jis ki lathi, ous ki bhens” He who has the stick, owns the buffalo. Humans still respect jungle law. The countries with superior weapons in the world still call the shots. Let us not kid ourselves. Altruism has no place in politics. Why do UK and USA hold so many nukes otherwise? We need nukes if we want to be respected and be counted. More the merry. India’s rise in economic status somehow coincided with its acquiring nuke member status. Power to Pakistan’s Nuke Program, I say !


  • Ali Tanoli
    Jan 30, 2012 - 12:32AM

    So what is the conclusion of the article what we do just give up remember iraq gave up every thing then still invaded and distroyed and killed, raped i guess we cant afford to do that
    any more since 1947, 1971, 1991. learn from history.


  • Ali Tanoli
    Jan 30, 2012 - 12:36AM

    Economic problems need honest if not least crrupt peoples to solved.


  • Wahaj
    Jan 30, 2012 - 12:40AM

    The author looks very similar to Bill Gates.


  • Arindom
    Jan 30, 2012 - 12:57AM

    “India could in principle divert more of its scarce domestic ore towards military reactors”

    This argument has been proven to be untrue recently by global nuclear experts’ circles. If this were true, India wouldnot have wasted scarce domestic ores in constructing tens of nuclear installations for power generation. India has already planned to achieve 25% power generation by using nuclear plants and is on target to achieve this. All this by using scarce domestic ores. India has capped it’s arsenal at 100 as a deterrent against China and now plans to using nuclear resources for power generation. This is not mere propaganda and India has been quite transparent about this – this has enabled countries – US, UK, France, Russia, recently Australia to start cooperating with India in the nuclear field. Talks with Japan are underway, and were it not for the Tsunami, a N-deal would have ben signed with Japan too. The worlds’ favourable treatment of India in the nuclear field is not due to some obscure anti-muslim conspiracy theory which many in Pakistan love to peddle – but due to India’s behavior has a civilised nation and refrain from issuing nuclear threats and demands lika N.Korea and indeed Pakistan


  • Ken Bryant
    Jan 30, 2012 - 1:05AM

    Pakistan and India may conceivably have attained “Mutual Assured Destruction”, but Pakistan and the US have not. It is unclear to me why you believe Pakistan’s nukes would deter a US attack, if the US believed an attack on Pakistan served its interests. You have no delivery systems that would reach the US. And absolute annihilation for Pakistan would be minutes away from the initiation of a nuclear attack on the US. What physical scenario do you envision by which Pakistan’s nukes could be used to deter the US?


  • Harry Stone
    Jan 30, 2012 - 1:16AM

    There are some misguided statements in the presentation. First is the US probably knows where more than 95% of the nuclear weapon systems are in PAK.

    A second misguided statement implies that PAK would enter into a nuclear exchange with the US. This brings up a question of just how reliable are PAK’s delivery systems. PAK might launch a first strike but before those weapons landed in the US the US’s second strike would have already hit their targets inside PAK think boomers from the Indian Ocean.

    Finally PAK’s nuclear weapons are not the asset PAK believes them to be. They are in fact a liability. Not only have they taken needed resources from other sectors they must be guarded and protected. Each weapon has its own DNA. Should a terrorist organization steal one of PAK’s weapons and it is detonated within the US, I am sure the US would view this as the same as a nuclear attack by PAK and respond appropriately.

    The world views PAK not as a nation that punches above its weight but a failed nation much like North Korea. One that cannot meet the basic needs of its citizens.


  • Roflcopter
    Jan 30, 2012 - 2:12AM

    Now all we need is an ICBM :D God bless Pak Army & A Q Khan


  • Khan
    Jan 30, 2012 - 2:24AM

    Dear Mr. Hoodbhoy, I agree with you on the fact that the nuclear race should be stopped, specially between two close hostile neighbors like Pakistan and India. However, I don’t understand one point that why would people like you drag every conclusion towards Imran Khan in every such matter.


  • stenson
    Jan 30, 2012 - 2:46AM

    Maybe you should direct your concern to India who used a foreign aid gifted nuclear plant and diverted it for nuclear weapons. Canada should share the blame for giving a nuclear reactor to the Indians who then illegally made nuclear weapons and militarized all South Asia. Now that Indian pulled the genie out of the bottle, It’s up to India to put it back in by renouncing nuclear weapons and unilaterally dismantling their program. Only then should Pakistan consider doing the same.


  • saleem
    Jan 30, 2012 - 2:48AM

    On this Dr Hoodbhoy i would like to differ with you. its a game of survival , imagine if Saddam had the bomb would Iraq been systematically destroyed and that stupid Gaddafi , he had the thing and gave it up and even ended up naming us as the suppliers. What if Gaddafi had not given up the bomb, would Cameron and Sarkozy destroyed the welfare state of Libya, yes the common libyan had more state support than even rich India. Iran knows this and understands the pridicament as after Syria everyone will be gunning for Iran and only the bomb will save them. For Pakistan to survive we need to increase the stocks before supplies run out


  • Mujtaba Sarwar
    Jan 30, 2012 - 3:10AM

    Pakistan should look to North Korea for its nuclear doctrine: asymmetrical deterrence. India will never goto war with Pakistan so long as Pakistan has the ability to take out just one or two cities. And you don’t need a lot of nukes for that. I think its about time we stop living in perpetual fear and switch up our priorities.


  • Ahmad
    Jan 30, 2012 - 3:28AM

    How about Pakistan cash in on all the hysteria and fear it has created in international circles about its weapons getting in the wrong hands? How about we offer to dismantle most of our nuclear weapons in return for the international community wiping off our debt? And keep only the ones we really need to offset India, that number bring 2, to maintain second strike capability and a minimum nuclear deterrent. If you don’t want to keep 2 then keep 10. In any case, Pakistan doesn’t need 100+ weapons. And our 70 billion – ish debt is nothing compared to many other countries, so it really is not that big a number, especially since this act of dismantling nuclear weapons not only keeps us safe but the rest of the world, or so we should project. Its all how you frame it. Unfortunately our spin doctors are crap, or employed by the other side i.e establishment.


