The New York Times published an op-ed this past Sunday on Pakistan’s insistence on a nuclear arsenal that assures it a minimally credible deterrence at a time when tens of millions of her people are going uneducated and ill-fed. Now, of course, there are many in Pakistan who think otherwise– for instance the hardline military is happy as the specter if its Indian interference into Pakistan’s domestic politics is kept at bay by some ill-advised cunning; nevertheless this is a story worth your attention.
Here’s the strong opening salvo of the piece:
“With the Middle East roiling, the alarming news about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons buildup has gotten far too little attention. The Times recently reported that American intelligence agencies believe Pakistan has between 95 and more than 110 deployed nuclear weapons, up from the mid-to-high 70s just two years ago.”
“Pakistan can’t feed its people, educate its children, or defeat insurgents without billions of dollars in foreign aid. Yet, with China’s help, it is now building a fourth nuclear reactor to produce more weapons fuel.”
Whatever the opinion on the street in Karachi, Islamabad and Washington D.C., it is fair question to ask whether Pakistan really needs a nuclear arsenal that is larger than the one that the United Kingdom maintains. What are the real risks to Pakistan’s sovereignty? Is India really interested in invading Pakistan? If so- is a swelling nuclear arsenal the right strategy when Islamist militants stand ready to seize the red trigger? If not-why maintain the strong line?
There are too many questions here; and as many competing answers.