Defiant Pakistan threatens to use nuke

Yahoo News India ^ | 05.30.02 | Press Trust of India

[callisto]

United Nations, May 30 (PTI) Pakistan has threatened to use nuclear weapons even if India stuck to conventional arms in any conflict, asserting that it has never subscribed to "no-first-use" of atomic weapons and that ruling out their use would give New Delhi a "license to kill."

"India should not have the license to kill with conventional weapons while Pakistan's hands are tied regarding other means to defend itself," said its new ambassador to the United Nations Munir Akram.

The highly bellicose and provocative statements by Akram on the second day on the job yesterday surprised diplomats and officials at the United Nations who declined to make an immediate comment.

Pakistan, he said, has to rely on the "means it possessed to deter Indian aggression" and would not "neutralise" that deterrence by any doctrine of "no-first-use."

To a question at his first news conference after taking over the job, Akram said any action by India across the border, any aerial attack on Pakistani territory and its assets, and any action to economically strangle it would be "viewed" as aggression and would be "responded to by Pakistan."

Noting that both India and Pakistan possessed nuclear weapons, he said while that should instill restraint on both sides, "it does not seem to do so on the Indian side."

The launching of a sharp attack less than 48 hours after taking over, some diplomats believe, could mean that Pakistan plans to use the United Nations for anti-Indian propaganda.

Akram, who had been his country's ambassador to the UN at Geneva, is known for his rhetoric against India and in previous years had also made highly provocative statements on Kashmir during debates whether the occasion demanded or not.

Pakistan, Akram claimed, believed in "no-first-use of force." That was the reason, he said, that Islamabad had offered non-aggression pact to New Delhi but India had rejected it.

"If India reserved the right to use conventional weapons, how could Pakistan - a weaker power-be expected to rule out all means of deterrence."

The United Nations Charter, the Pakistani ambassador said, prohibited the use of force and India should be committed to "non-use-of-force".

Akarm said the Security Council should address the issues of tensions between India and Pakistan which "constituted a threat to international peace and security."

"Whenever there is a threat of use of force against a member state and a threat to international peace and security, there is an obligation for the Council to address that situation," he told the news conference

[ZULU]

The current administration in Pakistan, with its pro-western and pro-American outlook is as scure in the face of the overwhelming Islamic opposition of its subjects aas is the government of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Muslims hate the U.S. Muslims hate the west. Muslims hate Buddhist, Hinduds and all other non-Islamic religions. Islam is the greatest threat to civlization since Genghis Khan.

[remaininlight]

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/03/landesman.htm

 

I had been going there to consult with Brigadier Amanullah, known to his
friends as Aman. Aman, in his early fifties and now retired, is lithe and
gentle-natured and seemed to me slightly depressed. He works in a small
office behind Zardari House, where, as the secretary to Benazir Bhutto in
Islamabad, he coordinates Bhutto's efforts to return to Pakistan and regain
its prime ministership. He also keeps in close touch with old colleagues,
who include many powerful people in Pakistan. Aman was once the chief of
Pakistan's military intelligence in Sind Province, which borders India.
Pakistan's biggest city and a cultural center, Karachi, is in Sind. That put
Aman squarely in the middle of things, his finger near many sorts of
buttons. Today Aman is believed to act as Bhutto's liaison with the armed
forces, and he maintains contacts with serving army officers, including
senior generals. When I wanted to speak to someone in the Pakistani
government, I asked Aman.

Aman tipped his head to the side. A smirk tugged at the corners of his
mouth. "No," he said. "A nuclear warhead heading to India."

I thought he was making a joke. Then I saw he wasn't. I thought of the
shrines to Pakistan's nuclear-weapons site, prominently displayed in every
city. I told Aman that I was disturbed by the ease with which Pakistanis
talk of nuclear war with India.

Aman shook his head. "No," he said matter-of-factly. "This should happen. We
should use the bomb."

"For what purpose?" He didn't seem to understand my question. "In
retaliation?" I asked.

"Why not?"

"Or first strike?"

"Why not?"

