Pakistan is eyeing sea based and short-range nuclear weapons, analysts say

When it comes to government there are plenty of people who believe with power comes respect. And because of this people tend to improve or enhance their military along with its weapons. Pakistan being one of the few has been trying to develop a new missile that would allow them to attack at sea level in the event that they had no other choice but to use the nuclear weapons they have developed. Nuclear weapons in general are in a sense a symbol of power. If you have them then you’re seen as somewhat having a strong military, and the more you have, you’re a force to be wrecked with. Pakistan has spent years trying to “bolster it’s nuclear arsenal with tactical weapons- short range missiles that make it easier to transport” . The problem I see with nuclear weapons in general is that they cost a significant amount of money to even support that could be fostered into doing something that would be even more beneficial to their military. Although their goal is to develop what they state a “second strike capability” which would allow them to have another shot to attack; the main question I kept thinking about while reading this article was is it all worth it in the end ? Yeah, it helps your military and has neighboring countries thinking twice before even deciding to attack you . But economically is it all worth it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/pakistan-is-eyeing-sea-based-and-short-range-nuclear-weapons-analysts-say/2014/09/20/1bd9436a-11bb-11e4-8936-26932bcfd6ed_story.html

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Pakistan is eyeing sea based and short-range nuclear weapons, analysts say

  1. It is not worth it, Economically. Pakistan needs to be focusing on their poor population, rather than their nuclear warfare arsenal. Pakistan has this desire for people to respect them more, because they have nukes and are capable of using them, especially against a neighboring powerful enemy, India. Pakistan reminds me of Russia, when it comes to relations with United States and many other countries around the world involved with NATO and such. Both countries feel like they deserve more respect, due to their power. They need lose that mind set and cooperate. Now the country of Pakistan needs to prove to the rest of the world that they becoming more powerful because of developing program on see level missile nukes. Pakistan does not need to make more nukes because they need to help their country economically and they need to start cooperating on the global scale.

    Like

  2. I don’t think there’s any situation where I would say nuclear weapons are “worth it”, but I doubt many states feel the same. I’m not too familiar with Pakistani politics, but I do wonder what Pakistan having nuclear capabilities would mean for the US and its ongoing drone campaign that has become tremendously unpopular amongst Pakistan’s public. It’s possible they feel threatened by Western powers and believe that some sort of aggression is just at the door, hence they’re searching for an insurance policy if they should face any sort of threat in the future. I believe this to be the reason Iran is keeping the option open for nuclear armament as well. I wonder what this could do to the country’s strained relationship with India, with whom they are feuding with again.

    Like

    • The Pakistani government is tacitly complicit in the U.S. drone program. Not only do they allow drone strikes in the country, they also request strikes to be made against certain targets. The government denounces strikes to the public every time one happens, but that’s posturing to keep the people from rising up. In reality Pakistan and the U.S. are kind of buddy-buddy on that front.

      The big reason that Pakistan would want a second strike capability is in the event of conflict with India, another nuclear-armed state. The faulty logic here, though, is that neither side has enough nuclear capability to annihilate the other, nor do they have the level of resentment and hatred for each other that is truly necessary to launch such a nuclear attack. Moreover, a second strike capability for Pakistan would not be able to assure the destruction of India, simply because of the latter country’s size and population. To pursue that kind of option is silly given the circumstances.

      Like

  3. Countries in a weak position seem to decide to develop nuclear weapons. Pakistan is one of those countries that feel threatened by other powerful states. I understand that they need sort of strong way of defending themselves, but it is such a waste of money, especially for poor countries. It would be a better way for them to put such amount of budget into improving their relations with neighboring countries or enhancing education and economy.

    Like

  4. If you read more into the article you will see that Pakistan is only reacting to the build-up of Indian military power. Though India claims it is only gearing towards protection from China, Pakistan has a right to question that statement from the years of conflict with India over border disputes. Nuclear weapons seem like the clear cut option to protect Pakistan because the Indian military is much larger and expanding its own nuclear arsenal, with intercontinental missiles and nuclear powered submarines they are purchasing from Russia. As it pertains to the US, Pakistan is not a threat state wise, the only concern the US has is the protection of nuclear material and the number of extremist groups located within Pakistan. This entire situation is just a big security dilemma, where one country is reacting to another countries actions.

    Like

    • Thank you for pointing this out. I think it would have been a strong contribution to this blog post to address this point about India’s recent efforts as well which could have been related to some of the topics we have discussed in class. For instance, this illustrates a security dilemma quite well and must be considered when analyzing Pakistan’s’ actions.

      Like

  5. They are draining their economic resources all for nuclear warheads for security purposes, but nukes cannot save their economy or increase the standard of living. Perhaps it could be worth it in the long run for protection, but it does seem a bit frivolous. Who knows.

    Like

  6. I don ´t think it is worth it for Pakistan to spend such a huge amount of money on nuclear weapons considering the bad economy and poor living standard in the country. I would say there are many other security issues within Pakistan that needs to be dealt with before they try to balance the power against India. What we can see is a clear example of a security dilemma where China´s growing power threathens India which leads them to increase their power which in turn threathens Pakistan and makes them want to increase their power. It all leads to a negative rearmament spiral and I wonder which country/countries is/are next?

    Like

  7. If you consider the aging (with special emphasis on aging) of the US nuclear arsenal, nuclear capabilities have slowly been pushed back to only “symbols of power”. Yes while still extremely dangerous, expanding technology and military tactics offer far more efficient alternatives to a nuclear strike. In the even that Pakistan does launch nuclear missiles, then it may be safe to assume that it would only be under conditions of the greatest and direst concern.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s