  • Bipul Rajput
    Jan 30, 2012 - 3:33AM

    @Nadir: ” … Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are the only way Pakistan can punch above its weight and remain relevant, insuring that the generals get attention by global powers. ”

    Wanting to punch above ones weight is not such a good idea. If you get into a brawl, you will definitely get punched way above what your weight can handle – and you will end up with a badly bruised and broken body for sure. And what use is that ?Recommend

  • Umer
    Jan 30, 2012 - 4:18AM


    Now all we need is an ICBM :D God
    bless Pak Army & A Q Khan

    Soviet Union had lots of ICBM yet it broke from inside like we are in the process.


  • Cautious
    Jan 30, 2012 - 4:30AM

    Like North Korea, Pakistan knows that,
    no matter what, international
    financial donors will feel compelled
    to keep pumping in funds.

    Given that starvation and gut wrenching poverty are the mainstays In N Korea it would appear that spending enormous sums of money on Nukes hasn’t paid off – why in the World would anyone think it would pay off for Pakistan?


  • Cautious
    Jan 30, 2012 - 5:56AM

    “But this is not wise for a state that perpetually hovers at the edge of bankruptcy, and which derives most of its worker remittances and export earnings from the very countries it delights in mocking.”
    Common sense to most people — but Pakistan seem to run on emotion and things like logic or even common sense don’t seem to influence policy.Recommend

  • Phajja Lahori
    Jan 30, 2012 - 6:05AM

    @Bipul Rajput:
    That’s what your experience is speaking after 1962 Chinese war?
    My advise to people like you is that do not threaten people or nations with such idiotic rhetorics. We have seen what a tarzan you are when it comes to China or the USA. Go give these lectures to someone who get scared.


  • MarkH
    Jan 30, 2012 - 6:15AM

    In the US/India/Pakistan nuclear triangle it’s about nothing more than the fact that Pakistan is the perceived aggressor and has been in all conflicts I can think of at the moment. So the “defensive” aspect of Pakistan’s nuke is seen for what it is: complete crap
    The reason being bad is worse than not giving one at all.
    India doesn’t threaten Pakistan
    Pakistan frequently makes aggressor statements
    Between the two, even if the order is messed up, India’s have defensive worth. Pakistan makes it look like a threat to every non-Muslim in the world with all the comments that come alongside their nuke talk which makes the innocent act look like a bad lie with dangerous undertones.


  • Arjun
    Jan 30, 2012 - 6:19AM

    As long as India and Pakistan have enough nuclear weapons to wipe each out, the status quo in Kashmir won’t change. “Occupied” Kashmir isn’t going to become “Azad” just because Pakistan has has 200 nuclear weapons. Conversely, Indian rightwingers dreams of taking back “Occupied” Kashmir is going to remain just that, a dream.


  • Amjad
    Jan 30, 2012 - 8:24AM

    @MarkH: India hadn’t made its silly statements about attacking Pakistan and threatening it with nuclear weapons, Pakistan wouldn’t have been pushed in proving its nuclear deterrent in Chagai. We all remember the Indian sabre rattling and we know from history what India has done to Kashmir and did in 1971 to Bangladesh. We also know what they have been doing against Pakistan from their allies in Afghanistan. So save this nonsense about India not threatening Pakistan. If only they would honour the UN resolutions in occupied Kashmir and let the people their freely choose their destiny as mandated. The world knows that Pakistan’s nuclear program is India specific and the world also knows that India started the nuclear arms race in the region so there is no need to pretend that India is innocent.


  • Mirza
    Jan 30, 2012 - 8:27AM

    Pakistan is rushing for more bombs because we have too much extra money to burn. Pakistanis are happier with the bombs than with education, healthcare, electricity, roads and contented with eating grass. Untill the outlook of Pakistani people changes nothing can change their plight.


  • Hasan
    Jan 30, 2012 - 8:32AM

    But it is our debt. Why should we be allowed to hold the world to ransom?


  • meekal ahmed
    Jan 30, 2012 - 8:52AM

    In addition to workers’ remittances and exports, we also get most of our imports, capital (banking, FDI and portfolio flows) from the countries we disparage. Also don’t forget the west is where we also park our ill-gotten wealth — not Khatmandu.


  • Pollack
    Jan 30, 2012 - 8:53AM

    @Ken Bryant: I doubt if pakistan can launch a open nuclear attack on the US through traditional delivery systems. It would be probably carried out by sleeper cells with full deniability. Pakistan will do what they are doing with the Taliban in Afghanistan . Deny that they are involved and blame it on “non state” actors over whom they do not have any control at all. But that may not be enough to fool the americans in case of a nuclear attack on US mainland. Pakistan will probably be made to pay a heavy price by the US which may lead to its anhilation.


  • Pollack
    Jan 30, 2012 - 8:55AM

    @Roflcopter: You may get your wish but you will not like it’s consequences.


  • harkol
    Jan 30, 2012 - 9:01AM

    Mr. hoodboy:

    You are a known critic of Nuclear weapons and rightly so. And your analysis seems to be correct when viewed from a point of view of pure defense doesn’t need more nuclear weapons. It just needs probable survival in case of an attack to hold out a threat to the enemy. From that perspective, I hope India doesn’t make any more nuclear weapons than it has.

    These weapons have no practical use other than a threat of use. If indeed a nation uses it, it invites its own destruction along with others. The worry really is how long Pakistan’s nuclear weapons will be with rational players? And can pakistan avoid worldwide pariah status like North korea, if it continues down this path?


  • Observer
    Jan 30, 2012 - 9:16AM


    “Peace with our neighbors is the only solution, even if we had to trim our mustache a bit.”

    Quite correct! Pakistanis have to contemplate why Bangladesh has no nukes or a huge military and yet the bad Indians have not swallowed it to make a bigger India? The Indians did have BD in their hands in 1971 and yet pulled their forces back and bowed to the sovereignty of newly created BD. Do the Indians really want to annexe Pakistan even if Pakistan asks India for a union? The answer is a big no! Pakistan and the Partition are a done deal, no sane Indian wants the territory back populated with radicalized religious zealots and terrorists.

    So, why the huge military and nukes disproportionate to the resources?


