|Your poll here
|Against the PAK nuclear arms
||[ 2 ]
|Support the PAK Nuclear arms
||[ 3 ]
|We can't say
||[ 0 ]
|Total Votes : 5
Recently on June 3rd, A nuclear monitoring institute says that Pakistan is building a new reactor and Satellite images shows that Pakistan is building a nuclear reactor that can produce weapons.
The report said that it could produce enough plutonium to make 40 to 50 nuclear weapons per year. If it happens, think that the World War III is very near by. As Pakistan will be not sitting idle by producing this type of Weapons and moreover the Great Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf.
And US Govt should be coming to know that they are supporting a hectic country regarding this Nuclear Threat especially Mr. Bush.
Any how, we are here to have Peace and live happily. Against this New York Times and US State Dept have spoken on this in last two weeks.
So, I oppose the Pakistan in doing this. Share your thoughts on this and your valuable comments....
I don't think Pakistan is going to start World War III - there may be a will to use such weapons but India and the US both posess nuclear weapons too and I think that's sufficient deterrence. It's a pretty alarmist statement to make really - I think it's fair to say that if it chose to use these weapons, Pakistan would be no more.
New York Times article:
|U.S. Group Says Pakistan Is Building New Reactor
By JANE PERLEZ
Published: June 23, 2007
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, June 22 — Pakistan is building a third plutonium production reactor at a major nuclear weapons center, a sign of plans to increase the nation’s nuclear arsenal significantly, a Washington group specializing in nuclear issues said Friday.
Based on satellite imagery of a reactor under construction at Khushab, about 100 miles south of the capital, Islamabad, it appeared that Pakistan would be able to build a new generation of lighter, more powerful weapons that could be more easily launched on missiles, said David Albright, the president of the Institute for Science and International Security.
The new reactor, which had not been publicly known about, is a replica of a second heavy water reactor at Khushab, Mr. Albright said in a telephone interview.
“The other two reactors at Khushab are there for weapons, and this is a duplicate of the second,” Mr. Albright said. He said he was convinced that the new reactor was intended for plutonium to be used in nuclear weapons and not for a civilian energy program.
He added that it was possible that Pakistan was pushing forward with the new reactor because the military was not satisfied that the current nuclear warheads were of sufficient power.
The more powerful weapons, which use plutonium instead of highly enriched uranium — currently Pakistan’s principal nuclear explosive material — would do greater damage to the large cities of its rival, India, which also possesses nuclear arms, Mr. Albright said.
“The trouble with the third reactor is that it seems almost provocative, especially when Pakistan doesn’t say anything, and remains ambiguous,” Mr. Albright said.
Pakistan also recently tested a cruise missile on which it could put a smaller, more lethal nuclear warhead, Mr. Albright said.
A State Department deputy spokesman, Thomas H. Casey, said, “I am not in a position to speculate on the veracity of the information in this report or the intentions of the Pakistani government.” Washington continued to discourage expansion or modernization of such weapons programs in Pakistan, he said.
A spokeswoman for Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry, Tasnim Aslam, did not confirm or deny that a new reactor was under construction.
“Pakistan has a nuclear weapons program, and we have nuclear facilities in Khushab,” she said. The site was “well known,” and “coordinates” were exchanged with India, she said.
“Regarding details of development of nuclear weapons facilities, we don’t comment on that,” Ms. Aslam said.
John D. Negroponte, the deputy secretary of state, met with the Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, here last weekend during a visit that reaffirmed Washington’s backing of the military leader, who is now under increasing popular pressure to return Pakistan to civilian rule.
It was not clear whether Mr. Negroponte raised the issue of the construction of the new reactor with General Musharraf.
Critics of the Bush administration’s support of General Musharraf, who is viewed by the White House as a vital partner in the fight against terrorism, assert that Pakistan has been given too easy a ride on its nuclear weapons program.
“The expansion of the Pakistani nuclear program demonstrates that the Bush policy of giving Musharraf a pass on nonproliferation is accelerating the nuclear arms race in South Asia,” said Bruce Riedel, who directed Pakistan policy at the National Security Council under President Clinton and is now at the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
Pakistan’s facilities at Khushab are not subject to safeguard inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency because the nation has not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The first reactor at the Khushab site came on line in 1998.
Maria Sultan, a Pakistan nuclear expert at the South Asian Strategic Stability Institute in Britain, said that Pakistan had embarked on an ambitious program for civilian nuclear power that involved building new reactors by 2030. The new reactor could be for either military needs or civilian power requirements, she said.
Pakistan and India, which has also not signed the nonproliferation treaty, each have enough fissile material for more than 50 nuclear weapons, and possibly 100, Mr. Albright said.
Pakistan is a responsible and independent country and already nuclear power, and posses no threat to world peace. Pakistan’s nuclear programme is essential for its defense and the balance of power in the region.
Pakistan is a independent state and holds its rights to develop and maintain nuclear capabilities such as America, UK, France and rest of world’s nuclear powers
|Tim Graham wrote: |
I don't think Pakistan is going to start World War III - there may be a will to use such weapons but India and the US both posess nuclear weapons too and I think that's sufficient deterrence.
If you had any idea about the emergence of nuclear weapons in South Asia then you would have known that India tested its first nuclear device way back in 1974, after that Pakistan was forced to pursue its own nuclear program for its survival. As if this was not enough they again conducted Nuclear Tests in 1998 and started making threats of wiping out Pakistan. So it was natural for Pakistan to conduct Nuclear Tests for its survival. So it is Pakistan whose Nuclear Weapons are a deterrence and not India. Moreover, India has serious ongoing and unresolved disputes with most of its neighbors and had wars with them too. Whose Nuclear Weapons should we be worried about?
|Tim Graham wrote: |
I think it's fair to say that if it chose to use these weapons, Pakistan would be no more.
With today's Super Powers being habitual Mass Murderers, it looks quite normal to talk about wiping out weaker nations for one reason or another.
| As if this was not enough they again conducted Nuclear Tests in 1998 and started making threats of wiping out Pakistan |
And where did you get this magnificent fact from? Perhaps you have a source other than your own personal belief.
|Moreover, India has serious ongoing and unresolved disputes with most of its neighbors and had wars with them too. |
Pakistan occupy parts of Kashmir. Pakistan start the 73 war. Pakistan start the Kargil war.
China refuses to accept part of India as India.
You reckon India should just sit around?
|ibay wrote: |
| Nuclear Tests ... Nuclear Tests ... Nuclear Weapons ... Nuclear Weapons ... Super Powers ... Mass Murderers |
Interesting capitalization there... I see a pattern in the grammatical errors.