If you don’t want to give countries aid, it would also help then if your governments didn’t preach nuclear non-proliferation on the one hand and then turn right around and grovel and try to outdo one another for defense weapons contracts (that provide US, UK jobs ) with these very same countries on the other hand.

Some valid points made here – maybe if these countries spent less on defence then they wouldnt have to beg the western world for help when disasters such as the kashmir earthquake happen. Having said that I think India spends 6/7% of their total spending on defence! With Pakistan its 2 or 3 times more – I cant see them sustaining this in the long term.

In fact, we can just blame the French for those 1996 tests that “encouraged” India and Pakistan.:) And at least we tested on our own soil instead of going halfway around the world to some small poor Pacific atolls far enough away from us.::) (which the Brits also did):)

Good point. People talk about Pakistan and India being ‘macho’ about nuclear weapons, but at least they have a need for it. UK and France are just trying to maintain ‘great power’ status.

All’s fair in love and war

Exactly. Which makes China’s call to India to abandon nuclear weapons (are they living in la-la land?) but not to Pakistan look silly and puerile. Anyways, it elicits a good laugh. As does the UK, US, France etc. preaching about a non-nuclear world while they hold on to theirs (and develop it even more in some cases). I mean, why do Britain and France need nuclear weapons now anyways?

What ‘nuclear problem’ are you talking about? As far as nuclear energy goes, I don’t have a problem with US supplying India or China supplying Pakistan. As far as weapons goes, we all know Russians have been helping India, so India can hardly complain about China helping Pakistan. Hell, even USA/UK have been involved in proliferation, so really there’s no moral high ground to take. All’s fair in love and war

And I have no doubt that China is supplying you and will continue to do so, even though it violated the NPT, to which it is a signatory and India is not, in doing so. That’s why I don’t understand all the fuss about this U.S.-India deal, it’s not like it’s without precedent. China has already done it with Pakistan. So, to turn your earlier argument on its head, maybe China-Pakistan are responsible for this escalating of the nuclear problem??

The funny thing is China issued a rather pompous statement yesterday urging India to abandon nuclear weapons! A major proliferator that violates the very agreeement it signs. Hilarious. Apparently this deal has really upset them.

“Anyways, this whole nuclear deal is about meeting India’s future energy needs. If Pakistan can secure a similar deal, I suppose there wouldn’t be this antipathy. So good luck to it.”

Pakistan doesn’t need this deal. China is already supplying us with everything we need in the nuclear energy stakes. But maybe for the sake of ‘parity’ Pakistan may ask for something similar from US. We’ll see. The ‘antipathy’ is a result of FOB’s disgusting comments about Pakistan.

Again, that’s your version. Personally Pakistan threatening a first strike and risking a return strike seems far fetched. But even if that was true, I guess the BJP, contrary to your view, acted responsibly then, didn’t it and didn’t take the opportunity to hit back even harder and risk a nuclear war. But I guess it’s easy to bravely threaten a first strike when you know your neighbor will not threaten a first strike and then claim victory.

Anyways, this whole nuclear deal is about meeting India’s future energy needs. If Pakistan can secure a similar deal, I suppose there wouldn’t be this antipathy. So good luck to it.

Can’t speak for China, but in Pakistan’s case, fully justified. First strike, particular with tactical battlefield weapons, was an integral part of NATO doctrine against larger conventional Warsaw Pact forces during the Cold War. Pakistan faces a similar disadvantage in size against India. Thus it is fully appropriate for Pakistan to use first strike, especially against an invading Indian army on Pakistani soil. First strike does not mean Pakistan is going to start lobbing nukes at Delhi or Bangalore. It may very will be this pre-emptive strategy stopped the BJP’s warmongeringin its tracks in 2002.

well I’m going to have to really disagree with you there and say that is a really far-fetched statement. Whatever the fautls of the BJP, it came to power democratically (unlike Musharaff) and went out of power democratically. There was no coup, it did not try to stay in power beyond its democratically allotted time. When is Musharaff’s “democratically” allotted time going to end? It seems he keeps pushing the deadline. Whatever its faults, the BJP acted fairly responsibly in national security matters and had the support of the Opposition Congress on that count. It could never have done anything without opposition support. To think otherwise is to be unaware of the Indian political system. It was also under the BJP that the current peace intitiave really got its first impetus after a long time, with the Vajpayee-Musharaff meetings. To say the BJP, which had to function within a coaltion govt., is a bigger danger is wishful thinking. No political party in India can exercise control like Musharaff exercises over Pakistan. No party can take it upon themselves to launch a war. It has to seek the approval of India’s Parliament.

As for the 2002 , well you’ve given the Pakistani version of things. We could argue back and forth – needless to say there is also an Indian version. It’s like Kashmir – there are many viewpoints and many people involved (including Buddhists in Ladakh whose voices as Kashmiris are always ignored and Pandits who have not been allowed to return to their homes).

“Pakistan as a country is a terrorist’s paradise, a laboratory for true Islam and a picture to the world of what Islam stand for”

The sickening extent of FOB’s bigotry, exposed for all to see.