I looked for a sign of irony. None was visible. Rocking his head side to
side, his expression becoming more and more withdrawn, Aman launched into a
monologue that neither of us, I am sure, knew was coming:

"We should fire at them and take out a few of their cities-Delhi, Bombay,
Calcutta," he said. "They should fire back and take Karachi and Lahore. Kill
off a hundred or two hundred million people. They should fire at us and it
would all be over. They have acted so badly toward us; they have been so
mean. We should teach them a lesson. It would teach all of us a lesson.
There is no future here, and we need to start over. So many people think
this. Have you been to the villages of Pakistan, the interior? There is
nothing but dire poverty and pain. The children have no education; there is
nothing to look forward to. Go into the villages, see the poverty. There is
no drinking water. Small children without shoes walk miles for a drink of
water. I go to the villages and I want to cry. My children have no future.
None of the children of Pakistan have a future. We are surrounded by nothing
but war and suffering. Millions should die away."

"Pakistan should fire pre-emptively?" I asked.

Aman nodded.

"And you are willing to see your children die?"

"Tens of thousands of people are dying in Kashmir, and the only superpower
says nothing," Aman said. "America has sided with India because it has
interests there." He told me he was willing to see his children be killed.
He repeated that they didn't have any future-his children or any other
children.

I asked him if he thought he was alone in his thoughts, and Aman made it
clear to me that he was not.

"Believe me," he went on, "If I were in charge, I would have already done
it."

Aman stopped, as though he'd stunned even himself. Then he added, with quiet
forcefulness, "Before I die, I hope I should see it."

[callisto]

No problem. I sometimes forget that people on the other end of the internet can't see the intent behind a posted comment, cartoon, etc and I rarely use emoticons. I should have expressed myself better in the first place. Thanks for bringing the other possible "intent" of the 'toon to my attention. I wasn't looking at it from that angle. :)

[cake_crumb]

There is a difference between the US/Soviet Union cold war and India/Pakistan:

Pakistan is SOOOOOO proud of their nuclear capability that the anniversary of their fist successful nuke test is a major national holiday. Their ONLY major national holiday, I believe - I'm not counting religious holidays.

Pakistan is a country so proud of the ability to create an atomic holocaust that they celebrate the birthday of the Bomb.

What does such immaturity tell us? Culturally, Arabs are children. They're playground bullies...WITH LOADED GUNS. Mutual assured destruction means nothing to them....THEY WANT MUTUAL ASSURED DESTRUCTION!

[anguish]

Arabs using the UN to spread propaganda?

It's Pakistanis, not Arabs.

[d4now]

thanks for the link.

[ARCADIA]

I believe that Pakistan is parlaying its situation as the necessary base of the US anti-Taliban operation to bully India.

I agree. The Pakis know that the US needs them and is counting on the US to force the Indians to sit back and take it. They are just taking advantage of the situation to further their local interests.

I find that India is in the same situation as Israel in many respects. Both are the target of terrorist attacks directed from an immediate neighbor. Neither can defend itself adequately because the US needs the immediate neighbor and pressures them to endure the attacks. In both cases, the immediate neighbor knows this and is using it to their advantage.

[borkrules]

I remember reading that same article. Chilling.

It is almost unbelievable that these immature, adolescent nihilists possess such awesome fire power. Unreal.

Imagine the sick world view, the skewed perspective that allows one to envision literally the end of the world (as they know it) including the deaths of one's own children, because conditions are bad.

Here's an alternative, asshole: try building something worthwhile. Try creating a world worth living in, rather than destroying the crappy one you find yourself in. As if these worthless buggers were the first in the world's history to find themselves in dire poverty and despair.

These people are like toddlers who, frustrated because they can't articulate words clearly, or stack the blocks neatly, swing their little balled up fists wildly knocking down anything nearby, all the while whining and crying.

Kipling was right: lesser breeds, without the law.

[cake_crumb]

"Did you by chance catch Greta Van Sustern's show on Fox last night?"

I watched Fox's pre-Greta hype interviews, and parts of her first few shows. UH...I am not impressed. You can change the face with surgery, but you can't change the person behind it. So no, I avoid Greta just like I do Geraldo. I prefer not to let soap-opera media fantasies get in the way of the facts.