  • baldtree
    Jan 30, 2012 - 9:39AM

    That portion of little trade is incorrect. Iran and India do trade substantially in oil


  • Noor
    Jan 30, 2012 - 10:02AM

    Sustainable economic growth does not come from blackmailing the world and begging for money it comes from investing in people why do we fail to understand this.


  • Bakir
    Jan 30, 2012 - 10:17AM

    Pakistani nuclear weapons are extremely important for her, Vietnam, iraq and Afghanistan could have been occupation free if they had a nuke, please tell me why Americans do not threaten North Korea like Iran etc, I think nuclear weapons are more important then buying bread and butter, I would prefer to be hungry but free then properly fed slave of some western adventurer.


  • ishaq
    Jan 30, 2012 - 10:45AM

    Because we are a security State but You can still Found Variety of
    terrorists Like Osama and other top ranked international and local


  • Yuri Kondratyuk
    Jan 30, 2012 - 11:04AM


    Quite correct! Pakistanis have to
    contemplate why Bangladesh has no
    nukes or a huge military and yet the
    bad Indians have not swallowed it to
    make a bigger India?

    Good observation. Never looked from that angle.


  • Qasim
    Jan 30, 2012 - 11:23AM

    Dr. Saheb. There is no point in repeating western assertions without offering concrete and pragmatic alternatives/suggestions. This mad race is unfortunate but what should Pakistan do and how without compromising its security?


  • Jan 30, 2012 - 11:52AM

    “Having almost no trade relations” – Please correct this.. India imports 12% of its oil from Iran..


  • Pakistani Agnostic
    Jan 30, 2012 - 11:53AM

    Bangladesh has huge poverty rates that is why India did not annex it. It’s not because India is a angel or whatever .


  • Abhi
    Jan 30, 2012 - 12:03PM

    Think before you make a wish, it may happen.


  • Yuri Kondratyuk
    Jan 30, 2012 - 12:52PM

    @Pakistani Agnostic:

    Bangladesh has huge poverty rates that
    is why India did not annex it. It’s
    not because India is a angel or
    whatever .

    You should realize that Bangladesh is much better placed than Pakistan in just about every development indicator.


  • abdulazeez
    Jan 30, 2012 - 12:55PM

    @amjad:one more scholar from sir zaid hamid collage


  • Observer
    Jan 30, 2012 - 12:59PM

    @Pakistani Agnostic:

    “Bangladesh has huge poverty rates that is why India did not annex it. It’s not because India is a angel or whatever .”

    Bangladesh was the economic power behind united Pakistan. It is still way ahead of Pakistan in terms of education and economic progress and other human progress indicators.


  • Iftekhar
    Jan 30, 2012 - 1:02PM

    @.Mr.Saleem: You are right. I agree with you.


  • prank
    Jan 30, 2012 - 1:11PM

    @Phajja Lahori:
    We may be not matched with China in tems of military power , but definately better then u guys .. keep watch on Lahore .. we want to visit again ….


  • Shyam
    Jan 30, 2012 - 1:25PM

    @Pakistani Agnostic

    Bangladesh has huge poverty rates

    Please dont flatter yourself. Bangladesh is growing faster than Pakistan. Investment is not made on “What is” rather on “What it will be”. Most people would put their bets on Bangladesh instead of Pakistan.


  • Irshad Khan
    Jan 30, 2012 - 1:40PM

    It was repeatedly announced by our great leaders ” we shall eat grass but develop atom bomb”, ” We shall eat grass but explode the atom bomb”. Both classes of these leaders and their kith and kins are enjoying best of living luxuries in this world; While rest of our majority of innocent population, easily exploitable and made to raise flags, slogans and clamping, are either eating grass or begging on roads with their children for EK ROTI. Is it justified?


  • Mohsin Shafqat
    Jan 30, 2012 - 1:53PM

    You are free to leave Pakistan and go live in the western world if you have a problem with our methods. We are fully entitled to do what is necessary for our protection and defense, if you are so concerned with world peace go write about the manslaughter of millions of Muslims by your beloved United States and India not to forget Israel. Recommend

  • kaalchakra
    Jan 30, 2012 - 1:56PM

    Those of us who see Pakistan as a failed or a failing state and wonder how the country could delight in ‘punching above its weight’ don’t quite understand the Pakistani value system. It is not the value system of Bangladeshis (at least not the Bangladeshis who are happy to be free from Pakistan), and so, any comparisons between the two are not apprppriate.

    (1) Pakistan sees itself in heroic Islamic terms. (2) It’s pride and joy is not in terms of what it has been able to do for its own citizens, but for what it imagines it has been able to do to a much larger, presumably antagonistic country – India. Now the US may be filling the role of the antagonist (after having received billions of dollars worth of American aid since 1947).


  • Pakistani Agnostic
    Jan 30, 2012 - 2:03PM

    I am talking about then Bangladesh.
    India already had crushing poverty (just like now) and it certainly would not have waned to have those millions of Bangalis.


  • Pakistani Agnostic
    Jan 30, 2012 - 2:06PM

    @Yuri Kondratyuk:
    Well i am sure it is. Good Luck to them. Not that i care. I am enjoying a comfort level millions of Brown Indians can only dare


  • Jan 30, 2012 - 2:22PM

    @Pakistani Agnostic:
    Yeah the sort of comfort only people in the establishment can dream of, i guess!! By the way we Indians had forgotten that you people are of Arab descent, thanks for reminding us! You know racially we can’t take the blame of other devils around!!


  • khabar baloch
    Jan 30, 2012 - 2:47PM

    I wish we could make longer range ICBMs as soon as possible.once we make them,we will be completely invincivible.No aggressor will ever dare to meddle into internal affairs of pakistan.this will not only help us in the protection of our geographical borders but also give boost to our economy.then we will be able to export gas from iran without foreign pressure which will ultimately help in the prosperity of pakistan and will make our life easier.if we had nukes in 1971,no one could have broken our country.Nukes and longer range carriers are neccessary for the betterment of pakistanis.


  • Dr A K Khan
    Jan 30, 2012 - 2:56PM

    I just don’t see India wanting to invade us. We have such severe internal problems on both economic and on a political levels, why would India want to invade and acquire our problems. We just need to be honest and accept that Pakistan is Pakistan’s worst enemy.


