Let's Buy Pakistan's Nukes

[ProfJohn]

This is interesting.

If we can make it work and work right then it would probably be a good thing.

Having nukes in a country that is at risk of falling into the hands of Islamic radicals is a dangerous thing.

link

Every visitor to Pakistan has seen them: 20-foot tall roadside replicas of a remote mountain where, a decade ago, Pakistan conducted its first overt nuclear tests. This is what the country's leaders -- military, secular, Islamist -- consider their greatest achievement.

So here's a modest proposal: Let's buy their arsenal.

A.Q. Khan, father of Pakistan's nuclear program (and midwife to a few others), likes to point out what a feat it was that a country "where we can't even make a bicycle chain" could succeed at such an immense technological task. He exaggerates somewhat: Pakistan got its bomb largely through a combination of industrial theft, systematic violation of Western export controls, and a blueprint of a weapon courtesy of Beijing.

Still, give Mr. Khan this: Thanks partly to his efforts, a country that has impoverished the great mass of its own people, corruptly enriched a tiny handful of elites, served as a base of terrorism against its neighbors, lost control of its intelligence services, radicalized untold numbers of Muslims in its madrassas, handed the presidency to a man known as Mr. 10%, and proliferated nuclear technology to Libya and Iran (among others) has, nevertheless, made itself a power to be reckoned with. Congratulations.

But if Pakistanis thought a bomb would be a net national asset, they miscalculated. Yes, Islamabad gained parity with its adversaries in New Delhi, gained prestige in the Muslim world, and gained a day of national pride, celebrated every May 28.

What Pakistan didn't gain was greater security. "The most significant reality was that the bomb promoted a culture of violence which . . . acquired the form of a monster with innumerable heads of terror," wrote Pakistani nuclear physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy earlier this year. "Because of this bomb, we can definitely destroy India and be destroyed in its response. But its function is limited to this."

In 2007, some 1,500 Pakistani civilians were killed in terrorist attacks. None of those attacks were perpetrated by India or any other country against which Pakistan's warheads could be targeted, unless it aimed at itself. But Pakistan's nuclear arsenal has made it an inviting target for the jihadists who blew up Islamabad's Marriott hotel in September and would gladly blow up the rest of the capital as a prelude to taking it over.

The day that happens may not be so very far off. President Asif Ali Zardari was recently in the U.S. asking for $100 billion to stave off economic collapse. So far, the international community has ponied up about $15 billion. That puts Mr. Zardari $85 billion shy of his fund-raising target. Meantime, the average Taliban foot soldier brings home monthly wages that are 30% higher than uniformed Pakistani security personnel.

Preventing the disintegration of Pakistan, perhaps in the wake of a war with India (how much restraint will New Delhi show after the next Mumbai-style atrocity?), will be the Obama administration's most urgent foreign-policy challenge. Since Mr. Obama has already committed a trillion or so in new domestic spending, what's $100 billion in the cause of saving the world?

This is the deal I have in mind. The government of Pakistan would verifiably eliminate its entire nuclear stockpile and the industrial base that sustains it. In exchange, the U.S. and other Western donors would agree to a $100 billion economic package, administered by an independent authority and disbursed over 10 years, on condition that Pakistan remain a democratic and secular state (no military rulers; no Sharia law). It would supplement that package with military aid similar to what the U.S. provides Israel: F-35 fighters, M-1 tanks, Apache helicopters. The U.S. would also extend its nuclear umbrella to Pakistan, just as Hillary Clinton now proposes to do for Israel.

A pipe dream? Not necessarily. People forget that the world has subtracted more nuclear powers over the past two decades than it has added: Kazakhstan, Belarus, Ukraine and South Africa all voluntarily relinquished their stockpiles in the 1990s. Libya did away with its program in 2003 when Moammar Gadhafi concluded that a bomb would be a net liability, and that he had more to gain by coming to terms with the West.

There's no compelling reason Mr. Zardari and his military brass shouldn't reach the same conclusion, assuming excellent terms and desperate circumstances. Sure, a large segment of Pakistanis will never agree. Others, who have subsisted on a diet of leaves and grass so Pakistan could have its bomb, might take a more pragmatic view.

The tragedy of Pakistan is that it remains a country that can't do the basics, like make a bicycle chain. If what its leaders want is prestige, prosperity and lasting security, they could start by creating an economy that can make one -- while unlearning how to make the bomb.

