for bilateral talks to rid the Subcontinent of nuclear weapons? With the current situation in Pakistan, I don't think it's a benefit for either countries to possess them. The South Asian Cold War is more or less over and one side has more or less won. It's time to think of posterity and the future of both countries.

In some ways the ideal is nice, whilst in others the reality is harsh. I doubt there's much chance of this happening now, though it would be nice if more nations followed the Japanese lead on this.

No, India shouldn't disarm and India went nuclear after China tested weapons in 1964. Indian nuclear weapons program actually was a response to Chinese weapons program.

I like to see things this way - India is the most responsible nation on Earth(as such should be the only nation to possess those weapons), and thus should also be the last nation on earth to disarm.

Now we can all debate about being "most responsible", but I would rather have it be the last nation on earth to disarm.

If you could get Pakistan to disarm by disarming, I think it would be worth it. If not, atleast putting mutual hard caps on the amount, and making sure the devices themselves are fairly large. China isn't really anti-India, and I don't really see the current regime there as antagonistic or militaristic. If some baddies get their hands on a nuclear device in Pakistan, it's most likely gonna end up in Delhi.

According to Stephen Walt, countries are less likely to use Nuclear weapons if their neighbors also possess them. Most countries wish to keep control over their power that they currently possess and are not eager to dump it all by using nuclear weapons and being retaliated upon. The Soviet Union and U.S.A. knew this during the cold war and the very fact that neither side used a weapon on the other goes to show just how keep both sides were to preserve thier power. Add to this the fact that India and Pakistan have already fought a war (Kargil) entirely with conventional weapons despite having nuclear arsenals just goes to show that both know whats at stake with nuclear weapons.

Tenj, the prospect of a hardline Fundamentalist Revolution in Pakistan is becoming more and more probable by the day. You don't know how Pakistan is going to be like in 5,10, or 20 years. Ppl like Musharraf, Bhutto, etc... they see this as some sort of game, not to mention the fact it diverts attention from problems at home. They are sane ppl. Zeolots on the other hand, they don't care about peace, prosperity, or posterity. Ridding the Subcontinent of nukes is very much in India and Pakistan's best interest in the long term, and it should be something that should be undertaken now while rational heads still run the land of the pure.

Ridding the subcontinent wouldn't solve any problem. The nuclear weapons at this point are equalizers. If the subcontinent were to be nuclear free, india would have inherent advantage, and Pakistan would need some thing to balance the threat and nukes are the only option.

Now, I do understand what you are saying - what happens if some crazy mullah or a fanatical soldier on the ground launched a nuke. A fanatic isn't going to be concerned with india's retaliation as he isn't rational. At this point, we will just have to live with that uncertainty because the moment we do disarm, we will be on the way to building weapons all over again. India and Pak have reached a point of no return, u can't just undo the knowledge of nuclear weapons.

In my view, total disarming of Pakistan seems far more feasible, with the disarmament being done by US, and India having nothing to do with it. This way, India can say "we had nothing to do with it, it was US".

The chance of a hardline group taking Pakistan isn't an issue, as hardline groups routinely gain less than 10% of the vote during elections. An Iran style revolution isn't going to happen in Pakistan. The Pashtuns and Balochis who are fighting in Pakistan's frontiers (NWFP and Balochistan) aren't fighting a dogmatic war, they are fighting an ethno-national war.

Pakistan is going to be the same in 20 years as it was during the last 20 years (and the 20 years before that). Despite all the recent turmoil, this really isn't anything new. Pakistan has been mismanged by dueling politicians for decades (the most recent being the Bhutto vs. Sharif battle). Neither Bhutto nor Musharraf view this as a game, they know exactly what they are doing (both are well educated in the art of politics, and you could argue that they are following the realist political view). Like I mentioned before, the single most important thing to a ruler is power. They will do whatever is necessary to maintain it, and using nuclear weapons will only help them lose their power faster.

As far as zealots/terrorists/NGO's/etc. are concerned, no such group is going to be able to use a nuke. Nuclear weapons require regular testing and maintainance to be useful. NGO's (Non Governmental Organizations) don't possess the necessary means to conduct these things. Only established governments can do it.

Removing nuclear weapons from the sub-continent is by far the worst thing that could ever happen. As Stephen Walt mentions, nuclear arms only make a country safer.

I don't think the govt or ppl are worried that some NGO or common man is going to get a hold of nukes, rather a fanatic who is well versed in handling of such weapons is the threat.

If we can have AQ Khan, I am quite certain we can have fanatic scientists or soldiers who can launch these weapons. Even with that possibility, I would rather have India not disarm.

Well, terrorist groups and fanatical associations are NGO's. Very few (if any) such groups have knowledge on nuclear technology or physics. You literally need a team of physicists to be able to conduct nuclear tests, or to even create a warhead in the first place. You also need a vast array of supplies and resources, specifically uranium. No fantical regime can even hope to create a nuke unless they can obtain nuclear material (which requires IAEA approval) and have a trained staff of physicists. Such things are out of the reach of NGO's and even rouge scientists. Only national governments can produce and test and use nukes.