  • Waqas Butt
    Jan 30, 2012 - 3:13PM

    Pakistan has every right to make sure its defences are strong. Anyone talking about Pakistan should first talk about wrapping up nuclear bombs of those countries who killed millions in Japan using those Bombs.


  • Wondering
    Jan 30, 2012 - 3:16PM

    @Pakistani Agnostic

    I am enjoying a comfort level millions of Brown Indians can only

    Sigh. Good luck to you Sir. Indians do dare and do while we Pakistanis would keep harping about it in these forums and feel smug about it.


  • Roflcopter
    Jan 30, 2012 - 4:16PM

    @Harry Stone, your whole post is misguided….US knows where our nukes are? lol funny stuff especially when US only found out we had nukes like a decade after Pakistan made them.


  • Yuri Kondratyuk
    Jan 30, 2012 - 5:36PM

    @Pakistani Agnostic:

    Not that i care. I am enjoying a
    comfort level millions of Brown
    Indians can only dare

    If you do not care, you wouldn’t mention Bangladesh’s poverty.
    Speaking of comforts, I can say the same thing about millions of Pakistanis too. Besides, poor or otherwise, India works hard to earn its money and doesn’t rely on donations, loan write-offs and bail-out packages.
    And if fairer skin be the indicator of superiority, the world ought to be ruled by albinos.


  • APP
    Jan 30, 2012 - 5:39PM


    He may look similar to Bill Gates, but are there bugs in his argument :).


  • Aryan
    Jan 30, 2012 - 6:07PM

    @Mohsin Shafqat: you forgot all weather friend China and uighur muslims.


  • Amjad
    Jan 30, 2012 - 6:17PM

    @Shyam: Despite what you may think, most Pakistanis would disagree with you when it comes to betting on Bangladesh or even India over Pakistan. We all know that Pakistan is still better off on average than any other place in South Asia and trust me, no Pakistani thinks that Sri Lanka or Bangladesh or even India is better off than Pakistan when there is abject poverty in all these lands. At the end of the day, we know it is just a question of time that we restore stability and develop institutions in Pakistan in order for the nation to take off economically and [email protected]: The Indians are not stupid. Why do they keep a hold on occupied Kashmir when the people want to leave which would be proven if India honoured UN resolutions on the region? Why do they not want Bangladesh when they helped Bangladesh get its independence by aiding the movement? Simply put they don’t want it and know that the future of Bangladesh is as bleak as many parts of India which are rife with poverty and flooding. Unfortunately, global warming is going to adversely affect all of South Asia but especially the coastal areas of India and Bangladesh.


  • Asif
    Jan 30, 2012 - 6:32PM

    Dr Hoodbhoy has acquired a knack to always write doomsday scenarios about Pakistan.My dear sir,have you ever realized who all have the Nuces ,why,what threat some of them have and at what cost are they building these? You are only respected in this cruel and Jungle like World,if you have Paws and sharp ones.It is in the interest of Pakistan’survival to continue strengthening it’s military arsenal even at the cost of some comforts .Recommend

  • syed baqar ahsan
    Jan 30, 2012 - 6:38PM

    HOODBHOY,,your analysis are always sound logical and you teach us how to go about but always forget what all others are up to with us through aman ki asha ,non NATO ally,friends of democratic Pakistan and MFN status,TTP IP pipeline,shia/sunni killings etc etc,Must write for others to bring sincerity in their approach towards Pakistan.


  • Shahid
    Jan 30, 2012 - 6:42PM

    Pakistan’s inherent opposition to India is foolish as well as self destructive. India is ten times bigger than Pakistan which should be acknowledged. There is no harm in accepting India’s big brother status. when we deal with any super power china, USA or Russia our dealings with them is not on equal footing. Why insisting equal footing with India. If India wanted to capture Pakistan it could have easily done in 1971. What could have stopped them. It is in best interest of Pakistan to develop friendly relations with India.


  • FactCheck
    Jan 30, 2012 - 6:49PM

    @Pakistani Agnostic:

    Bangladesh’s economic growth and poverty alleviation programme is far greater than Pakistan. Enough said.


  • Thoughtful
    Jan 30, 2012 - 7:16PM

    Can your collective conscience deal with one nuke? 1000 is no different.


  • Jan 30, 2012 - 7:30PM

    North Korea too has bombs but is again counted as one of the failed states, an attribute it shares with Pakistan.

    Soviet Union too had bombs, missiles, nuclear subs, but it too collapsed. It too had invested in bombs rather than economy. Again, something happening in Pakistan.

    The greatest curse of Pakistanis is their hatred. India is doing nothing out of the ordinary, but Pakistan is racing to “defeat it”, in the process destroying itself.


  • Jigi
    Jan 30, 2012 - 7:40PM

    “India hadn’t made its silly statements about attacking Pakistan and threatening it with nuclear weapons, Pakistan wouldn’t have been pushed in proving its nuclear deterrent in Chagai.”

    India does not needs nuclear weapons to deal with Pakistan. Its military capacity is at least 8 times that of Pak.

    “If only they would honour the UN resolutions in occupied Kashmir and let the people their freely choose their destiny as mandated.”

    The Kashmir issue has been resolved in 1947. There is no UN resolution pending anymore. The world and UN has moved on and so should you!!!!If separatists (who are Iranian and Uzbek migrants and not Kashmiri) in Kashmir want independence, they will have to find a different place as their homeland as it will not be on Indian soil.

    “We all know that Pakistan is still better off on average than any other place in South Asia and trust me, no Pakistani thinks that Sri Lanka or Bangladesh or even India is better off than Pakistan when there is abject poverty in all these lands.”

    Nobody really cares what Pakis think; it is the reality and facts on the ground that matters!!!! Poverty in the subcontinent is a legacy of colonialism not a creation of states. But clearly, different countries in the region have dealt with it differently. As per IMF 2011 report, Poverty in India is 21% inspire of its size, while it is 26% in Pakistan.