 

[Farang]

They would want Kashmir resolved first, and good luck with that.

 

[StageLeft]

The bomb did not promote a culture of violence, I think that's rubbish, though seconded only to the idea that Pakistan, at great odds with its neighbor and next to a nation full of troops that are not always partial to Pakistan's place in the world, is going to sell its nuclear arsenal. Absolutely will not happen; it's a non-starter. The only country to ever release its position in the nuclear club after gaining it is South Africa.

 

[SickBeast]

They should just re-join Pakistan and India. They should never have been split up to begin with.

The US should stay out of the Middle East and just mind their business, and these nutcases will have no apparent reason to attack them.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
The US should stay out of the Middle East and just mind their business, and these nutcases will have no apparent reason to attack them.

you're dreaming.

 

[K1052]

Do we have that many goats in the US?

 

[ranmaniac]

It's not going to happen, Pakistan already has a good military pact with China, and are making their own military aircraft, tanks etc.

 

[lbsurg]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: SickBeast
The US should stay out of the Middle East and just mind their business, and these nutcases will have no apparent reason to attack them.

you're dreaming.

Maybe this isn't the most eloquent way to state your point, but there is something to be said for the concept of blowback, and the result our presences in foreign countries has on their impression and actions towards us. Make alliances with no one, trade with every one, is a mantra that while may seem impossible, would just make so much sense.

 

[palehorse]

Screw that.

We should steal them.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: palehorse
Screw that.

We should steal them.

:laugh:

 

[yllus]

Still, give Mr. Khan this: Thanks partly to his efforts, a country that has impoverished the great mass of its own people, corruptly enriched a tiny handful of elites, served as a base of terrorism against its neighbors, lost control of its intelligence services, radicalized untold numbers of Muslims in its madrassas, handed the presidency to a man known as Mr. 10%, and proliferated nuclear technology to Libya and Iran (among others) has, nevertheless, made itself a power to be reckoned with. Congratulations.

Burn. Haha.

Pakistan will never give up those nukes - not when it has one clearly defined nation-state as its enemy (India) and numerous less defined ones. As volatile as having nukes makes the nation, not having them is possibly much worse. Their existence likely stayed NATO's hand after 9/11 occurred.

I don't think the stimulus package mentioned in the article would be any good in Pakistan less major societal changes occurred first. There's absolutely no republicanism in the country - as "everyone for themselves" some might consider America to be, most here really have no idea what the concept means. It's a real shame.

 

[MichaelD]

Originally posted by: yllus

Still, give Mr. Khan this: Thanks partly to his efforts, a country that has impoverished the great mass of its own people, corruptly enriched a tiny handful of elites, served as a base of terrorism against its neighbors, lost control of its intelligence services, radicalized untold numbers of Muslims in its madrassas, handed the presidency to a man known as Mr. 10%, and proliferated nuclear technology to Libya and Iran (among others) has, nevertheless, made itself a power to be reckoned with. Congratulations.

Burn. Haha.

Pakistan will never give up those nukes - not when it has one clearly defined nation-state as its enemy (India) and numerous less defined ones. As volatile as having nukes makes the nation, not having them is possibly much worse. Their existence likely stayed NATO's hand after 9/11 occurred.

I don't think the stimulus package mentioned in the article would be any good in Pakistan less major societal changes occurred first. There's absolutely no republicanism in the country - as "everyone for themselves" some might consider America to be, most here really have no idea what the concept means. It's a real shame.

Wow. That's actually what I was going to say. Not verbatim, but the idea/concept was identical.

Pakistan is not a Westernized nation. <--that's the politically correct way to say that they are not a civilized nation. Sorry, but if the baby's ugly, you've got to tell the truth.

They hate India. India hates them. They both have The Bomb. They both have a big, chest-beating gorilla on the top of the mountain facing their enemy and they like it that way.

I still have no idea why we (the USA) continue to call Pakistan our ally in the war on terror...and to give them money. You know we are! But yet they allow the bombings of NATO (and therefore) US food/ammo/medicine shipments.

And oh yeah...that little "incident in Mumbai" recently.

And as a final note: The USA hasn't the money to wipe it's own ass these days, let alone buy some 1950's-era technology nukes from a third world country. We've got all nukes we'll hopefully never need and they are in fine working condition. As are Russia's. But that's another thread.