AQ Khan was caught selling technological secrets to the highest bidder (North Korea and others). He can leak as many secrets as he wants, but until a terrorist group can aquire uraniam (which is very hard to do) and can assemble a nuclear team (which is also hard to do) and can successfully test nukes (which is impossible for a non state actor to do), there is very little threat of a terrorist group launching nuclear warheads.....

@jiggyiggy what made you make this thread? What do you think how Pakistan could be convinced or forced to disarm their nuclear weapons? Do you know that Pakistan has a dubious distinction of not honoring any sensitive agreement it had with India in the past.

India shouldn't disarm it's nuclear weapons simply because Pakistan couldn't be trusted. Looking at the volatile situation in Pakistan, it is time for India to become more powerful economically and militarily and get more destructive and more powerful weapons and modernize it's armed forces.

Now the former ISI chief and the architect of Pakistan's indirect war in Kashmir Lt. General Kayani is the new chief of Pakistani army, the relations between India and Pakistan is only gonna get worst in the future. Read about Simla Agreement of 1972. And read something about India and Pakistan relations before creating such theads.

I think it's time for a fundamental shift in ideology and mentality for both countries. This sort of thing is stupid, everyone would be better off if hardliners on both sides just shut up. Commerce, cooperation, and friendship will only make both countries more prosperous. A simple detente is not enough, there has to be more bridge building and trust.

Yeah, Trade with Either, War with Neither... that's the motto!!

Whether or not you admit, it's better than the current situation. The current situation is the result of stupidity and illwill. Aah, if only there no stupid and illwilled people in the world.

Singapore too has had problems with Malaysia not honoring agreements made in the colonial past.. Do u think it has somethng to do with the muslim mindset in negotiation? As in the fact that muslim traders tend to move the milestones or even hallucinate about commitments and deadlines?? I find Malaysian extremely belligerent sometimes in their negotiations, almost as if there is a self-esteem crisis and that primary aim is to make the other non-muslim ethnic group look like cunning folks out to cheat them poor and pure muslims...

You're sort of going off tangeant, I agree with the gist of what you're saying and I can write an essay about it; but I'm not gonna. India is not Singapore, it's in a position to hold it's hand out. If Pakistan refuses, it'll just expose they're small-mindedness. I'm not suggesting that India bend over backward, but righteousness tends to stand on it's own weight. I just don't see how the state of perpetual hostility is healthy for either nation.

There is no problem with idealogy of India. It is a secular democratic nation, what's wrong with it's idealogy? The problem solely is with Pakistan. The day Pakistan was born it was clear that there would be more wars and hatered in the future. See Pakistan is a theocratic state, it's existence is based on religion and hatered. As long as Pakistan exists there will be hostilities. India and Pakistan are like North Korea and South Korea with religion being the dividing factor which breeds more hatered and negates any type of trust building.


What do you mean by hardliners of both countries? Sorry don't get me wrong but I think you lack in background knowledge about India and Pakistan relations. Average people in both sides of the border want peace and friendship. There were a lot of efforts for good relations in the past. Prime minister Vajpayee went to Pakistan in 1999 the atmosphere was of friendship and trust, but what Pakistan gave in return, Kargil War just few months after Vajpayee's visit? Who will trust those people? Atleast let Pakistan get stable first, if there is good and able leadership, peace cooperation friendship will come by itself.

Alright, I'm gonna talk some straight talk here. You don't make friend with loonies who hate you by telling them there's only something wrong with them. You pretend there's something wrong with you, and promise to fix it if they fix their problems. It's all one big mind game.

Furthermore, aside from poverty the biggest problem in South Asia are these stupid religous identity politics.

After recent events, this thread deserves to be revisited. I'm wondering if some of you guys are ready to change positions.

Pakistan hasn't really been much of a worry for India for quite a while, so I don't think recent events will really change opinions

These are the times when there are more things to worry about than the nuclear weapons.

Do you still think that an unstable country like Pakistan will honour any type of agreement with India irrespective of whoever comes to power?

We will assume for a minute that India and Pakistan reached an agreement to get rid of their nuclear arsenal, then what is the guarantee that Pakistan wouldn't try to restock itself of nuclear arsenal again?

Please clarify who will take guarantee on the behalf of Pakistan? In Pakistan democracy comes and go, dictators reins after some years, what guarantee they could give?

You need to find the answers to these questions before thinking about getting rid of Nuclear weapons.

I had talked to an Indian diplomat before saying that India and Pakistan would someday declare a war with each other.

I thought of it as a joke before. Cos India and Pakistan are just neighbors.

When I mentioned Pakistan to this Indian guy , he gave a negative response saying Pakistan can never be trusted with regards to agreement.

I now understand that people from India are aware of what's going on between India and Pakistan.

He said, both country has nuclear weapons and Pakistan is aware of that.

And now that Pakistan is not in its stable estate, I still have to believe that India is just like a nightwatcher waiting for Pakistan to make its move.

Of course India must not disarm, unless every other country in the world decides to do so. Likely that day will never come. Does India want to be a major player in the world or not?