  • V K Bajaj (Delhi)
    Jan 30, 2012 - 7:57PM


    You have analyzed the situation deeply and be treated as complete (within the allotted space) but still it is not complete one. Hereunder are some more points concerning the topic:

    a) The Pak says our reason to pile up Arms is to match with India. And India is piling up keeping in view threat from China. And China piled up Arm and Army as USSR piled up. It is well know to the world that USA started the race for Nuclear Arms. So merely to blame or reason India will not suffice.

    b) It is not the quantity of Arms that matters but combination of Man and Machine (Arms) that works. In Bangladesh War it was proved.

    c) As far as mine analysis is concerned there is no chance of any WAR between India and Pak. Both the countries are not so economical strong. If it was to happen then Kargil should have ignited it. Then terrorist attack on Mumbai also failed to disturb relationship. People to people relations are better. On Political front, as of now,there is a meltdown.

    d) Presently the World (especially USA and NATO) are worried that Terrorist may not gain access to Nuclear Arm to disturb peace globally. International community do not worry about any war between India and Pak.

    e) Both India and Pak need to analyze correctly as from whom the real danger is. Is it from each other or from USA UK China or USSR.

    f) As you (Writer Mr Pervez) you are the best student of Political Science so may take that presently each country is involved in COLD WAR with their respective economic tools because these countries counsel that Economic Arm is better that Nuclear Arm.

    g) I personally wish that people to people relationship must go up so that Politic Boss may not dare even to talk about use of Nuclear Arm.


  • Rehman
    Jan 30, 2012 - 8:08PM

    We Pakistanis are the biggest wierdos in the world. We fool ourselves by cooking up far fetched stories of our ARAB ancestors. Then we think that we are the centre of the world. Then we think that we have some magical properties in our DNA because we are muslims. Then we think that we are destined to rule india. Then we have dreams about a third world war where it will be RUSSIA+CHINA+PAKISTAn versus India+US+israel and we will defeat our enemies.

    we are so stupid..Recommend

  • roma
    Jan 30, 2012 - 9:22PM

    @Nadir: – nadir you have received a whopping 99 votes for your comments which tells me that pakistan is continuing to be held ransom economically by your own ( irrational ) fears …..what happens when technology discovers a way to neutralise, derail ( or indeed – boomerang them back to you … hehehehe ) or in any other way render nukes less meaningful ..?….. it’s not a dream in fact there is much reserch into that ? all that money , resources – down the drain ? Pak is victim of their own fears it seems to me – but go ahead , dont let anyone stop you


  • Zain Zaidi
    Jan 30, 2012 - 9:37PM

    There are two terms used in international relations one is idealism the other is realism….the world order works on realism…the country is down because of our corrupted values and low literacy rate….it has nothing to do with nukes….. Intolerance, hypocrisy, extremism, bla bla are the real causes of our backwardness…..Recommend

  • whoever
    Jan 30, 2012 - 10:23PM


    India has no such intentions against pak , but at the same time keeping a close eye on pak and more importantly china . For last few years , India has been cash ,energy and business hungry . We have already tasted the taste of economy , which is far better than war . Our life has been restless because of above mentioned things and can’t even think about war . Recommend

  • Cynical
    Jan 30, 2012 - 10:35PM

    Hope more bombs will not end up in more grass on the dining table.


  • Pakistani Agnostic
    Jan 30, 2012 - 10:43PM

    Last time i checked, only Indians harp about their so-called economic achievements on our forums.
    I have every right to feel arrogant if they can.


  • Observer
    Jan 31, 2012 - 12:07AM

    @Irshad Khan:

    >”It was repeatedly announced by our great leaders ” we shall eat grass but develop atom bomb”, ” We shall eat grass but explode the atom bomb”. Both classes of these leaders and their kith and kins are enjoying best of living luxuries in this world; While rest of our majority of innocent population, easily exploitable and made to raise flags, slogans and clamping, are either eating grass or begging on roads with their children for EK ROTI<. Is it justified?"

    Very profound observations. This points to the root of the problems of Pakistani people. Pakistan was created to protect the wealth, land and power of a few elite Muslim families under the guise of two nation theory. To this day, as you pointed out, these elite section of the Pakistani society continue to suck the national resources while the rest of the poor masses eat grass. The elite who advocate confrontation with neighbors, continued huge spending on the military, accumulation of more and more nukes, all have second and third homes in foreign countries, where their children are living in luxury, and where they plan to flee in case Pakistan collapses. Who cares about people who have to eat grass or beg for roti?Recommend

  • Observer
    Jan 31, 2012 - 12:26AM

    @Pakistani Agnostic:

    I am talking about then Bangladesh.
    India already had crushing poverty (just like now) and it certainly would not have waned to have those millions of Bangalis.”

    Pre-1971, East Pakistan generated more revenue for the nation than west Pakistan. So, your thesis is wrong on this point.

    As for India, Bangladesh is more important geographically than Pakistan. Look at the map. India’s northeast states are quite isolated from the rest of India. Especially, the lack of ports for the northeast states is a very strategic drawback That is the reason, India worked hard with the current Hasina government to get transit and port facilities.

    As for trade with central Asian states and Afghanistan, India doesn’t really need Pakistan. This can be done through Iran’s Chabahar port and the new road/rail facilities extending to CAR’s through Afghanistan. As for natural gas transportation, though it would cost more, it can be imported as LNG.

    Also, consider that Srilanka, Nepal, Bhutan or Burma all resource rich states, all more important geographically for India, have never been wary of India invading them and annexing them and have not felt the need to amass huge military or nukes. Just think about it and you will realize your illogical argument.


  • Raj - USA
    Jan 31, 2012 - 12:42AM

    I feel that Pakistan had every right to go nuclear and rightly did so. It was married to the Bomb. But the Generals started parading and prostituting their bride to others by their proliferating activities. This is where Pakistan went wrong. The country paid for the bomb with all sacrifices but the traitorous generals sold it to others and pocketed the proceeds. I think, that most Pakistanis do not believe that Dr. Khan the sole person behind this. Had they be thinking so, they would not be adoring him even today. Even if there had been proliferation to Saudi Arabia, I can understand the situation as they funded the project. I can also understand the situation with N. Korea as they gave Pakistan the missiles. But there is no reasoning to justify the situation with Iran and Libya. By proliferating to Iran, the Generals have back-stabbed not only Pakistan, but also Saudi Arabia. Interestingly, both Libya and Iran have supported India in the Kashmir issue more times than they have supported Pakistan. Iran has taken the Indian side on UN Resolutions on Kashmir many times.