Monsoor is, as always, spot on in his assessment of the situation in Pakistan and Kashmir. Greta, as always, is a mindless twit with a bad eye job.

[callisto]

See my reply #19. And I agree, Pakistan definitely wants MAD. But, how many are Pakistanis and how many are Arabs fueling the battle between these two countries? I think Al qaeda sees the Pak/India conflict as a way to either distract the US or draw us into the conflict.

[skeeter]

Nukes + Islam = the inevitable.

[callisto]

Thank you for correcting me on Monsoor's name. I must have hurricane season my mind or something to have called him Mansoon. lol! And we definitely agree on his consistently accurate assessment. I enjoy catching his interviews.

[katana]

It would obviously be preferred that there be no nuclear explosions on this planet anytime, but it is absurd to think the world will end if it happens.

During the late '40's, the '50's, and into the 1960's the Russians and we set off a large number of atomic and thermonuclear weapons, many with fallout yields that make anything the Indians and Pakistanis might throw at each other look puny. If the balloon goes up over South Asia and both sides let go, it will be a terrible, awful thing, but we do have a precedent for what the effects of the fallout would be here in North America.

Please understand that I agree no one in their right mind wants this to happen. I certainly worry about what the long terms effects would be on my childrens' health and hope a way is found to either neutralize the whole situation, or at least the Pakistani arsenal since they seem to be the trigger happy side in this fight.

[John W]

When these two almost went to nuke city a few months back,I suggested on FR that a "limited"-or not "limited" for all I care-exchange between these two,that doesn't result in the sky falling ,the earth's poles reversing,the oceans flashing to steam,ect.,ect,would do wonders for US.

We are the top nuclear power,and proof that the use of nuclear weapons will not end all life on earth as we know it would be a good thing.

[USMMA_83]

Can't honsetly say it's a fight over dirt. India's positon is (from my prespective) that all citizens of India have to resolve their differences under the laws of the Indian Constitution. Pakistan's position, or Islamist position is that a majority enclave of muslims constitutes a seperate entity that must have the right to decide if they want to be a part of India.

This arguement is used by Islamists all over the world. Isreal and India happen to be the first who are expriencing the reality of this political strategy. Russia is dealing with it in Chechnya, former Yugoslovia tried to deal with it in Bosnia before Clinton bailed the Islamists out.

So, yes it's about "dirt" but at the core it's about ISLAM's quest to dominate the world.

[aristeides]

Pakistan, Akram claimed, believed in "no-first-use of force." That was the reason, he said, that Islamabad had offered non-aggression pact to New Delhi but India had rejected it.

Isn't sponsoring terrorist attacks in Kashmir a use of force?

[cake_crumb]

"But, how many are Pakistanis and how many are Arabs fueling the battle between these two countries?

6 to one, half dozen to the other. Pakistan became suddenly pro-Western because of the motivated self interest of it's leader when it became obvious that the United States was coming to squash the bugs running Afghanistan. At the time, it was a case of "You put the Taliban in place to begin with. Now stand with us, or we'll take you out too." Musharraf did not have a choice at the time. He was part of the problem.

"I think Al qaeda sees the Pak/India conflict as a way to either distract the US or draw us into the conflict."

Agreed. They don't care WHAT type of chaos they create, as long as they create chaos.

All the Muslim states over there remind me of the Paklids (sp?).

[wattsmag2]

Not to mention the fact that China is a buddy of Pakistan, and China has no love for India.

[Paul C. Jesup]

First of all, if you are basing your infomation on a fictional movie, then you are beyond hope.

That movie is so scientifically inconsistent that it is laughable that you mention it here.

Also, I doubt you know what a real cobalt encased nuke if capable of and not capable of.

[callisto]

Akram said any action by India across the border, any aerial attack on Pakistani territory and its assets, and any action to economically strangle it would be "viewed" as aggression and would be "responded to by Pakistan."

Rationalization based on perception. Pakistan appears to think that only India crossing the LOC is an act of aggression and rejects the same "view" of their use of militant forces terrorizing India. It boils down to who thinks they should own what. The Pakis think all of Kasmir should be theirs so I wouldn't be surprised if they "reacted" to India defending itself within it's own section of Kasmir and termed it an act of war.