    If Iran had the bomb today, would they have kept quiet when Jundallah insurgents from Pakistan sneaked into Iran and killed 50 or so (I do not know the correct number) of their army men. Iran may blame USA but shall also take revenge on Pakistan for allowing use of Pakistani soil.

    Pakistanis are baying for blood of Haqqani and Zardari on allegations of planning to commit treason but the Generals have actually committed worst possible treason. Yet, no one has the guts to call them to questioning as no one wants to end up like Saleem Shahzad.


  • Mustaq
    Jan 31, 2012 - 1:09AM

    @Ken Bryant:

    Dear Ken, US would think hundred time before taking any misadventure with Pakistan if its well equipped with nuclear arsenal. After all US cannot afford destruction of its bases in Middle East, Afghnistan, Far East, Israel and not to mention its close allies like some Europeons. They all are in easy range of Pakistan. Another option could be nuclear submarines which could easily target US soil. Imagine what will happen after that, US will no more be a super power, instead someone else would take the place which US cannot affort at all. I am not threatening you but just to let you know that what could be scenario in case of any misadventure, lest talking about inhaling Pakistan. When Pakistan will see a complete destruction, then it can find any option to retalitate.


  • Mustaq
    Jan 31, 2012 - 1:24AM

    Are you joking Mark. DO you think Pakistan can threaten the whole world. Look India is about three times bigger than Pakistan and fought three all out wars against Pakistan and every time India has been an agressor. The world kept watching this act of agression and you also see India innocent and non-threatening. India is still violating human rights in Kashmire and not accepting the UN resolutions on Kashmire. I think you have poor knowledge about India. I can say candidly that Pakistan never threatened any country to attack or strike with nuclear weapons since it got it in 1985. Pakistan has been a peaceful country and now everyone is trying to bully Pakistan and inciting it to do some stupidity. If you think nutruelly, then you will accept that Pakistan direly needs to build its nuclear arsenal just to defend itself against aggressors.


  • Ahmad
    Jan 31, 2012 - 3:05AM


    All international diplomacy, reduced to its most basic form, is blackmail. It’s all how you frame it, like I said in my original post.


  • vasan
    Jan 31, 2012 - 5:49AM

    Pakistani Agnostic : Obvious that only Indians gloat about their economic progress, Because the other half of the chatter in these blogs is by Pakistanis and they have nothing to be proud of when it comes to economics, industry, exports, commerce except ofcourse terrorism. Be my guest and be arrogant. That was a born trait of Pakistan.


  • Harry Stone
    Jan 31, 2012 - 9:21AM


    And you intent to carry those to the US on what a camel?


  • cosmo
    Jan 31, 2012 - 9:54AM

    @Ken Bryant:
    you are missing the point. No one is saying that the State of Pakistan will directly engage in nuclear confrontation with USA, but the danger is that they will secretly handover the “bums” to the terrorists which then could be smuggled to the target. There will be a perpetual danger of one being smuggled and detonated.


  • Pakistani Agnostic
    Jan 31, 2012 - 10:14AM

    Firstly, Yes Bangladesh provided us with the main source for foreign reserves but due to natural disasters, they also ended up eating a lot of money. Like i said, good luck to them.
    Secondly, transit through Afghanistan ? I have heard that theory before. The highway you are talking about goes through some of the most dangerous states in that unfortunate country.
    Thirdly, if you do cost-benefit analysis, you will see it would cost way less if the trade takes place through Pakistan.
    Lastly, I do not know how we ended up talking about these points.


  • skp
    Jan 31, 2012 - 10:52AM

    @Harry Stone:
    Good one


  • Pakistani Agnostic
    Jan 31, 2012 - 11:10AM

    LOL. Terrorism. I am proud because i am rich.
    Are you proud because your contrymen did something in life? How do they relate to you anyway? Do they even know you?


  • JS
    Jan 31, 2012 - 11:11AM

    what did the atomic bomb bring us?….nothing but misery and sanctions. everyone knew we had the bomb, we didnt have to make a public spectacle of it..Nawaz should have taken the $5 billion…built roads, infrastructure, eduction etc, while still having full nuclear capability to deter those indian or whoever the perceived enemy is. Look at how israel handles its nuclear program…not 1 word about it from the israelis in 50 plus years…yet everyone knows how nuclear capable they are.


  • Raj - USA
    Jan 31, 2012 - 11:35AM

    I fail to understand why Pakistani’s (at least some of them) like to use Arabic words and quotes. Though I cannot read Urdu, I understand and speak it well. I feel that Urdu is the sweetest language and most courteous. Main of Thum is seldom used and always Hum or Aap is used. I have always enjoyed Urdu conversation.Recommend

  • RogerB
    Jan 31, 2012 - 12:02PM

    With Pakistanis killing other Pakistanis at an amazing rate (reading your own papers), there is no need for any “enemies” to attack Pakistan. It is just a matter of waiting to see how many Pakistanis will be standing after a few more years. The ones not killed by other Pakistanis, will die from “eating grass” as recommended by your leaders. Good luck.


  • mind control
    Jan 31, 2012 - 5:14PM

    @Pakistani Agnostic

    LOL. Terrorism. I am proud because i am rich.

    According to IMF Data for 2011 in terms of Gross GDP India was no 4 with USD 4,057,787 million, Pakistan was no 27 USD 467,197 million.

    In per capita income the ranks are No 127 India USD 3,703 and No 136 Pakistan USD 2,791 .

    That leaves me wondering, When did you get ‘RICH’?


  • Yuri Kondratyuk
    Jan 31, 2012 - 6:11PM

    @Pakistani Agnostic:

    Firstly, Yes Bangladesh provided us
    with the main source for foreign
    reserves but due to natural disasters,
    they also ended up eating a lot of

    You are probably talking about 1970 Bhola cyclone in which half a million Bangladeshis died and a week later the President of Pakistan concedes that he was ignorant of what actually happened, let alone sending aid.
    If Bangladeshis were brothers/fellow countrymen, then how come money is such a major deciding factor?
    Summary is that Bangladesh was treated as a servile colony of West Pakistan, enjoying the resources and giving nothing in return.


  • V K Bajaj (Delhi)
    Jan 31, 2012 - 6:18PM

    I have already posted my comments on this WRITE-UP wherein I have advocated that now a days ECONOMIC ARMS are better and superior than Atomic Bombs. The news appearing on yahoo at page: ‘’ justifies my views.

    Number of Bombs does not matter. It is the man behind Arms that matters. In 1971 Israel alone fought with six or seven Arab countries and won the battle. Golan Heights area is still with Israel. Israel then not used any Atomic weapon.

    My honest view is that having Atomic Weapon at the cost of ECONOMIC LOSS is not a matter of pride but a matter to review it.


  • Loyal to Pakistan
    Jan 31, 2012 - 6:30PM

    @Raj – USA:
    Firstly because Arabic is our religious language. Secondly we Pakistanis don’t need to make you Indians understand anything other than this that Pakistan is here to be for ever and you Indians need to get it through your brains. Recommend

  • Hiren
    Jan 31, 2012 - 7:07PM

    A nuclear devise is good as a deterrent against frivolous strikes. But having too much of it does not help. If it were to first strike, small countries like Pakistan would probably have the chance to fire off one or two weapons only before it is totally neutered by any bigger nuclear force. So using a nuclear weapon would mean certain and total anhilllation while conventional weapons would mean defeat but ensure survival. So, all this stockpiling does not help!!!!


  • G. Din
    Jan 31, 2012 - 7:16PM

    @Raj – USA:
    “Main of Thum is seldom used and always Hum or Aap is used…..”
    Not true! Zulfiqar Bhutto to Sheikh Mujib-ur-Rahman:”Idhar HUM, Udher TUM”.
    “Hum” is mostly used as a personal plural in the manner of royalty, harking to days of Muslim hegemony. Of course, the other is always referred to as “tum” -in personal poor singular.


  • Irshad Khan
    Jan 31, 2012 - 8:26PM

    While attention of majority of innocent citizens of this country is constantly and very successfully diverted towards availability of one ROTI; But on the other side, very wittily, their blood is sucked and pumped in two projects i.e 1. making piles of atom bombs and 2. to develop a belt of the country between Taxila to Lahore to the level of Europe and Washington and it already looks different than rest of Pakistan. Is it justified?


  • wasim
    Jan 31, 2012 - 10:27PM

    Half a billion people live below 50c a day in India, India houses the most illiterates in the world in last few years over 100000 farmers committed suicide in India due to poverty. India is progressing but the development is uneven and its challenges are far more grave than Pakistan’s. Yet India after starting the Nuclear race in subcontinent is pursuing an aggressive modernization in its delivery systems, missile defense systems and conventional arms making India the highest military spender in the world.
    In the light of above facts it is naive to believe that Pakistan will not modernize its capabilities in order to maintain the balance.
    Dr Hoodbhoy based his argument on the number of warheads Pakistan possess but fails to substantiate his argument with any credible evidence. He is portraying Pakistan as a nuclear aggressor which is going to pose a serious threat to US and India, but fails to acknowledge the facts that Pakistan posses no credible delivery system to pose such a threat a ned there is a huge gap between Pakistan’s nuclear capability vs these two powers any improvement in Pakistan’s delivery system might restore the minimum deterrence. He also fails to highlight the threat faced by Pakistan in the shape of Afghan-US- India nexus the recent arms deals, the drone attacks, the proxy war within Pakistan the military build up on our borders shows a clear and present danger to Pakistan and Pakistan has every right to defend itself. Recommend

  • wasim
    Jan 31, 2012 - 10:36PM

    Aman ki Asha will remain an Asha if India will not reciprocate. At the moment India enjoy’s MFN status from Pakistan. On diplomatic, economic and cultural levels Pakistan has ended all hostilities but India’s aggressive posture toward Pakistan hasn’t changed on all these fronts. With a change in Government Pakistan might reverse the concessions it gave to India and people in India who are enjoying this temporary psychological advantage over Pakistan will rue the missed opportunity later.


  • Pakistani Agnostic
    Feb 1, 2012 - 12:11AM

    @mind control:
    UM. Okay. But isn’t that dependent on
    2)Too much wealth lying in few hands
    4)Land mass
    5)Purchasing power

    And as for your second point, none of your business. I do not care what codswallop you keep harping about Pakistan or about Muslims but as long as it makes you happy, keep going.


  • Vijay K
    Feb 1, 2012 - 1:19AM

    @Raj – USA: Not sure what your comment has to do with this article or nuclear weapons. Do you read the articles before you comment ?
    Also, @Loyal To Pakistan, Im sorry to see your country inhabited by brains like you. Explains your country is the way it is. What has your religion or Arabic roots got to do with this article?


  • Harry Stone
    Feb 1, 2012 - 1:49AM


    If you do not think one of the intelligence collection priorities of the US has not been the location of PAK nuclear weapon systems then you live in some fantasy world. If the US can find one man in PAK, then to finding nuclear weapon systems is much much easier because of the support they require. Of course a much easier target are the delivery systems.


  • Grace
    Feb 1, 2012 - 2:39AM

    Why are you so one sided against Pakistan in your analysis when you should know that Pakistan has developed the nuclear bomb as a deterrent because India made the bomb first?
    Most Pakistanis take justified pride in the nation’s ability to defend itself. I wish we could spend this money instead on schools, developement and infrastructure but all of this doesn’t matter if there is no country to develop because of Indian agression. If India which continues to have over 500 million people living in severe poverty with no access to toilets is obsessed with developing Pakistan specific weapons, why should Pakistan just give up its nuclear deterrent? Try to be fair minded and look at Kashmir and what is going on there. Do you want that to be all of Pakistan?


  • Raj - USA
    Feb 1, 2012 - 6:37AM

    @G. Din:
    Forgot about the Zulfi – Mujib conversation. Thanks for correcting.


  • Harry Stone
    Feb 1, 2012 - 9:13AM


    Is the current sistuation what you would call defending PAK. If so you have extremely low standards or expectations.


  • Srini
    Feb 1, 2012 - 9:45AM

    I think Pakistanis will do well to throw more money in making Nuclear Bombs. Actually, 150 or 200 bombs are not enough at all. Please shoot for making Nukes in the 1000s. Also go for bigger and better ones. While at it spend on the missile programs and spend atleast 5% of your GDP in bomb and missile making. Then you can show the world who the boss is. You can stop threatening everyone that you will blow them away if they don’t listen to you and give you Kashmir, give you more aid and tolerate you. Great Plan!!!


  • mind control
    Feb 1, 2012 - 11:12AM


    Why are you so one sided against Pakistan in your analysis when you should know that Pakistan has developed the nuclear bomb as a deterrent because India made the bomb first?

    Pakistan exploded its bomb approximately 10 days after the Indian explosion. If you believe in the fairy tale of Pakistan developing N capability over 10 short days because India made the bomb first, then of course you live in fairy land and nothing further need be said.
    In case you live in the world the rest of us occupy, then just check up on a meeting held in Multan on 20th January, 1972.


  • Maria
    Feb 1, 2012 - 11:19AM

    @Srini: Well India has just announced it is going to spend billions on French fighter planes which will be obsolete in hardly a decade. Maybe the Indians can spend more on these types of weapons and nuclear weapons too. You think the world doesn’t know that India started making nuclear weapons first? Who started arms race in South Asia and who is responsible for continuing it? India is the guilty party and I feel sorry for the 500 million Indians who are starving and struggling on broken down streets while Indian government spends billions on weapons and their corrupt politicians get kick backs like in Bofors deal.


  • wasim
    Feb 1, 2012 - 2:03PM


    One eyed viewpoint of this problem won’t take us anywhere, we all know who is spending the most on arms in Asia and the world. Who is pinning itself to be the “bully” of the region and who is going to stop China.


  • Irshad Khan
    Feb 1, 2012 - 7:32PM

    Show of power and to insult others is our culture. See conditions prevailing inside the country. A neighbour insulting the other, a clan insulting the other clan, a sect insulting the other sect, a province insulting the other province etc., etc. Due to the same reasons we do not have good relationship with our neighbouring countries. We always enjoy plight and helplessness of others whether they are Indians or Afghans or any other people taking refuge in this country. We accepted Millions of Afghans as refugees to quench our thurst of chaudhri-ism and Jagirdari-ism and also, at the same time, to have a cheap labour force, required at that time but we called it Muslim brotherhood. Was it not a hypocrisy?
    We are in-tolerant people in majority wanting muscular power to harass and dictate others but with empty pockets. We try to justify to have maximum number of atom bombs, Missiles, tanks and men in uniforms but without any solid or no financial background. One can not be strong or fight a war with a borrowed sword. We should humbly accept these facts and try to improve, if we want any betterment in society and nation. We shall have to say good-bye to the culture of wadera-ism and chaudhri-ism, if we want to survive in this world of 21st century, with respect.


  • V K Bajaj (Delhi)
    Feb 1, 2012 - 9:35PM

    @Irshad Khan:

    I recommend and second your thoughts on the issue. Too many comments are out of the main concept of this WRITE UP. Too many are arguing and counter arguing with each other by taking away the central theme of WRITER. India and Pak may or may not use Atomic Bombs but many readers have use it on this platform.

    Irshad I have commented twice. I will be grateful if you have perusal. You and me at same level but you said in different words and I said in my own words.

    Mr Irshad! Greetings!! Continue to comment in a balanced way!! May God bless you!!!


  • wasim
    Feb 1, 2012 - 9:42PM

    The whole discussion is revolving around Pakistan’s foreign and it seems others are assuming that they have a higher moral ground just because Pakistan is tapping into foreign credit sources and relying on Aid. There is no higher moral ground on this issue for anyone as Pakistan’s foreign debt is peanuts as compared to that of America and it is not something which a nation of 180 million can’t repay. Aid is not charity its trade on credit, and my Indian friends should look at the size of their external debt and then come pointing finger at us.


  • Anonymous
    Feb 2, 2012 - 3:32PM

    I think most of englishmen are fool because they do not know the power of muslims.Why do all think that if there is gonna be a war between pakistan and US.US will annihilate pakistan,as if they have annihilated afghanistan.Keep your lowsy calculations with you and tell them to your beloved.Moreover,live in darkness.You shall see what will happen and fear that day,you oil stealers.


  • Irshad Khan
    Feb 2, 2012 - 6:58PM

    We have surplus food in Pakistan. We have surplus wheat, surplus rice, surplus pulses, surplus vegetables, surplus milk, surplus fruits even unlimited and unknown number of minerals/ metals and what not supported with hard core and innocent surplus labour force even than we remain one of the poorest nations of the world. Have we ever analysed our problems ever seriously that where our unlimited resources are spent so much so that millions of our beloved Pakistani brothers are begging on roads for one ROTI and millions are now sleeping without this one ROTI and while some of our gifted brothers come in shining lamosines with large protocols, distribute some food amongst those beggars, make films and disappear for sumptous dinners and the films are shown on media to quench thirst of ego of gifted and to insult the poors. Is it justified?
    And if you, gifted people, boasting for piles of bombs, are raising a respectable nation? And do you still call it a Muslim brotherhood; where equality of men is the foremost motto. A few hundred remaining of the people who raised slogans ban ke rahe ga Pakistan are now stunned to see these tamashas but can not do or advise anything except to accept the prevailing circumstances, I am one of those persons.
    Power and money has gone into wrong hands in this country and still continues and nobody is there to stop this process.


  • Ladhu
    Feb 4, 2012 - 4:49PM

    Thanks for Brilliant article. I have puzzle since Indo- US nuclear deal that Why India is “Responsible” nuclear state and Pakistan is not? Did you see any chance in future for civil nuclear deal with Pakistan, if so, how it will impact on nuclear bomb proliferation?


  • Feb 4, 2012 - 5:31PM


    That even I can answer.

    India is considered a responsible nuclear state for not only guarding its nuclear technology secret closely, but also for not acting suicidal like North Korea, Pakistan or Iran or even Israel; and by adopting policies like “No First Strike”, which essentially make the dangerous weapons defensive.

    India has also seen stability since its birth and Democracy taking strong roots, which has made it the most stable state in South Asia and headed at being the fastest growing nation on Earth.


More in Opinion